Let's talk with Noah (10/06/25): More LAV stuff, IFM, lots of CUAS talk, Submarine Support

Good Morning everyone!

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I thought it was more appropriateto post this on Tuesday over taking up your time on the hokidays. Noe that the chaos is over, we can finally try to get back on our normal schedule!

This week we managed to have less questions than before. We still got about twenty though! I managed to find the energy to get past our usual ten and do thirteen today. As always if your questions didn't make the cut you can always resubmit for next week!

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. Is the LAV 10x10 artillery variant based off the LAV 6 design to keep max commonality or would it use the Piranha chassis?

As far as I know it is based off the Piranha 10x10 from GDELS with some obvious Canadization to fit into the LAV supply chain. The Swiss have already chosen a similar version to fulfill their requirements for a Self-Propelled Howitzer. The Canadian version is effectively identical to that.

Q2. Do you think the Lav 6 Mk2 has any reasonable chance at being procured, and do you think the current fleet could be upgraded to add similar capabilities?

There's talks, early talks. There are two things to note here:

1. There is a desire to upgun the current LAV fleet

2. The LAVs are here to stay, so there is always incentive to do more.

I won't be speaking on MEDCAV, as we dont fully know the requirements. If there was a desire to go LAV for it than Mk2 is a natural basis to go off of.

Even without it there is still a desire to upgrade the existing LAV 6 fleet with more firepower. There had been forever lol.

So I am fairly confident we'll see SOMETHING done. Its highly unlikely that the end product is exactly what was presented in the Mk2, however it does serve as a great concept for what we could do.

Details come later, as always. Thats the great thing of maintaining long-term, strong relationship with Industry. You can work together to create the platform you want Incrementally.

So I think we'll see something, eventually. Maybe sooner than later…

Q3. Are the River Class Destroyers under armed especially with respect to VLS?

I talk about the River-class VLS a lot so I'm gonna keep this short. Twenty-four cells is to little for me, however, the concern isnt as serious as many say. We know it's likely that future batches will have more cells. Work is being done there.

We know Topshee would love to see Forty-Eight cells without touching the very important Mission Bay. I stand that Thirty-Two would be enough for most cases, and would be a fine number if that is where we needed up for the majority.

Thirty-Two aligns us with the majority of NATO for where they are and, at least to me, is a fair compromise for the majority of the fleet. Maybe a few take on a more AAW focus and adds more down the road? BAE has studied ways to add more cells in various configurations.

But I wouldn't complain at Thirty-Two. Not at all.

Q4. Given the RCN has a large focus on anti sub warfare…do you see them carrying asroc or a similar weapon in those rather valuable mk 41 slots?

There are no plans, as far as I know. The Brits are also working on a similar MK.41-based system. Koreans have Red Shark, Indians have SMART, Type-07, YU-8… There is work being done in the field. ASROC is still around but overall I don't see it happening. I've seen no indication its being explored.

Q5. With the rapid changes to modern warfare occurring in Ukraine right now, do we have procurement or training upcoming to combat new threats like drones attacks

The wording of this confuses me lol. One thing I always like to note, you shouldn't assume that a future peer conflict will look exactly like Ukraine. There are rapid changes occurring, and new technologies that are becoming more prolific but you should always take into context the current enviornment, and the limitations Ukraine currently has.

I will address the one thing you mentioned in drones, and yes, we are starting to take note of developments and trying to figure out best practices. We've had two phases of the CUAS UOR for Latvia, we have wider CUAS initative currently at various stages across CAF.

Enduring Phase II will have CUAS as a major focus. We're starting to train more in CUAS both at home and as part of multinational exercises abroad. Its a slow process, and certainly it could go faster. However from the procurement side of things there has been work done, and is continuing to be done.

We've also expanded the CUAS Sandbox, introduced a seperate urban challenge, and have launched several IDEaS programs with the potential to benefit CUAS.

On the introduction of UAS? Thats a bit harder. We tried with the GPUAS Initative and that didnt really work as intended. We've seen more proliferation of things like the Teal II but it certainly isnt enough.

We have a new IDEaS challenge for scalable UAS production. Stuff like that is a great step in the right direction if we can translate that into results.

We have been far more successful on acquiring an emergency CUAS capability than elsewhere, and even that took several years to full get done when it shouldn't.

That in turn though now needs to be taken further into the wider CAF. That isnt always easy. The system actively works against, in many cases, turning these UOR into wider procurements.

Thats all Issues with the UOR system itself. Programs, challenges and sandboxes are a great way to see whats on the market and what's capable. If you dont translate that into capabilities though, what did you really get out of it?

This is a wider issue with how we translate IDEaS and DRDC concepts into actual, working assets. It isnt just CUAS that suffers here, however it still effects these efforts. This is an area where concepts like Agile Procurement could really shine.

The Issues here are fundamental. They are Issues that effect our overall procurement system. We all know them. We all deal with them. We all see them in action.

There are other issues, the rules amd regulations around operating and training with UAS also needs reforms too.

So in that case there is work being done, however its been rough and certainly isnt enough. There is progress though, and some progress is better than none. There's been a lot more done this year!

If you want to list some others for next week please do! Saying lessons from Ukraine is a broad statement. Some clarification helps me answer better!

Q6. Is there any discussion on if the army is pushing to add a sp 120 mm mortar to the force (say something like the South korean skyfall)?

Yes! Indirect Fire Modernization lays out a pathway to acquire up to ninety-nine Self-Propelled 120mm Mortars. It is by far the preferred option that I have seen between only acquiring 81mm mortars to complement the 155mm SPH planned.

So your hopes might be answered!

Q7. Given the new LAV 5x5 artillery variant, do you think there's any shot of a Korean K9 being procured now?

It was always gonna be GDLS-C to lose. That's the truth. They already had the mandate for the 130mm Mortar just through it needing to be integrated on the ACSV.

GDLS-C IS our armoured vehicle manufacturer. This was always going to likely go to whatever they threw out, and believe me they were never going to skip this.

It does help that the RCH module, on paper, is a highly-capable platform even if unproven. A lot of our NATO allies in Europe, where we would expect these to be, are also planning (or at least discussing) to adopt the system.

UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Ukraine… It's not like it will be an orphaned or limited platform. Thats before we discuss some of the original RFI requirements, like firing in the move, that only it could meet.

Now, that requirement was removed. Probably because it is dumb in my mind. However it is still very much something thats wanted, so what do I know.

I love the K9. It would be my prime choice. However everything goes in the way of the LAV 10x10. Commonality to the existing LAV fleet, planned for a lot of our major allies, gives GDLS some more work, meets the requirements and desires…

This was always gonna be a hard win for everyone else.

Q8. With respect to TKMS & the type 212CD……do you have any update if they offered the 212CD or 212CD ‘E’ version? That extra 10 m sec could add more aip fuel.

I have never seen the Type-212CD E ever mentioned before. Not in official media. Not in my discussions with the company. Never. It has always been the proper CD.

The CD E is a paper platform. That actively discourages TKMS from throwing it out there and potentially getting penalized for it and it's uncertainty.

You can say its easy to add a hull insert. It isnt. The CD E, as far as I know, has not gotten past the detailed design stage. It is not ready to go into production tomorrow.

I have asked, never got clear answers there, so I go off of that until I hear otherwise. There might be just to much risk to throw it out there.

Q9. CDC will be unique, are there any existing warships less than 105m in length, with frigate like performance (25+kns, armament, range, etc) rated Polar Class 6?

There are none that fit exactly what we want. Thats why we're talking about a Canadian-designed platform because nothing in the market matches exactly what we want.

We have very unique requirements. Weve discussed them at length, including a special AMA two weeks ago! I highly recommend you go through all that, because I don't want to repeat endlessly.

But yeah, nothing exactly fits to what we want, for better or worse. However I will say Canada does have the talent and capabilities to design a corvette. That isn't an issue either.

Q10. With a large procurement of submarines; is there any thought to a Polar capable, submarine tender to allow for more efficient, year round arctic operations?

Polar-Capable no. There has been no active discussions on such a vessel, though I am supportive.

When you consider the size of the future submarine fleet, and the ever-present threat to subsea infrastructure, a dedicated vessel, or two, can go a long way in helping to secure Canada's vital undersea network.

This isnt a role you can just slap onto an AOPS, even if they could play a role in things like Submarine rescue. They have trained and participated in exercises related to it.

Ive spoken, in great detail, many times about this topic. I highly recommend seeking it out. Everyone knows I love to talk about subsea cables!

It also doesnt have to be complex or expensive. It could be as simple as taking a second-hand vessel, or even just a commercial design and modifying it to task.

The RFA has Proteus, used to have Sterling Castle before it was moved to the navy proper. The Italians also recently put out a tender for a commerical vessel to be converted to a "Multi-purpose vessel for underwater dimension surveillance".

We've even had similar concepts here. Davie had the Multi-Role Naval Support Vessel concept based off the Cecon Pride Subsea Construction Vessel and I have always loved the idea of the Ulstein SX121 being used as a base.

There are cheaper, available options out there to fill this role. It does not have to turn into an overly-complex, specially- designed concept. Two of these, one for each coast could go a long way at improving our undersea awareness and response capabilities.

Food for thought. I greatly support the idea. These kinds of vessels, even if they can't lay a cable, are a might asset to have for a number of roles. Now cable-laying vessels are another Issue for another time!

Q11. Do you worry your personality and silliness is a detriment to you? I love it personally. Makes me feel like im having chit-chats with a son.

Not at all. I think I keep my personal side that you find on X and the more serious work I do here seperate. Silliness isnt bad. Neither is being personal to your audience.

Everyone knows me. You all know me. You all know how I write, how I am. Despite that you trust amd support my content because you know the dedication and quality that I put in.

There is to much seriousness. Everyone is serious all the time. That is warranted sometimes, but never all the time. I am not an academic. I am not a journalist. I am Noah.

You get my passion, my worries. You get my ups and down. You hear about my anxiety, my struggles. You know sometimes I'm wrong, and know I'll own up to it. You also know you can always come to me, that im always available.

You get me, all of me. You get everything I have. You follow the journey with me, hear from me, personally. You won't get a thesis. You wont get the same professionalism scrutinized by a large media conglomerate.

And if that isnt your style? Thats okay! I get it. I never saw how I write as a detriment. I never saw how I act as a detriment. All I ever wanted out of this was to write and talk to people with the same interests as me.

Im a nerd at the end of the day, like many of you. We all want to talk about cool things, hype ourselves about all the cool things happening. That doesn't need us all to be super serious!

Relax a bit, have some fun, get excited and nerd out on things. I promise it won't hurt!

Q12. Which upcoming product is the best candidate for Agile procurements -early, small-batch deliveries to end users, short feedback loops & quicker improvements?

Great question! Now, do you mean what product on the market is the best or what project? Both are different, however I can think of several who would benefit!

I think on a lot of IDEAS winners over the years, who would have greatly benefited from the collaborative relationship and incremental cycles that Agile Procurement promotes.

I think of companies like North Vector Dynamics and their CI-60 CUAS vehicle and CM-70 CUAS missile. Both are working, available products. Both have had their capabilities tested.

Both present Canadian-made Kinetic CUAS solutions under $10,000. Both could be fielded quickly. This is the kinda product I think would benefit from something like Agile Procurement. These are the kinds of products we should be approaching.

Simialrly, on projects that could benefit from taking an Agile approach compared to going through the traditional procurement process? I think CUAS. I think SOCEM. I think Next-Generation Soldier Systems.

I think things like Joint Fires Modernization and Pan-Domain Command and Control. I think UxVs. There are so many opportunities out there, so much room to take that collaborative approach.

There will be challenges. There will be issues. The benefits of Agile have been praised in recent modernization papers like Inflection Point. There is a recognition of its value.

It just takes that leap of faith to get there.

Q13. Interested to hear some thoughts on the financial integration of the American and Canadian defence sectors, and the risks that come with it.

This was voted down as a question, but I really, really like it. However I'm gonna have to be a bit of a jerk and say that I can't answer this here. For reference, I usually look through my questions a day or two before I start writing.

I don't think I could do this question justice in what is a casual Q&A. This really deserves a wider look, and it is a question I would usually like to talk to others and ask about before writing.

So sadly, I cant answer this yet. However I do think this gives a great topic for a future, dedicated post!

---

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