Let's talk with Noah (9/15/25): GBAD, Procurement, Europe

Good Evening everyone,

I apologize that this is a bit later in the night. The newsletter was longer than I anticipated. I also apologize for this one being a bit short. The weekend and last week was packed, and this week is looking to be even busier.

However this is still a fun week, and im sure this is a fun AMA for all you!

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. Are there plans to acquire additional f35s or another fighter? A squadron or two for low threat stuff maybe?

I have heard of zero plans to acquire more F-35. This hasn't been a topic of discussion. Focus right now is just getting everything ready for the fleet coming, which is behind.

Q2. With tensions somehow increasing even more in Europe, is there a way to shorten procurement timelines to get weapons and ships faster?

I mean there are always things like UOR, or using National Security Exemptions but those only drop the absolutely abysmal timelines to shitty timelines. Keep in mind that even our ‘Urgent’ procurements are measures in 2+ year timelines.

The way to shorten the timelines permanently is to fundamentally restructure how we do procurement. That requires a lot of changes, and a years of effort to get done.

Short-Term aids are there. Increasing the limits to Minor Capital Equipment is one idea, raising is to $100M is a common number that doesnt really carry any major risk in the grand scheme.

The UOR process needs reform to bring the average timelines down to 1-1½ years. Did you know, even with cabinet approval, that a UOR still needs to get Treasury Board approval to actually spend anything?

People have this idea that UOR means that a process goes super quick but it doesnt, and it requires taking people and time from elsewhere, often delaying similar projects in the works. All for timelines that can still be three or four years long.

They also make similar projects harder by having to go the extra mile to ensure the competition is fair despite certain UOR, like RBS-70, already being there as a solution for wider adoption.

UOR, as they exist, aint a magical solution. Neither is writing requirements to specifically eliminate competition so you can speed up the process, another thing that is often done and can carry the risk of legal action, which in turn can delay the project for sometimes years at a time.

CPSP is an example of a project who has managed using all these tools very well. Its requirements eliminated most of the minor players, it has downselected two specific companies, and is going quickly through the process to rush a contract.

But that won't be as simple for many other projects, and shouldn't be seen as the magical way to do things. There are minor, short-term tools to get things sped up, we're seeing a lot of them now.

However long-term fixes require incremental, phased solutions that go beyond just defence procurement and to governemnt procurement as a whole. The Defence Procurement Agency might be that but I worry about the possible messing up of it's execution, which remains a big concern of mine.

Aussies spent twenty years trying to fix their similar organization. We need to learn from that.

Q3. Any update on the indirect fires modernization, especially on the SPH side of the program?

It's chugging along. We should hear more soon. RFI only closed a few months ago so its the time to go over proposal, engage with industry amd work towards drafting a proper RFP. plan is still for deliveries to start ~2030/2031

Q4. What are the plans (if any) in the works with GBAD for longer range munitions like MIM-104, if only for deployment to Latvia?

The plans are focused on Enduring Phase I and II to procure a VSHORAD and SHORAD solution. I have yet to hear of the army having these plans, however, the RCAF is working on their own Integrated Air & Missile Defence strategy that will likely include Continental Ballistic Missile Defence with kinetic interceptors.

That will likely be Lockheeds to take, but we will see.

Q5. Any possibility of the CPSP downselects becoming enticed to form a partnership powerhouse for the conventional submarine fleet for canada - best of both worlds?

No. Please No.

Q6. When is NL BAF going to get mentioned as a possible joint base ccg/rcn infrastructure for arctic mro and logistics. Time for NL to get some pie?

In my defence I did endorse Labrador last week over Churchill lol. Sadly I think you will have to wait a long time for that piece of the pie, despite my own belief the potential is there.

Dual-use infrastructure, including ports, roads, and industrial space, will be an important component of Arctic security. Ive always stood that Arctic security was as much a matter of integration as it was purely defence, integration through interconnecting infrastructure, finance, commerce… that can extend beyond the traditional Arctic, including to other provinces.

So the discussion of infrastructure in other, non-arctic areas is certianly a conversation we can and should have in my books, however it also shouldn't dominate the conversation.

Q7. Any truth to the rumor of 2 submarine mixed fleet for cpsp? Both tkms and hanwha?

So I have heard some things, but they are what I consider minor. Its an idea floated around primarily in the political space, however I have heard of it existing, so it isnt some niche idea. I don't expect it though. Makes little sense.

Q8. If a war in Europe were to break out tomorrow, what capabilities does Canada even have to contribute?

The truth is very little besides what we have there now, at least in the grand scheme of things. This gets into a deeper issue of what role we want to play in Europe, and what we want to do.

If we want to be a major land player, which I argue we shouldn't be aiming for but we are bound by obligation, than we need to talk not just about the army, but also things like Sealift, which will be essential if we want to have to ability to deploy an expeditionary Division abroad.

You cant do that off the backs of 5 CC-177 and a handful of CC-130. Our collective armour, naval and air fleets are in dire state and aging rapidly. New assets are still several years out, and those in MNBL are still struggling to get the equipment and supplies they need, least of all due to the system in place.

Truth is, if we want to be a major player in a European war, we wouldnt be able to do much right now, and do risk not being ready for the future even with all the new equipment in place if we cant agree on what we want to do and how we plan to look at it as a whole-of-CAF approach versus what each service could offer on its own.

Q9. Do you think the Air Force will explore a light fighter to supplement the F-35?

No. I dont expect it. Light Fighters aint in the plans and one has to ask if they're the right solution for the cost and capabilities they bring. What exactly is their role? Air Policing? Anti-Ship? Continental Defence as a whole? Do they bring enough to the table to be worth the investment? I dont see it as much as others.

Q10. If I wanted to do an interview with you, where I can talk about my company, how would I do that?

Well I'm always open to talking to people lol. You can reach me directly on various platforms by DM. If you want professional you can also ask me for my professional email and I'll usually be happy to provide (If you want to sponsor TNSR theres also that option *WinkWinkNudgeNudge*

---

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