Let's talk with Noah (Special 4000+ words edition) (12/08/25): Bombardier MPA, ASCOD for MEDVCAV? Airlift, Orca, GBAD roundup, CMS330 on the River-class

Happy Monday!

It's another week, and this time you guys made me work my butt off to get these questions done. We've officially broken our record for the longest Let's Talk today, over 4000 words! Thats insane considering it isnt even close to the most questions ever asked. Anywho, let's get into things.

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. Hypothetically, do you think the Bombardier MPA could have fully met our requirements and performed well, aside from the development time and costs?

Do you mean this?

No, it wouldn’t have. Oh god, this was not it. Bombardier isn’t new to the MPA game, and there are several designs out there. They are actively looking to still sell just about any MPA version of the Global-series they can.

A bit of a fun fact? Originally Bombardier and General Dynamics planned to go in with Saab to offer Swordfish for CMMA. When that fell apart, they pivoted to offering this. The basic concept was to take the Block IV Aurora suite and jam it into a Global, with a few modifications like the munitions bay that you see above.

But for you, I will assume that they’re able to get this to work, have everything integrated, etc. That does mean ignoring a lot of issues, including having to modify the airframe to integrate that munitions bay. You can bolt that on as much as you want, that doesn’t mean it’s gonna work as intended. There is a reason safe separation testing is a long process. With that, you also gotta certify munitions.

Next is ensuring that the Block IV Aurora suite is even compatible with the Global airframe in terms of Power, HVAC, Space, etc. Remember SWaP! The Global airframe is naturally limited, even more so when you sacrifice a lot of space for that cute bay. It’s easy to say you can integrate that, harder in practice.

Payload is another one. Sonobuoys are heavy. They aint small. Neither are torpedoes. All of which will push the payload capacity and, inevitably, effect performance and endurance. By how much? I can't say. That's a bit more math than I know at this time. I could likely calculate it though.

But let’s assume that all of that works. Let’s assume that it all works perfect even. Going off of the 2022 RFI, the Bombardier CMMA would likely meet the High-Level Mandatory Requirements if we assume everything works perfectly. However, that is making a lot of assumptions, and it still faces challenges.

There are a few I’m willing to let them off with, such as HLMR #7 - Robustness. That is a technical asking that I have zero information for regarding the platform itself. I have no data to go off of regarding the Global 6500 ability to handle Sea Spray, so I can’t make the judgement if it fits that based off what I know.

The big one that will be a struggle is HLMR #13 - Upgradability and Growth. You can’t exclude Space, Weight and Power. The natural limits of the Global airframe are always gonna hold it back versus a larger aircraft like the 737. It has less space, less payload, and in turn less room for growth.

There’s a lot that goes into that too. HVAC and Cooling are things that many people in these conversations forget. These are natural design limits that can’t just be remedied, especially when you’re again sacrificing a lot of growth room at the belly with the munitions bay.

I’m not getting into technical design debates (like the debate on wings). That is somewhere I don’t think I could give a good enough breakdown for you at this time. I think no matter what the P-8 would have won any competition.

That doesn’t mean that a Bombardier MPA is dead, or even a bad idea. It just isn’t a P-8, and there are several things we wanted that would have been hard even with a fully working concept. This is coming from someone who actually likes the idea of leveraging the Global-series.

Bombardier is working on a number of MPA concepts with the likes of PAL, General Dynamics, and Leonardo. Swordfish is mostly dead but also there. I really do hope they all work because it’s a great opportunity for Canadian industry.

I think those can be fine aircraft for what they do and what they’re designed for. This isn’t me trying to criticize all of them as dead in the water.

You could even make the argument for a supplementary fleet of MPA. That was one option discussed in the RFI. I am not a fan. I would prefer leveraging more autonomous systems. I also like the P4 concept from PAL that they’re dangling to Australia. I think it would be a cool platform for the new CCG red fleet!

The Global can do a lot. We can leverage it a lot. I support that. Let’s do it the right way though, where it can play to its strengths.

Q2. Is Bombardier developing the ability for the Global to be air refueled?

It has been proposed though as far as I know never implemented. I don’t know if the Korean Phoenix AEWC will leverage that. L3 has offered it before, taking advantage of the Conformal radar on the Phoenix AEWC giving them the space to explore the idea.

However, it has never been implemented in practice as far as I know and Saab has never offered it. It will remain one of their big hurdles as Air-to-Air Refueling remains one of the big wants for AEWC that the RCAF is discussing. They want that capability.

So it is yet to be seen how both Saab and L3 will go about that, assuming the RCAF get their way and gets that in the RFI. They could just as easily be told no, you’re getting this.

Q3. Should we have opted for a split variant CSC, like an ASW-focused version with a simpler radar, followed by a higher-end AAW version for batch 2?

Who said we aren’t?!?!?

I jest, but technically we don’t know what future batches will look like. Even in their current configuration, the River-class will be some of, if not the best ASW platforms on earth. That’s mainly because I put a lot of trust in Ultra and their equipment.

All Type 26 will use the Ultra Electronics Sonar S2150 but Canada has decided to also integrate Ultra’s TLFAS Variable Depth Sonar over the Sonar 2087 the Aussies and Brits are using, which is the British version of Thales CAPTAS-4.

I have never subscribed to the AAW variant for the Type 26. It not only carries some significant risk, but also I think even getting up to 32-cell MK41 is good and anything beyond that is extra. Having all the River-class AEGIS equipped, and with something like the SPY-7 radar is worth just as much as a few extra cells in my book just for the capability they provide.

You can put any other similar sensor on there of that size and capability, point remains. They don’t need to be like the British Type 26. You can have a platform that does ASW well while having a very good AAW suite. Balance and such.

Q4. Does the RCAF have plans to increase its transport fleet beyond acquisition of the CC-330?

There are ongoing discussions about the future of the Airlift fleet, although as far as I know they are extremely preliminary and shouldn’t be seen as any sort of project. It’s an active debate and nothing more AFAIK.

Q5. What is the RCAF’s long-term plan for the CC130J fleet? Will we continue upgrading, buy fresh tails or do they want to switch to a different airframe design?

The RCAF is currently undertaking RCAF105 Block 8.1 Upgrade project, which is actually one of the few projects currently under the new Defence Investment Agency.

The C130J Block 8.1 configuration upgrade will modernize the existing J fleet with a new Flight Management System, Enhanced Comms/Navigation links, Updated IFF, and new Landing Systems.

The fleet is here to stay for a long while, which is why I giggle whenever people choose to fantasy book things like the A400 when speaking on HIMARS. The J fleet isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Q6. What do you think we will procure from the Europeans due to SAFE and what the the Europeans procure from us due to SAFE?

Nothing, because that isn’t what SAFE is. What people often forget is SAFE is not an instrument for Joint Procurement for us. The EU has such initiatives, like those under PESCO, but SAFE is a financial instrument.

We do not procure anything under SAFE, as we have no access to the actual financial instrument. We can leverage SAFE as an opening, a gesture of goodwill. That is the true value of SAFE. It is ‘paying to play’ so to speak.

Packages were submitted by the EU on November 30th. We don’t know exactly what Canadian content is in there, but our €10 million fee is a good sign of just how substantial it was. We likely won’t know for a while.

This does open more of a door to participate in other programs and initiatives under the Defence Readiness 2030 banner. SAFE is just one initiative as part of the overarching effort to create a Pan-European defence capability for 2030.

That banner also includes things like the European Drone Defence Initiative, European Air Shield, and European Space Shield. It also includes numerous Research and Development initiatives not under the PESCO banner.

Initiatives that Canada, with the right efforts and goodwill, could help participate in. That’s where funding to places like the ESA and SAFE become more buy-ins than actual accomplishments to themselves.

As for what we are selling under SAFE? I can’t say that. I have yet to find a real breakdown of what was in each request by each country. So we have no real way of telling. What will we buy to show our goodwill?

Well that’s hard as well. I have heard a few options, like the Leopard refurbishment and expansion. That’s one I have explicitly heard was a bone to the Euros. It’s highly likely Subs are also dangled, but that’s 50/50 to me politically where we lean. MEDCAV is also a likely Euro option, especially with GDLS taking hit after hit with Ajax.

Canada has a few easy wins ourselves, mainly stuff like software and digital systems. We just had a $1 billion deal with Germany for them to standardize CMS-330, Bombardier is likely to see great success with the dumping of the E-7 by NATO, and our Space Industry, especially Telesat Lightspeed, is seeing great interest.

So there are avenues there, but make sure not to confuse SAFE for something it isn’t. It’s the door to the maze, not the treasure at the centre.

Q7. Have you heard any rumours of moving all SAR under CCG?

I have heard rumors, however, I have not heard them in a way that makes me treat them as legitimate at this time. Consider them minor and unverified.

Q8. Any movement on the Ground based air defence (I mean anything longer then the coverage of an RBS 70), given what a gaping hole it continues to be?

There are actually about five different projects related to GBAD right now? Projects is a stretch as one of them is more an Initiative. Let’s break it down:

1. “Uplift” SHORAD-UOR: Aims to procure a SHORAD system to complement the RBS-70NG in Latvia. This system will primarily focus on C-RAM, Low-Level Air Defence against things like Helicopters and Drones, and a limited Cruise Missile capability. Same requirements set out in the OG GBAD project of Strong, Secure, Engaged. An RFP was supposed to drop this year with the hope to award next year. That’s still the plan AFAIK.

2. Enduring Phase II: Very similar to Uplift in that it will procure a SHORAD system for the wider Canadian Army. This system is likely to have a similar set of requirements to Uplift, however, we know little of what is desired. We also do not have a proper deadline as the project is fairly young.

3. Enduring Phase III: Will acquire a new VSHORAD system for the wider army. Again there is no timeline nor detailed requirements. It is likely to be a vehicle-mounted system like Sgt. Stout, Biho or Skyranger.

4. The ‘Canadian Shield’ Initiative: Is the working name for Canada’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence plans. Currently, there is an ongoing study by the RCAF to determine what this looks like. We talked about it a bit last week when discussing Golden Dome, however, I stress that this isn’t a project but a broad Initiative that is likely to constitute existing assets, planned projects in the works, and several new projects. That will include Ground-Based Interceptors.

5. The CAF CUAS Initiative: There is a broader, CAF-wide effort to acquire and field CUAS systems. This is again a broader Initiative constituting several different projects and future plans. It is still heavily in the works.

There is a lot in the works, though sadly for most, they’re still in the Definition or Options Analysis phase. That or they’re broad Initiatives that could include dozens of projects lumped into one banner. If you’re curious, my writeup on GBAD is still accurate to the current situation.

Q09. Any word on the LAV procurement you mentioned a few months back

It’s there, parts of it have been approved by cabinet. It’s just waiting for the final contract to be signed. I heard we should have some LAV news relatively soon? It’s absolutely coming.

Q10. With the early talk of the CDC is scope creep already setting in for something that is to replace the MCDV yet is closer to a CPF in terms of what has been said

We passed scope creep a long time ago. The fact is that we are getting out of the MCDV/OPV game. CDC is no longer considered a Kingston replacement. It hasn’t been for almost a year now. You should consider CDC a separate project and the MCDV retired without a planned replacement.

The roles of the MCDV will be filled by several different platforms, with stuff like MCM being downloaded to individual platforms. MCM is almost entirely done autonomously now, and the idea is that almost any vessel can carry something like the Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems if needed.

Worst case, as we heard Vice-Admiral Topshee say, the idea is that commercial Offshore Supply Vessels can be quickly acquired to fulfill the same roles and tasks on the Kingston. Expanding on the Orca fleet and giving them a security and patrol mandate will also help supplement some losses from the Kingston fleet.

Basically, there will be no true replacement, and instead, the various tasks of the MCDV will be doled out between either future platforms or commercial vessels hastily acquired if needed. A lot might also be delegated onto the Coast Guard now that they have some mandate for Security operations, though it’s still too early to tell fully there.

I plan to write a followup to a previous article I did earlier this year about putting everything on the AOPS, where we went a bit into some of the benefits and issues of this. Granted it is a bit outdated with the Coast Guard move and such.

Q11. Since EU has signed SAFE with Canada. Do you think they will re-offer the Eurofighter or Dassault Rafale?? Maybe cheaper or with more benefits?

No, because SAFE is a financial Instrument, one that doesn’t necessarily buy us discounts and benefits. As of now, it’s basically Gripen or F-35. There are no other options being overtly considered. Unless someone comes with a really great, substantial package then that won’t change.

I don’t see either the Eurofighter or Rafale making this cut just like the first time. There certainly is no reason to give us a substantially better deal than others.

Q12. Since Latvia has chosen the ASCOD 2 will that influence our MEDCAV decision?

I don’t think so. There is a lot we don’t know about MEDCAV. We don’t even know what the platform will fully look like. I hear it’s firmly in the tracked territory, but beyond that? Who knows. There will be many factors, and I don’t think Latvia in particular will be a deciding factor.

I mean, Spain is there too and also used ASCOD! So maybe we should start counting which IFV has the largest fleet in Latvia and go from there! I mean Sweden was around with the CV90? Italy will soon be replacing Dardo with Lynx. That’s another traditional IFV.

A fun fact: The Redback IFV family shares about 80% commonality with the K9. So when speaking of supply chains, you should always take note of common chassis between certain vehicles, as it can rapidly shift the scale.

Granted maybe it won’t be an IFV? Maybe It will be something akin to a Medium Tank like the CV90120. Maybe we just play it safe and just go with a LAV variant like Greg? We won’t know until we hear what exactly we want.

Medium Cavalry has always been a very broad, open to debate category for us. It has been a hotly debated topic to what that fully looks like. That can be a good thing. It gives a broad mandate to explore options. That can be useful in these cases.

So we gotta wait and see, but I do think it won’t come down to one factor as per what choice is made.

Q13. VAM Topshee mentioned new/additional Orca training vessels. How urgent is this acquisition?

Urgent, but not at the stage of worry yet. You have to remember that the Kingston-class played an important role in the RCN training ecosystem. With the fleet in the shape it’s in, and the need to ramp up training extensively to prepare for the influx on new vessels, the existing Orca, AOPS, and Halifax can’t replace the sea hours that we’re losing with the Kingston.

We can’t run the Orca 24/7 and the options in the rest of the fleet are limited. There are other desires with such a massive expansion, increasing presence in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, giving naval reserves a public presence with a dedicated vessel which leads into the public relations argument, did I mention also the security aspect?

But fundamentally these are training vessels, and more of them are needed at minimum to provide capacity that we’re now losing with the Kingston-class being paid off. Extras allow for more opportunities, and expanded opportunities across both Oceans and the Inner lakes.

We ain’t looking to keep capacity where it is. We want to scale training Infrastructure across the board heavily. This is a major component to that.

Q14. Transferring CCG AOPS to RCN is not on, but could the 3 CCG former Viking supply ships be useful for the navy? Something like RN did with Sterling Castle?

Love the Idea of converting vessels. I just talked about it last week when I did my big post on cables! However the Tor Viking-class will be locked down for a long while as they’re needed to fill the gap between now and the MPI coming into service. They shouldn’t and won’t be transferred.

HOWEVER, I am a fan of commercial conversions to fill the gaps I see in our support fleet. I would greatly support such an endeavour. Again there are platforms out there that I find ripe for conversion. I use Davie MRNSV as a baseline concept, as it shows what such conversions can look like. However, you can do this to just about any commercial hull.

I also like Ulstein’s SX121 as a similar baseline concept. The truth is you can find a dozen such vessels from a dozen such designers. You ain’t limited at all. Have fun and try and investigate all the cool concepts you can find one night! I do it every so often, and it’s great for the brain.

Q15. Do you have any thoughts on the ISR modernization initiatives that Canada currently has an RFI out for?

I think they’re good. I particularly am happy with the Sensors RFI out right now, which to me was very comprehensive and well thought out in terms of requirements. We often forget that our SENSE capabilities require a very comprehensive, layered set of systems.

Having a mandate for both passive and active C-RAM systems is nice, as is a dedicated CUAS radar with some short-range Anti-Air coverage up to 40km. That is a fairly nice capability to have, especially paired with a man-portable VSHORAD system. I just wish the number was slightly higher than forty systems.

My only real wish there would be that some of the numbers were higher. Along with that, with MINERVA, I would argue that the requirements laid out for both a light and mobile UAS, already wanted in fairly small numbers, should really be rolled in to that broader Initiative.

Almost any small UAS that isn’t highly specialized, like we see in AIEDDD, should be moving under a single banner and procurement system. Having a bunch of small UAS projects spread out over several projects makes little sense to me.

The rest, like the C2 RFI out now are also fine. I think the project is being managed well, has a good grasp of what they want, and are procuring some pretty cool capabilities. It’s one of those undiscussed, unloved, but cool projects out there that we won’t see the value in until we have them.

Q16. Can you tell what is really going on with the Rivers and cms330 system? Ottawa Citizen ran another story Dec 4, saying the RCD is not using the cms330 system. I thought they were using both ccm330 and Aegis, similar to the recent German announcement? Thank you

Rule one, never listen to the Ottawa Citizen on anything involving procurement. Sometimes they have scoops, usually a few months after me. However, if it’s about the River? You’re better off guessing. You’ll be more accurate.

I say this as the man who had to call them out screwing up numbers last week in that same article. This isn’t me going after Dave, I like Dave. He is very friendly to me. However, the paper itself is a massive tossup and I wouldn’t be first to believe all they say.

The River-class will use a version of CMS-330 called the Canadian Tactical Interface. It is not exactly 330 as some report but based off it. Its primarily role will be managing the Underwater Warfare suite, along with several minor communication and electronic support systems. AEGIS will handle the above and surface systems.

Where future systems are integrated will depend. Most will be tied to AEGIS but some will inevitably end up with CTI. A lot planned for CTI has moved to AEGIS, mainly because we’re adding on more U.S. and AEGIS-standard systems than originally planned.

Q17. With all the new funding available to DND/CAF, has there been any plans to improve/expand SAR capability in the arctic?

There has been, but primarily in other projects. For example, NTACS will often talk about improving SAR in the Arctic, and is looking at how future platforms could do that but it isn’t a direct mandate or requirement. Similar to talking about Ranger improvements. It’s a factor, it’s discussed but it isn’t a requirement or such.

There is no single project looking at this, but it is a discussion in many things like NTACS, DAME, talking about future satellite capabilities, etc.

Q18. How does Canada plan to operate its modernized military with current members leaving and a need for more personnel?

Well, the simple answer is we need to reverse the trend. We need to not only onboard new talent, which is happening, but we need to retain who we got. That doesn’t come just by financial increases, which do help but are only one part of the puzzle.

You need to make the military a viable option for people. You need to work on the expectations and demands of the current generation. I love how Topshee put it when we discussed it. You need to accept things like people only being in a few years, and not necessarily making a lifelong career out of it. You need to give them incentive and a way out that makes them feel valuable.

That includes things like ensuring that civilian qualifications are built into the training ecosystem. That’s making sure that there are options, and that there is flexibility. It means being more involved with higher education, and having a more notable presence in communities so they know you’re there.

We talked about it above with the Orca, but presence is a very important thing. If you are active in people’s lives, if you are able to really engage across the country, you can capture a lot of people who might have slipped through the cracks.

We have plans. We have concepts. We had a pay increase, trades are being reworked, and there is a recognition to the value of needing to be engaged. It won’t be easy, nor quick. We are seeing record numbers of recruits, just ask Marc Kieley. However, you’re right that it’s still not enough.

Buck that trend, shift the public perspective to the value of the military as a career. It starts in the hearts and minds after all.

Q19. What individual companies do you think are likeliest to be awarded the 8 projects assigned to DIA?

That’s an interesting question. Not all of them necessarily have an award that’s competitive, in fact, most of them are not competitive or already awarded, like the various J programs.

I do think that AEWC will go to a Global aircraft, with my own leaning being Globaleye thanks to the political backing and common use in Europe, even if Phoenix might offer some things the RCAF wants.

We already know what we’re doing with Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar. That will be a Canadized version of the Australian JORN system. Operational Training Infrastructure Enterprise Modernization (OTIEM) is another one where I can’t say. I’ve never actually thought about it? There are a few there who could leverage, L3, CAE, Qinetiq, even someone like Serco. Likely you’ll see several teams formed to tackle it given the broad scope.

CPSP is a 50/50 in my mind for what is chosen. If you listen to anyone talk professionally about CPSP you’ll understand what I mean when I say the final choice is gonna be intense. From discussing around? There is a Hanwha lean.

Lastly the two space projects are also fairly open, although I expect that ESCP-P will eventually just be Telesat Lightspeed. It’s already being set up to fulfill the requirements, and the Aurora bus is really great in that it has additional space and payload for us to leverage if we desired with additional sensors and equipment. It will be an existing network.

DESSP I think will go MDA. They’re a natural fit to leverage off Radarsat and CHORUS. That doesn’t mean others like Kepler or C-Core couldn’t squeeze out but my initial idea is that MDA will take it, likely building off of CHORUS.

---

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.