Let's talk with Noah (Special Mini-Mega Edition) (11/24/25): What did the Aussies do to the Type 26? France, Obscure Projects, Lots on the Fighter Review, Containers.

Happy Monday!

We're back to our usual schedule after a few weeks of Sunday posts. I liek doing the newsletter and Let's Talk on the same day as it makes it feel like an event! Need to get back into having noth of them on the same day as one is always bounced to Sunday or Tuesday recently.

This is a big week! Over twenty questions again, with some good variety. I will say that fighter questions are tiring me, but I understand everyones curiosity and I will continue to answer them if thats what everyone wants me to do!

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. As per your podcast with Topshee, how did the Australians manage to figure out a way for 32 VLS? What design changes did that require?

Both us and the Aussies had the same issue - weight.

In this case the integreation of CEAFAR-2 for the Aussies and SPY/7 for us has added sigficiant topweight to the hulls. This has pushed the Type 26 design to the limits of what it was designed to handle. Both designs quite literally don't have space to spare when it comes to it.

This is also why the Mission Bay is very important. It provides growth space that the design now lacks because of these constraints. This isnt the only issue mind you, the OTO 127 takes up a lot of space itself, so that also is a factor.

The Aussies mitigated this by inceasing the beam by 0.6m. We have elected not to do that, as that would require a redesign and add significant time to when we could get hulls in the water. We don't have that time. We are wlecting to prioritize speed of delivery in the first batch over capability.

Similar to the Brits with the Type 31. We had to find space to save, and the VLS was one thing we chose to sacrifice on at this time. That sacrifice gives us hulls when we need, and allows us to work on this issue at a more reasonable pace.

So the Aussies solution was to redesign the hull to make things fit. That didnt fix the issue fully, the Hunter-class is still at that ceiling, but it did help them mitigate a bit without sacrificing as much.

Q2. There have been several mentions of GLAAM. How seriously are CAF/DND about possible acquisition?

There's support in the navy. Its one of those concepts that has its fair share of supporters (as you can tell) but it's still just an idea. It's not a project, not in the plans, and remains an interesting hypothetical. It isn't anywhere near the top of the list, and I would expect more JSS to be higher than GLAAM.

So right now it remains a fun idea to throw around as a hypothetical future. It isnt something actively being persued. The big shift on that might come from government over anything. The Conservatives like the idea of heavy Icebreakers for the RCN, its a concept that's been around a decade.

Liberals have also mused the idea, but they aint as firm on the Idea.

Q3. What can we get from France? Remember when the defence investment agency was announced, direction was to procure from traditional allies like France. SAMP/T ?

Theres a few areas they could jump on that I can sorta think on. Theres obviously cooperation eith Canadian Industry, such as the recently announced partnership between INKAS and Texelis. I get the feeling you want projects though? SAMP/T I dont see. We would want to try and maximize commonality with the U.S in any case regarding IAMD. That isnt SAMP/T.

Akeron is an option for our future ATGM. We've had a wider ATGM project sitting in wait since 2017, and while we do now operate SPIKE in Latvia thanks to the PAXM UOR we have no mechanism to expand upon it, so it remains an ooen competition.

Akeron and SPIKE are the only fifth-generation ATGM on the market that fit our requirements, so it's down to those two. That's one big one that exists for the French to jump onto.

Safran is one example of a French company with a major presence. Airbus has several opportunities through programs like NTACS, if you could Airbus as French, I certainly do. Thales is partnering with VARD on CDC, and maintains the primary ISS provider for the AOPS, JSS and Minor and Auxiliary Vessels. They just opened a new West Coast Operation Centre this year actually.

I could go on, but French industry is already well represented here. There are several upcoming opportunities, but we shouldn't fisvount the existing presence they already maintain.

ATGM, Night Vision System Modernization, NTACS, CDC, all of which provide French industry, and their Canadian subsidiaries, a credible chance to be involved.

Q4. Is two polar class heavy icebreakers enough for CCG needs?

In my mind thats the minimum number, however minimum doesn't mean not enough. I think thats a complex question. Polar-class Icebreakers like Arpatuuq and Imnaryuaq are highly specialized vessels, whose capabilities put them at a level in a niche to a niche.

Having two means that we will be able to have one available at any given time, within reason. Is that enough? I think it is, especially considering that platforms like the Program Icebreakers and MPI will be very capable in their own rights. The Program Icebreakers will be PC 3 themselves, more than capable of operating in the vast majority of the Arctic for most of the year.

Can't look at them as two isolated platforms, however while that minimum is met, and it isnt an immediate concern in my mind to get more, that doesnt mean that we can't make the argument that more is better, more redundancy, ensures that one is always available in the future.

However that also doesnt exist in isolation. The CCG doesnt have an infinite manpower pool, nor an infinite amount of space. There has been a lot of work done on the right fleet mix for the future and these are large, capital-intensive vessels both in cost and manpower.

So yes, it is enough in my mind, however one can make the arguments and I believe be convincing in why it's not. It also aint so simple and these kinds of things are planned years in advance for a reason.

Q5. What are some projects that the CAF and government are working on that us casual won't know about or should be excited about?

Ooooo this is an interesting question. There's a lot! Let me give you three that I don'tthink I've never really talked about, and don't plan too… 🤫

Surveillance of Space 2 and Ground-Based Optical Capability: Technically tied together but for discussion sake I tend to seperate them. Surveillance of Space 2 will provide Canada with a new Deep-Space Surveillance capability. This will be a replacement for the SAPPHIRE satellite. Surveillance of Space 2 will consist of both Space-Based Optical Sensors and Ground-Based Optical Sensors. As of now the Ground-Based Optical Capability is out for RFP.

Land Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Modernization: Aims to modernize the Canadian Army's SENSE capabilities by acquiring a range of new field sensors and unmanned systems. This includes both Active and Passive C-RAM Sensors, short-range CUAS sensors, and multiple types of Class I UAS.

Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems (RMDS): The Royal Canadian Navy’s newest Minehunting system, a containerized system provided by Kraken Robotics. This system consists of a 20ft TEU equipped with the REMUS AUV and SEAFOX mine disposal vehicle. SH Defence is providing it's CUBE Modular container system for the project, while Kraken will be equipping it with their AquaPix synthetic aperture sonar.

Q6. If we procure the Gripen have you heard of other inclusions in the deal besides manufacturing, such as munitions (i.e. Meteor, Taurus), 6th gen development, etc

I have not, likely because no one is really talking about whats going on in terms of negotiations. We get fed little bits at a time, and while I am sure these are active conversations we can't really say for sure. The fact is there's a whole bunch we just dont know about tbe process or whats going on.

If these conversations are happening than its happening behind closed doors with no one talking.

Q7. Any news on helicopter replacement. I know Canada is looking to invest $13 billion in this regard. Attack Helicopters??

The team behind the Next Tactical Aviation Capability Set (NTACS) wemt back to the drswing board over the summer to better identify what platforms were on the market and what the future of tactical aviation avtually looked like. As of the last time I checked up, the team was working hard to determine what capabilities and requirements would be needed in the future, including looking at things like Attack Helicopters, yes.

However the team has not set themselves yet on what platforms to acquire. Its still being worked on, as is continued cooperation on NATOs Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) of which Canada is a partner.

Timeline right now is still for delivery in the early 2030s.

Q8. Will CAF tie their AWACS acquisition to the NATO E-3 replacement?

No. Our requirements are different from what is needed in Europe. While we will continue to participate, there's no plan on the table to link a decision to the future of NATO AEWC. However the team is definetly watching what's selected and taking notes on offerings. Certainly alignment does have advantages, but not enough to tie-in.

Q09. Are talks with regard to Sweden and Canada only related to Gripen/ Global Eye or have they branched out into other discussions and joint procurements?

Not officially. There is obviously more room for cooperation, but right now the focus is on Gripen amd Globaleye. Future platforms like CV90, RBS-70, and cooperation on things like Icebreakers are all future potentials, but not the focus right now.

Q10. I read an article recently that NATO has cancelled their order for 6 Wedgetails. Has there been any chatter on how this might affect our own AWACS project?

Well it's certainly not a show of confidence to the Wedgetail, though that was the case with or without. Whatever new platform (be that Globaleye or Phoenix) that's chosen is certainly ginna get a look, however I wouldnt put to much weight in NATO AEWC when it comes to whatever choice is made.

We have our own, unique operating environment compared to Europe. We also have other factors that are of more importance, like Air-to-Air Refueling that are gonna play a bigger role in what choices are made.

Q11. Any grumblings about the airforce's AA Defences

Yes, but im bound to secrecy until next weeks newsletter to discuss thing! Progress is being made though! So stay tuned 😊

Q12. More of a thought...with the seeping of ties with Sweden, to me it puts the CV90 in the lead

It certainly helps. This falls to both Sweden and South Korea who have signed similar pacts. However both still need to break past the GDLS-C monopoly, which won't be easy for MEDCAV as GDLS-C is gonna go hard for it.

Always assume GDLS-C is in the lead by virtue of keeping them supported and working.

Q13. C130 transportable HPMRL from Hanwa Aerospace article on naval news. So can we not do a sole source himars now?

Nope. We still go for HIMARS. HPRS is still in-development and we've already made the choice to go HIMARS. It's a done-deal. Similarly, while C-130 transportability was a major demand, theres still the fact that PRSM, especially future increments are in a league of their own above what everyone else can offer in terms of range and commonality.

Gotta remember that the HIMARS/GMARS/M270 family is still the NATO standard, and blows away Puls and Chunmoo for it's user-base. That is an importsnt factor here.

Q14. What should Canada have in place to counter drones being "a thing" around airports and military sites? Hawky says we have none at the moment.

We have very limited, extremely limited capability to counter Unmanned Systems at scale. What we primarily have are hand-held systems, which can work for limited, uncomplex threats but will struggle against both depth and more advanced systems.

CUAS to me needs to be layered. At the bottom end is these sort of portable, non-kinetic systems. They are joined by larger, area-wide non-kinetic solutions. At the top though you really need Kinetic options. You just do. There is a belief, and some a desire, to limit the value of Kinetic systems.

Thats both gun and missile-based mind you, with future things like HEL an options down the line but not there yet. You cant have one layer and ignore the others though. You need both kinds of solutions at different scales to effevtively counter the range of modern threats.

Thats only going to get more complex as technology advances and more complex and capable systems, like AI, bevome more prevalent even at the cheap and disposable scale.

Q15. CDS interview when?

When hell freezes over.

Q16. Everything I read about the RCD multi-mission bay says it will carry boats and containers. I would imagine the RCN is planning more extensive use than that!

I mean it's only limits are what you can fit inside, however you will be surprised to what can be fit in a 20 or 40ft container these days. The trend we're seeing is towards containerization. Containers are easy to transport, scalable, and are already the gold standard of maritime shipping.

Theyre available, can quickly be converted, and if the future pans out can quickly be adapted into just about any role you can imagine. SH Defence is a great example of a company doing this.

UUV, USV, Loitering Munitions, boats, anti-ship missiles, Torpedo launch systems, RAS equipment…. even MK.41 has a containerized variant in the MK.70. I feel I've seen just about everything stuffed in one these days. Thats the trend everyone is going towards. Even the new Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems (RMDS) we mentioned above is containerized.

Its just too natural a fit. Containers are great. They fit together well, provide uniform dimensions and sizing, can still be scalable from 10ft up to 40ft. There's a reason they're the focus on conversation.

Theres a lot of experimemtation though for ehat the River-class will use its bay for. We see a lot of such experimentation with the AOPS, and will see even more as we get closer to the comissioning of HMCS Fraser.

You won't get the true scale though until we have that Mission Bay in our possession.

Q17. Is there any rumblings at GDLS about making a LAV platform in a similar fashion to the BOXER? Mainly having a drive module and changeable mission modules?

Thats what the LAV 10X10 is for, no joke. Thats the exact market that is tries to fill. Its obviously a very different philosophy, no doubt, but it's purpose is explicitly to offer an alternative to platforms like Boxer while trying to get past the limitations of the existing LAV/Pirahnna family when it comes to weight and payload restrictions.

Q18. With all the recent F-35/Gripen news of late, is the government serious about dumping the F-35? It seems foolish to me!

It is serious. There is a large camp that supports moving away from the F-35. That isnt universal but there wouldnt be all this song and dance if there wasn't some major support for the idea.

Q19. Why has the fighter review only been the F-35 and Gripen? Do you know why other companies (KF-21, Rafale, Eurofighter) haven't tried to compete in it?

Other companies were consulted. Dassault, Eurofighter, Boeing were all consulted on the review. The only one who said they weren't really consulted was KAI. The issue is that we don't know how far these talks went, nor what was said as no one has spoken on the review and has elected to stay silent.

But they were consulted, have no doubt. The thing with Gripen is that, because it was the runner-up in FFCP, it had already buult up a lot of the plans and partners the government wanted to see. As you likely know neither Rafale or Eurofighter got very far. Boeing screwed themselves.

Another consuquence is that Gripen also built up a large fanbase, even in government. This allowed them a natural pool of support as soon as the review was launched, especially because a lot of those same major players are still around, many of whom remain Ministers.

Basically Saab was already handily set with all the material amd relationships needed to capture the major interests of the review. They're offering up ehat the government wants to hear, already has the partmerships developed, and has already built up the groundworks of supporters both in the public and government.

Q20. In regards to Q24, what do you mean “Chicoutimi is done.”? Are you saying it has finished a maintenance period or it is kaput?

I mean she's done done. She should be considered non-operational for all intents and purposes, and will likely remain that way until the Vickys are retired.

Q21. What’s your background? You seem very knowledgeable for a young man and just curious where / how you learned everything.

I have no background. I was not nor am I in CAF. I am not educated in the field. I hold no degree. I have never worked in the defence Industry either. I only started my own self-teavhing about three yeats ago. Its why I say I come from a ‘Non-Traditional’ background!

So I have no background other than my own research and talking to people to try and get educated. Of that I have only been doing that for just around the three year mark now. Its why I don't call myself a journalist. I had to be convinced by others to call myself an Analyst!

I was lucky to be capable enough to fill the niche that defence reporting suffers in this country. Also helps that almost everyone else are archaic boomers who arent built for the modern world. Don't tell them I said that though! Gotta keep my ego in check.

So yes, I have nothing to go off of other than what I know. I am just a random kid who apparently has very good research skills and a gift for learning information quickly.

---

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.