Let's talk with Noah (9/10/25): Tanks, Cyclones, Churchill

Good Morning everyone,

I apologize that this is two days late. Great start to a new series, I know. I got extremely busy the last few days, so have quietly put this to the side until I had time to properly read questions and answer.

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. Noah be honest with us are you autistic?

Thats a strange question to open things on. Why did so many of you upvote this? What are you guys trying to tell me.

Q2. Whats the Armies plan for a new tank? Any chance of going S Korean?

There is currently a Tank Life-Extension in the works. However it is still very early in the works. What it includes, and if it will include the potential purchase of new tanks is up to debate. The current budget attached to it is $5 Billion which leads me to believe, at the least, it will be a complete overhaul of the fleet.

That could change though. Projects this early in development tend to jump around a bit on whats wanted and expected. I should note that the working plan that I know is to keep the Leo's going until 2035.

We also signed a $2 billion sustainment contract with KNDS last year to support the fleet, as well as establish a new Regional Maintenance Centre near Edmonton. A lot of people say that contract runs to 2035, however the initial deal would take it to 2031, with the option to extend it to 2036.

So any true replacement is potentially a long way away. That might change, as there has been discussions around about the Life-Extension turning into a Pseudo-replacement. However I have no confirmation there.

As for South Korean tanks like the K2 or K3? I find it unlikely, unless it suddenly becomes far more popular in Europe, where these tanks would almost exclusively be used in any scenario.

Things like SAFE now also change the game a bit, incentivizing European options thanks to the access to funding and potential industrial benefits we hope to be apart of. There is also the MARTE initative, a pan-europe initative led by KNDS and Rheinmetall to design and field a new Main Battle Tank. It already includes eleven EU states including Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, etc.

That would be an initiative we could likely fit into if we so desired, especially with KNDS already establishing the maintenence facilities here. Natural fit to stick with that partnership and expand upon it.

Not saying the Korean option isnt possible, however there are ready to jump European options there, and future potential in the pipeline already.

Q3. Would it be practical to combine a submarine tender & subsea cable specialities on one vessel? Any examples of this?

As in a Submarine Tender that also has Cable-Laying equipment? No, I dont think so. I can't think of any examples but cable-laying vessels are a specialty to their own. Certainly I wouldnt want a vessel tasked to do both at the same time.

Both are specialized vessels to themselves. It wouldn't work.

Q4. While I know it’s not as flashy as the big ticket procurement items, what’s going on with the uniform and PPE front? Right now we’re a mix of CADPAT TW & MT.

No question is small ticket to me! I actually like the mix from an visual perspective. It looks cool at times to see the contrast. Maybe thats just me.

CADPAT MT falls under the Soldier Operationalization Clothing and Equipment Modernization (SOCEM) initiative. We use the term initative and not project because it includes over a dozen seperate projects to themselves.

There is also DICE for the Light Forces. This was separated from SOCEM, both to give light forces their own specialized track for equipment that better fit their role, and also to help test concepts before SOCEM makes choices for the wider army.

The ORIGINAL plan for MT was to finish the rollout by early 2026. I honestly couldn't tell you whether this timeline is going to stick, however it doesnt look like it. To that I don't know the new rollout timeline but it should be by the end of 2026.

Maybe they'll surprise me there! We certainly have the money now for CADPAT MT to get the rollout finished.

Light Forces have already been revieving the Batlskin Caiman for Galvion, as well as a recent contract with Logistik Unicorp for new load carriage equipment.

SOCEM has been slow to rollout, and the timelines are a bit of a mess. I will ask around a bit more and see if I can get you sone proper timelines!

I rarely ask about SOCEM honestly. Sometimes I forget it exists. If youre curious what Logistik at least is thinking, here are some photos from CANSEC of their concepts!

Q5. Any idea if the RCN will go back to loading/using ASROC or something similar in any if there VLS slots?

As far as I know? There are no plans to procure ASROC or anything like that. If there is I haven't heard about it. However I have heard things about SM-6.

Q6. Any updates on the cyclone helicopter and its replacement? I've read that the class is grounded and it's already an orphan. Has it rolled into NTACS?

You probably heard our favorite Vice-Admiral absolutely tearing them apart lol. The fleet was grounded due to parts issues, a long-standing problem with the Cyclone fleet. In fact everything about the Cyclone in a problem.

Ill let Mr. Topshee explain:

So yeah, the fleet was grounded or should I say the majority of the fleet is still grounded. Not all of them anymore, but still the majority last I heard like two weeks ago?

Of course even before the grounding the fleet was in bad shape. Nearly half haven't flown this year, and again the majority is still grounded. Link 11 depricated back in January/February? Lockorsky is asking ~$20,000,000 an aircraft to upgrade to Link 16, and even then it will take about two/three years to get the entire fleet upgrades.

And it aint like Link 16 is some optional capability. It is quite literally the standard. You can't do much without it.

This isnt counting other capabilities set to depricate or in need of upgrading on the way to Block 2.1… All to support, yes, an orphan fleet that we are paying tooth and nail to keep going.

And it isnt like Lockheed is winning here. They reported a $570 million loss on the Cyclone this year. Quite literally no one is winning here. We are all suffering to keep these birds flying, lord forbid if we try to keep them going inti the 2040s as planned.

Cyclone isnt a new helicopter. It's a product of 1990s requirements, from a contract signed twenty years ago. It still has yet to reach its final Block 2.1 state. I get why its frustrating to everyone. Im glad Topshee said the quiet part out loud. Call them what they are.

Im of course missing things, I know. I wont go into the entire history and issues with the fleet (yet) but I will say that I truely believe there is no fixing them by this stage. The navy has been using modified Hammerheads to fill the gaps and future UAS will likely take some role.

Unmanned systems aren't at the level though to fully replace the capabilities a maritime helicopter like the Cyclone brings to the table. The loss of the fleet is a loss of capabilities. Eventually something has to give.

I dont wanna go to into the Cyclone right now, as im currently working on something for it. However there are a lot of issues, more than the public knows.

As for NTACS? There is no plans to include the Cyclone. At least not right now. The NTACS team went back to the drawing board over the summer to hammer out what they want. We'll see what comes of it.

Q7. I gather the Tyoe 212 CD is the E version TKMS bid on the dutch project. I have heard its a 500 ton sect that gets added behind the sail. Any idea whats in it?

I actually dont know if the E version is being offered. TKMS has not mentioned the E version publicly nor advertises it. So I can't comment yet on which version os exactly being offered.

To fulfill our timelines it is likely we will have to take one of the CD out of an existing Norwegian or German slot. Keep in mind that the CD only completed the Critical Design Review last year, and I dont know the full status of the CD E.

As for what the E offers? The additional insert is to increase the amount of fuel stores and battery capacity for heightened endurance. This also includes expanded accommodations to support it.

There is very little info on the 212 CD E. There are a lot of unknown with the CD itself. That makes it a bit hard for me to talk about it, because I can only go off of what is available.

TKMS shoudl get back to me soon though, so hopefully I will have mpre to say on them then.

Q8. Is there any information about a potential acquisition of hypersonic weapons or "lasers" for the CAF? It seems we are always a generation behind.

There are no specific projects that I know of, keeping in mind that some debates are always being had. Our Hypersonic focus in almost entirely on defence. Lasers are a capability we have been testing, especially on the CUAS front, and I know theres lots of interest around, but I have yet to hear of a project specifically asking for them. GBAD did inquire about them though. The future Enduring Phase II might also look at it.

That is assuming the navy doesnt do something like get KSS-III and then somehow convince the Treasury Board they need that shiny new Hycore that can ‘allegedly’ fit in the VLS. Or the Army convince that we need Datk Eagle for the Arctic or something.

I say this because the planners are getting bold (I love it) and I've quite literally seen just about everythinf thrown out there. Once you've seen one MLRS TAPV you kinda expect everything.

Q9. Do you think the navy will explore an aircraft carrier under five percent?

No.

Q10. Whats are your thoughts on Churchill for a Navy base.

Oh gosh... Here I go getting into Churchill. You're asking about defence, so I won't get into the economic stuff. That is a seperate thing, although they share similar issues.

First question to ask in this case is why? Why Churchill? What needs does it fill for the Navy?

First off you need to address the issues that Churchill has. It is a port that is frozen for most of the year, it and the HBR are built on a mix of Muskeg, Permafrost, and the Canadian Shield. The HBR faces regular derailment, flooding, and is still limited.

It also sits on ecologically sensitive land that makes expansion, or even the ever wild idea of road access go from a difficult challenge to a near impossibility.

The port, and the bay itself, is frozen for most of the year and requires icebreaker support to get through.

It faces almost all the same issues as construction anywhere else in the Arctic. The idea that it is closer does not change the enviornment, nor the isolation of Churchill. It will still be a very difficult, very expensive endeavor to get through.

If the navy wanted an actual base there it would be a multi-billion dollar operation that would run into the same difficulties other attempts in the Arctic would face, but scaled up to try and make this on the level of Esquimalt or Halifax that many people seem to ask for.

That will never happen either. Keep in mind that the majority of navy vessels will require Icebreaker support just to get to and from this base the majority of the year. Then remember that on top of that, its still not close to where the navy will need to be.

If I remember correctly the distance from Churchill to the Eastern entrance of the Hudson is almost 1000nm, about 930 or 940 I believe? Don't quote me. I'm going off head math. Thats nearly 1800km. Churchill might be seen as 'Arctic' but its not anywhere near where we need to be.

It's not close, requires additional support just to get navy vessels there during the freeze, or has to take icebreaking capacity from elsewhere to compensate, will be extremely expensive and time-consuming to build, has limited infrastructure, so all that has to be built up.

Its railway is unreliable and lacks capacity, will little capability to expand. That isnt to count future issues that might arise as Permafrost melts. There is a study going on right now about flooding risk on the railway that will paint a clearer picture there.

There is more I could list but there is a reason the navy constantly says they ain't interested. If it were really a need to have something closer to the Arctic it would be easier to build something entirely new in fucking Labrador or really anywhere along the coast, and likely be more effective than Churchill ever could be in its current state.

I get why people like this idea, and Churchill might have a role in our security somewhere, but it ain't like this. I ain't even getting deep into anything, or going over every issue. I'm not even getting into the Port itself, which also has issues.

This is just surface level.

So I get it, I get why. Building infrastructure in the North is hard. Very hard, and the shifting climate of the Arctic will only make it worse. Churchill is in that category too.

---

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