Let's Talk with Noah (12/29/25): GLAAM again, The future of AI in Naval Platforms, Tudor Replacement, Hanwha & Munitions, will the U.S. Navy grow reliant on Canada?

Happy Monday everyone!

We're now back to our regularly scheduled programming! I hope you all had a wonderful holiday, and are ready to jump back into things. We've added over a hundred new subscribers in the last week! So to all of you here for the first time, welcome to Let's Talk!

This is our weekly Q&A series where you get to ask me all your wonderful questions. It's probably my favourite part of the week, and I'm glad all of you are here to enjoy it now with me!

As always you can ask your questions, and vote on others, over on our Slido page. It will be up until Monday! A lot of you sent stuff in DMs also but I prefer the stuff there as it can be voted on and also kept open to everyone. If you enjoy my content also consider supporting TNSR over on our Kofi!

---

Q1. Will the RCAF procure a proper attack helicopter for army support?

Thats the plan! At least for now. However I can't say whether this will be a true attack helicopter. Deep down the original nTACS plan closely aligned with the United States, and FARA was what we were sorta basing our desire on, essentially a light Attack Helicopter.

However FARA is dead, and the desire is still present. What that looks like now remains to be seen however there is a desire for it to be a true Attack Helicopter and not an Armed Light Helicopter for Recce. I lean to it being a true Attack Helicopter like the Apache or AW249. The AW249 seems like a popular discussion. Thats just me though.

Q2. How likely would it be for Canada to operate a full time base in Europe?

Thats the trend we're heading towards. I know that people brought it up last week as an idea, truth is it's been the plans for a while to maintain a more permanent presense in Latvia, including the return of German-style three year rotations for people.

We're merely reverting back to our Cold War standard, except this time in Latvia. Its been the plans for a long while now and I see it as highly likely we end up essentially making Adazi a new Lehr. We've committed to standing up a Brigade in Latvia, and we are making the investments to establish a long-term presence beyond 2029.

It's the natural endgoal to return to that permanent status. To me it's not a question of will we.

Q3. For the additional JSS do you think they will be logistic support ships (i.e. Vulcano-class) or closer to the Karel Doorman or GLAMM with RORO and aviation?

If you are refering to the five we reported about last week than I can safely say I believe at least one of those is another Berlin-class. I think in any plans for additional replenishment capability we end up with at least one more Berlin-based support ship.

It's the other two that I am not confident about. Again, the requirement was have had has been for four. That has always been what the navy has said they need to ensure availability for the future fleet. That number eventually got dropped to three, then two with an option.

However, I stand by my conspiracy that these new Arctic vessels being discussed are what they're considering when the navy speaks about five JSS. Remember that Joint Support Ship is not a class but a term. It doesn't have to mean the Protecteur-class, Karel Doorman is also labeled as a Joint Support Ship.

So what do I think? I think that number is including the two proposed Arctic vessels that the navy desires as well as an additional Protecteur-class vessel, likely named Provider. While we don't know much about these Arctic vessels, I believe that they will have some sort of replenishment capability as a supplement to Nanisivik, and through lack of anything else.

That could be GLAAM, certainly aligns. That could be any number of designs. This project doesnt really exist. Its an idea with no approval, funding, and a small team working on it. We don't know exacrly what they want or what concept they're leaning on.

I think the final platform will be closer to GLAAM than a JSS, however it could end up fairly in the middle pretty easily and end up as somethign entirely unique and boutique. We focus on GLAAM as it is what we have, however I know Seaspan has designs, and others like Vard and Serco have the design capacity to undertake this project.

At least that's my break down. It seems almost too clear that five JSS + talking about new designsis meant to invoke these Arctic vessels. From that point it's just a matter of what those Arctic vessels end up looking like.

Q4. Does the RCAF have an aircraft in mind for a Tudor replacement?

Most likely it will be whatever platform is selected as our future Lead-In Fighter Trainer. The Tudor replacement has lingered around since I was a toddler, and has constantly been pushed back time and time again. While FFLIT doesn't have any sort of buy-in that would allow us to tack on such additions, an eventual sole-source replacement feels likely.

Almost everyone else uses their fighter trainer as their corresponding demonstration aircraft, not all, but the majority. We don't need a separate aircraft to do this, so how about we just don't? Order a few more of whatever CAE picks, clap our hands and call it a day.

Q5. Please explain the CIWS loadout of the River-Class? We know it'll use RIM-116, but are we looking at dual Mk-144 GML or just quad packed into the 6 cell ExLS?

For all intents and purposes ExLS is a CAMM launcher. Yes, Lockheed says they could integrate RIM-116 and stuff but it's never actually been done. I actually like ExLS. It's a shame its fallen into that role, but that is the present reality. The plan remains for there to be two MK-144, at least last I heard. The plans for the River can sometimes change quick and without anyone knowing for months.

ExLS is at present dead and removed from the plans. You won't be seeing it. It can hypothetically do it, but we aint gonna be the ones to figure that out.

Q6. Why the change in JSS requirement? The working number has always been 4, but now is 5. Does this reflect support for new submarines?

It reflects the changing reality. Excluding the fact that the five mentioned could easily just be shoehorning in the Arctic vessels the navy wants, it's best to remember that the navy has added several new platforms to the wishlist that didn't exist at the time of these assessments, most notably the Continental Defence Corvette.

The JSS aint really designed to support submarines. You really need a dedicated vessel for that kind of thing, which is something I gladly advocate for. The truth is that we want to be more globally active, as outlined in things like the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and the planned fleet is substantially bigger than was priginally planned. That nessitates a reexamination as to what the support fleet looks like.

So adding an additional JSS isnt that far-fetched considering the original fleet mix desired. However it could also be that, again, we are lumping the two Arctic vessels into this, to which they serve their own purpose.

Q7. Any news/updates about the Bridge and Gap Crossing Modernization (BGCM) project?

Lucky you there is actually an active RFI out right now for BGCM! It's set to close on March 31st. The plan is still for delivery around 2028/2029 last I remember. You can find the RFI here.

Q8. South korean diplomat Wi Sung-lac visited canada few days ago to meet Drouin/Marc‑Andre Blanchard, anything from how that meeting went?

Not really, sorry…. I haven't heard anythign substantial from either side about these meetings. That sometimes happens. These kinds of meetings are fsirly regular and most od the times are boring enough to quietly fall under the radar.

Q9. For clarification did Hanwha offer to build munitions for it’s submarines in Canada with full technical transfer?

I can unequivocally say, as the person who probably knows more about Hanwhas Canadian plans than anyone else tbat I have never heard nor discussed munitions with anyone in regard to CPSP. The only person I have heard rumors for in that regard is Kongsberg and NSM.

That isn't to say they might not be open, but it isnt being offered, and there is recognition that the current enviornment is not favourable. There is no commitment by Canada to order munitions, nor any commitment to long-term orders. The Koreans have enough capacity to fill their own needs, and while they might like a safe supply, Hanwha wont do it out of the kindness of their heart. There needs to be economic viability.

That doesnt exist at present, not to mention the difficulties of setting up the supply chain and regulations that might impede building literal ballistic missiles and shit here. That would also likely require reopening the archaic Munition Supply Program to ensure some stability, something that should be done anyways, but sadly isnt a priority right now.

So I wouldn't hold my breath if youre imagining Canadian-made Hyunmoos. If that changes, im sure ill hear about it.

Q10. Since the Navy has acknowledged that having only two replenishment ships is unsustainable, will this extend Asterix? Can we buy her?

Asty is done once her current contract is over. There is no desire to keep spending hundreds of millions on here once Protecteur and Preserver are in service. While there is a recognition that we need more capacity, you have to remember that we're still a decade+ out from it being a potential concern.

Those two will suffice for the inmediate. We do have an option to buy Asty, don't know the exact price point these days, but there is no desire to do so. We won't need her past 2028, and no one wants to spend hundreds of million in either case to keep her around or buy her outright.

She has other suitors. Asty will find more homes. Federal Fleet would gladly take another extension, don't get me wrong. If you follow the newsletter you'll see them lobbying for it last week! However the desire isnt there. We want to be in thr new ship business, not holding on to older vessels.

Q11. Is there a ship capable UAV with the potential payload capacity to deliver a LWT torpedo?

Sure there is, lots if we're just going off of payload capacity. The BAE Systems/Malloy Aeronautics T-600 UAS has experimented with carrying the Stingray lightweight torpedo. It's certainly possible, however I am not at a stage yet where I see it as a viable capability. Certainly if you could, and you had little other options, you might be able to justify it.

However I remain skeptical on this front. As for UAS themselves? You're looking for at minimum a platform with a ~300kg payload capacity. We have the T-600 as mentioned above, Piasecki has the Kargo UAS family now that has the capacity, Leonardos PROTEUS UAS being designed for the Royal Navy has the capacity.

There is an unmanned version of the H145M that could theoretically carry a few torpedoes if we go off of payload. The issue though is that its still a fairly mew concept, one only just being experimented with. There are lots of UAS who could do it, but do they have the proper trialing and digital architecture to support integrating and autonomously launching a torpedo?

Oftentimes its the technical side of things that get these ideas held up. It can be done, but people have to put in the effort. Evidently, few are really caring enough to do so. So I think for the tine being this will remain an experimental niche.

Not to day it will never develop, but it isnt gonna be anytime soon in my books. Focus is on leveraging autonomous systems as support assets, at least on our side. That and trying to supplement the Cyclone. The best thing about it might honestly be that it's pushing us to be more experimental with autonomous systems!

Q12. Quadrupling of AAR sounds great! Hopefully in addition to Arctic defence it means more fighter aircraft? Say Saab…

Maybe, who knows am I right? Lots of lobbying at least if you read last weeks newsletter….

Q13. Has anyone added up planned and projected programme costs for new equipment? Just a ballpark figure, I suck at math!

Which programmes? All programmes? You can oftentimes find numbers sometimes scattered around. The Defence Capability Blueprint has figures, though oftentimes severely outdated. I can't think of anyone who has gathered a comprehensive source, nor done the math to do so.

It would be taxing, but I wouldn't be against doing it myself if there was demand for a comprehensive source of numbers? I could certainly try if you guys wanted me to do it. Keep in mind that figures can change fairly quickly, especially for projects in the Identification/Options Analysis phase of things.

Q14. Ukraine's Sky Sentinel is fascinating. Could you speak to the use of AI to develop more affordable effective defensive weapons for new smaller navy platforms.

That sounds like a whole post over a Q&A answer! Although thank you for giving me something to add to the idea pile. When you pump out 4000+ word posts weekly you tend to get through your idea lists quick.

Sky Sentinal is an interesting adoption on Machine Learning. It is the natural next step in the development chain that has shifted from a hardware-centric focus to a software-defined focus. We've seen first hand how even smaller, less developed platforms can utilize AI to assist in things likr Identification and targeting. We've seen the Ukrainians utilize stuff like this during things like Operation Spiderweb.

The future Lionfish 30mm that the River-class will be getting will utilize AI tracking and optimized multi-target engagement. Skyranger utilizes Automated Decision Aids and Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) and Classification systems but keeps the ‘human-in-the-loop’ in a similar, but not in the same arrangement compared to Sky Sentinel.

The adoption of these AI-based aids is becoming more and more standard practice. The large difference is the level of autonomy that the system has. Many of us have determined that we want that human factor involved. We don't necessarily want a fully autonomous system all the time, though it is the natural evolution. We've built the car, but we haven't put in the engine to make it run. That is where a lot of companies are with AI.

It actually isnt necessarily a new concept, its really the maturity of the systems that one should focus on. We've had automated targeting and engagement for decades. The base concept is there. It's the shift to Software-defined thinking and the accessibility that is more a benefit than anything. The Ukrainians are just being more experimental than most.

You've asked specifically for leveraging AI in small naval vessels. It's actually a common trend for modern vessels to take into account AI integration and Manned-Unmanned Teaming when developing concepts. The future Continental Defence Corvette is envisioned playing the role as an Unmanned mothership to a variety of Autonomous systems acting in conjunction.

From the defensive weapons side I think the most interesting concept is actually one of leveraging autonomous systems to act as defensive aids to a larger platforms. A lot of people might focus on thr use of AI in gun or missile-based systems, however what I am more interested in is how we could take a ship like CDC and leverage it's existing capacity for acting in the mothership role to create an Autonomous layer for self defence.

For example, take a system like MARSS NIDAR, which leverages the companies Al-driven software to manage integrated CUAS networks. That includes things like Machine-speed kill-chain automation and Autonomous target classification. NIDAR also utilized the companies Interceptor-SR and Interceptor-MR Kinetic interceptors, which in the easiest terms possible are essentially drones designed to ram into other drones.

NIDAR and the Interceptor-series are actually already in Canadian service, sort of, Asterix actually utilizes NIDAR as a form of CUAS protection! Which is really cool. You can find videos around, and I believe Joetey at Go Bold has a firsthand look on his channel.

When I think about AI-based defensive systems on small ships it's things like NIDAR that come to mind. It's thinking about leveraging UUV and UUV in tandem for tasks like mapping, surveillance, and assisting in tasks like ASW. MCM is already moving autonomous, not fully, but the path has been created with new assets like the Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems coming into service.

My mind doesn't go to leveraging AI for missiles and such. It is perfecting how a ship can leverage autonomous systems to automate certain tasks and provide another protective layer in tandem with traditional systems.

That can be a UUV acting as a sensor platform in tandem with USV in roles like Anti-Submarine warfare. It is having the capacity for Machine Learning built into the design, where a platform like NIDAR could one day not just operate fully autonomously but also learn and adapt as the reality changes.

A lot comes from learning, having systems that can learn and rapidly adapt as situations develop. Systems that can adapt their approaches, can leverage their potential modularity to determine the best equipment and solutions needed. That is how we maximize the potnetial of small vessels where space and capacity mighr be limited.

Certainly more fully autonomous options will come on the market, and likely very quickly. There are others out there who have developed such systems. I think things will move quick, but im also not a software guy. Im not an AI guy. It isnt my area of expertise. I leave a lot of the reality on the ground to those folks, but I can have fantasies, and some hope for what we might see.

Q15. Does GLAAM have a hanger large enough for a Chinook or "just" the landing space for five?

Yes! The hanger of GLAAM could accommodate a Chinook-sized helicopter.

Q16. Would it be better to look at GLAM or look at something more like a helicopter/drone carrier?

If I had to pick one I would pick GLAAM. Helicopter/Drone carriers are cool, but those kinds of designs aren't really optimized for Arctic operations, and so are extremely limited in the enviornment we want to priortize these vessels in.

Keep in mind also a lot depends on capacity. Do we need a platform capable of operationg a dozen or more helicopters? What does the flattop design leverage that we need? Are you thinking of things like the STOL MQ-9? If so why?

Or are we better off with a vessel capable of operating in the Arctic, with a reasonable helixopter capacity, space for rotary UAS, and an internal space purposefully designed to maximize capacity for tasks like HADR, RAS, and Logistics?

I lean to GLAAM in this case myself, however I am sure we could all make the arguments for a number of different designs. Thats what makes hypotheticals like this fun!

Q17/18. Does the recent instability with US shipbuilding change our risk/opportunity calculations? Might they end up needing more from us?/Clarification of above: will the USN eventually become a little more reliant on the RCN itself, with our JSS, CDC, CPSP and RCD? AAS? If so, what missions?

I assume you meant to lump these together! Thats alright. Thank you for a bit of clarification. I think reliance is a strong word. While there have been several big hiccups and complications, I believe reliance isnt the proper term here.

I believe there will be a major sigh of relief lol. I believe the United States will be happy to not have to dedicate as much time and assets to Continental Defence, not because of need but because we will have the caapcity to police and safeguard our own EEZ, including up to thr Archipelago.

A lot of talk about this is reliant on info we dont have, aka the future. While the United States has suffered several setbacks in their fleet revitalization, we can't necessarily call that a trend that will play out in the negative long-term.

Look… things are bleak. Conny is dead, the Heritage-class cutter program is in shambles, theres not enough capacity to keep up with demand, and the new Super Legend-class Frigates, hilariously are looking less like true firgates and more along the lines of what we want for CDC. Hell, the first batch won't ever have VLS! So now we can get in all the jokes about how superior CDC is. I have memes already made!

So yes, things are bleak. If the trend continues in this direction the USN will need to leverage the RCN to help support Continental Defence, unless the Trump administration continues their pivot away from foreign intervention and to a domestic-first priority.

See thats the other thing. This reliance assumes that the current status quo also remains, which evidently it isnt. The Trump administration is in the active process of widning down foreign commitments and presence as outlined in their new National Security Strategy. The focus in now shifting to the Western Hemisphere, evidently the same place we are also prioritizing focus.

Sure, maybe those new Arctic Vessels might remain a unique asset that will grow to be a somewhat reliance for the United States, similar to our participation in Pacer Goose. However as a whole? That depends on how programs like the Super Legend and Trump-class develop, how far the United States pivots domestically, and really how far our programs go.

I dont see reliance. I see the United States leveraging our hypothetical newfound size to prioirtize assets elsewhere but not necessarily out of a need. That though will only come as we see how certain things develop over the next few years.

---

Remember that you can ask your questions for next week by following this link. Dont be afraid to ask multiple questions if you like!

---

Let's Talk is proudly supported by

dominion-dynamics.com

Dominion Dynamics is developing Canada's next-generation Arctic command layer, unifying sensors, autonomous systems, and operators across all domains into a single real-time operating picture. Their energy- efficient, low-latency C2 architecture is purpose-built for extreme northern conditions and fully interoperable with both legacy and future systems, strengthening sovereign capabilities, improving joint decision-making, and enabling adaptable, integrated defence and security operations across Canada's Arctic.