By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 10 February 2025
Here is an excerpt from an interview published in Vol. 20, No. 3. For free access to the full interview in the final version, go to https://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol20num3/cnr_vol20_3_Armstrong.pdf
Interview with Commodore Jason Armstrong
Director General Naval Force Development
On 28 October 2024, CNR Editor Ann Griffiths chatted with Commodore Jason Armstrong, Director General Naval Force Development. Commodore Armstrong also subsequently answered some follow-up questions. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Ann Griffiths: Thank you for agreeing to chat with me. Before we get to the meat and potatoes, what exactly does the RCN Director General Naval Force Development (DGNFD) do? It’s an impressive job title, but what do you do?
Commodore Armstrong: The Naval Force Development scope is large – we’re charged with thinking about the challenges and threats of today, and then looking forward to those into the future. Officially, Director General Naval Force Development is accountable for the strategic development of the ‘next navy,’ including project directorship, training and infrastructure requirements, operational and tactical doctrine, operational testing and evaluation, and doctrine development. The team is responsible for ensuring that the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has the tools it needs to train and fight today and in the future.
I am blessed to be working with professionals in the fields of development and maintenance of our war-fighting capabilities, the procurement of equipment for the navy and its sailors, the development of our concept of employment, infrastructure and training, and our long-term strategy.
AG: My first questions relate to technology. I hear a lot about what other navies are doing but not much about the RCN. I’m not seeing an effort in Canada/Department of National Defence (DND) for rapid adoption of new capabilities. What is NFD/RCN doing?
Commodore Armstrong: Apparently we need to do a better job of getting our message out. Canada/the RCN has a history of operating uncrewed aerial vessels (UAVs), uncrewed autonomous systems (UAS) and uncrewed surface vessels (USVs). In fact we’ve been doing it for a long time. For example, Canada employed Scan Eagle, an uncrewed aerial surveillance system from 2012-2014. We are now working on the ISTAR UAS project that is an airborne platform that can be operated from the Halifax-class frigates, and we acquired the Puma maritime mini unmanned aircraft system which can be operated off the Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs).
The RCN is always examining new capabilities. We are currently engaged in a number of procurement projects to introduce remote and autonomous systems. Earlier this year, the RCN received 60 UAVs for both shipboard and shore use. Additionally, two projects are underway to procure larger, more capable, long-duration military UAVs, with delivery expected in late 2025 or early 2026. As well, the recent Our North, Strong and Free defence policy allocated funding for underwater domain awareness projects. Two such projects are the Underwater Environmental Awareness (UEA) and Rapidly Deployable Fully Autonomous Sensors (RDFAS) projects, which aim to procure autonomous underwater vehicles and sensors to ensure domain awareness in Canada’s waters, as well as during expeditionary operations.
While it is essential for us to use these systems, we must also be able to counter their use by adversaries. Ultimately, we expect uncrewed systems to dominate the operational theatre in the next decade, necessitating the evolution of our systems to address threats in all domains – air, surface, sub-surface and land when our ships are alongside. Our current detection systems are designed for large, metallic, fast-moving objects. By contrast, uncrewed systems are often small, slow-moving and constructed from materials like plastic and cardboard, which can exploit detection gaps. To address this, we’ve developed a comprehensive strategy to protect our ships from these threats, from dockside to the operational theatre.
AG: The asymmetry of cost for some weapons is interesting. Missiles, torpedoes and ships are very expensive and yet, as we’ve seen in the Black Sea, an expensive ship can be taken out of action by an inexpensive jury-rigged uncrewed system. How can the RCN deal with the fact that they may end up using their limited supply of very expensive weaponry to counter thousand-dollar drones?
Commodore Armstrong: The RCN is acutely aware of the cost imbalance between uncrewed systems – cheap, plentiful and expendable – and its own traditional defence systems. While current defence systems will continue to play a role in naval warfare, the RCN must address the obvious vulnerabilities that these inexpensive systems exploit. In cooperation with allies, we are exploring ways to augment our defence systems to ensure that the cost of defending our ships remains proportional to the cost that our adversaries face in attacking them.
We have explored low-cost missiles and munitions, electromagnetic attacks (eg., jamming to disarm approaching systems), and are collaborating with our allies on technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons, including High Energy Lasers and High-Powered Microwave systems. The advancements being made by industry in this area are very promising, and we are working closely with our industry partners to address and close this cost imbalance.
AG: Was the RCN involved in the September 2024 Robotic Experimentation and Prototyping Using Maritime Uncrewed Systems (REPMUS) exercise?
Commodore Armstrong: The RCN has been involved in organizing and executing REPMUS since its inception. REPMUS is the primary robotic experimentation event run by NATO’s Joint Capability Group Maritime Uncrewed Systems (JCGMUS), of which Canada is a member. It is an annual event that brings together military and commercial interests for joint experimentation and tactics development. The RCN contributes a staff officer who provides support to exercise staff and collaborates with participating Canadian companies and organizations to ensure Canada’s experimentation goals are met. During REPMUS 2024, two Canadian companies – Kraken Robotics and Jasco Systems – brought developmental systems to the exercise to test physical capabilities, refine operating parameters and enhance system interoperability.
…
To read the full interview go to Vol. 20, No. 3 at https://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol20num3/cnr_vol20_3_Armstrong.pdf
Image: A photo of Commodore Jason Armstrong, speaking at an industry event in 2024. Credit: RCN
6 thoughts on “Interview with Commodore Jason Armstrong, Director General Naval Force Development”
This is a wide-ranging and very interesting Interview, and it is instructive for what is said and what is not said. While it is clear that the Interview was conducted before Trump was elected, and well before the recent series of contemptuous actions, I think a couple of points are worth underscoring.
First and foremost, the US is now establishing itself as Canada’s pre-eminent enemy, and our government needs to respond accordingly. Canadians can no longer fool themselves that Trump is not intending to de-stabilize our economy to the point, as he recently stated, that we are no longer a viable country. The US covets our strategic minerals and metals, and no doubt our fresh water as well. We can no longer pretend that this too shall pass and that we can simply wait out the current administration. The US is coming for us with a vengeance.
Second, while the blame for our current state of unpreparedness, both economically and militarily, lies with our own governments, in the maritime realm, Canada has a woefully inadequate fleet, one that as Commodore Armstrong notes will rely on our ageing Halifax-class frigates for many years to come.
Third, the government appears to have no plans to fast-track any additional Tier-2 warships to fill the RCN’s yawning capability gaps in the near term. Perhaps the government should abandon its naval re-capitalization plans, except perhaps for trying to acquire submarines, rather than surface warships, as quickly as possible. If a submarine deal is not possible, then the funds slated for warships could be better spent on land and air force augmentation – preferably NOT those using US systems.
Finally, Canada cannot be held hostage to capricious presidential actions taken against Foreign Military Sales and related security clearances and the like. Put any such procurement projects on indefinite hold, and let the president enjoy breakfasting with the irate CEOs of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Atomics and the like who want their cake and eat it too. Canada cannot rely on special carve-outs, exemptions and the like from a president who does not keep his own word.
If Canada cannot escape these de-stabilizing tariffs and other such measures aimed at our national unity, then let us accept this new reality. Trump wants a big stage and constant attention. Deny him both. No more useless appeasement efforts or even counter-productive retaliatory measures. Our governments, along with refusing to accept the credentials of the new US Ambassador to Canada, should refuse to negotiate any so-called trade deals or vaguely defined future undertakings – no freebie “deals” or “wins” to salve Trump’s expansive ego.
We should not fraternize with an enemy that has no respect for legal boundaries, existing agreements, and the rule of law.
Old timers will respond that all the foregoing is an over-reaction and eventually Canada-US relations will return to normal. However, this US attitude towards Canada has been slowly developing for decades – again, we bear most of the responsibility – but many commentators think something fundamentally different is underway now. There is little we can do, but we should try to focus our efforts, especially in the military sphere, where they can do most good in the short-term. Our major hope is that Trump has only a short political window of 1-2 years in which spew his brand of chaos; will that be enough time for Canada to get by?
Good morning Dan,
Well said!!
I may not agree with some of the tactics you suggest (notably the avoidance of counter-tariffs), but I agree fully with your broad points.
We need to focus on SSKs rather than large, open-ocean warships while beefing up the army’s home defence capabilities.
Ubique,
Les
I would agree to maintain the intent to purchase submarines; the intent right now is to use US military hardware and weapons from the Victoria Class. No we should also be building the CSC and nothing has changed in that regard unless we want to further delay the build. As for the army we should be rearming, but rearming to prevent some notion of the US forcibly annexing Canada is so far out there it’s laughable. I’m not sure if you mean that or not but a larger military is in order nevertheless. If it comes to pass that we end up getting a larger military and we maintain it, then the US has done us a favour as we should have always had a more robust military instead of relying on others.
Good afternoon Ted,
Thank you for your comment.
With regard to you finding part of my post laughable, I would simply point out that Canada’s world was flipped on its head on 5 Nov 24. It just took us (and everyone else) a while to realize how big a change had occurred. For the first time since the 19th Century we face a state whose stated goal is the destruction of our country and its (unwilling) annexation, probably as a territory in order not to disadvantage the MAGA Party in the Electoral College and Congress.
It is unlikely that this imperial impulse will disappear in the next 4, 8, or 12 years. As Paul Kennedy argued, “(g)reat powers in relative decline instinctively … (spend) more on “security,” and thereby divert potential resources from “investment” …” I believe that the USA is displaying some of this attitude. Conquering Canada would allow Trump to use America’s expensive military power to obtain additional resources and “security” cheaply and avoid addressing his country’s real problems.
Such a context requires us to eschew the previous defence verities and make a paradigm shift in our national strategy. I believe that we must adopt one of total national defence, such as Sweden had when it was neutral, but without the neutrality and conscription.
I envision the resultant armed forces being composed of a high-tech regular/standing component that is able to meet our alliance and expeditionary goals and a heavily-reserve force that is able to make an invader’s life costly and insecure. The dissuasive benefits of such a strategy, if publicly articulated and supported with ample resources, could very well allow us to live in peace. One has but to consider how the Nazis stayed out of Sweden and Switzerland in World War 2 to understand the benefits of such a strategy.
Clearly, going head to head against invading Americans in high-tech conventional battles in the event of dissuasion failing would be suicidal (and laughable). Instead, we would need to use the standing forces as a “tripwire” to force the Americans to cross the psychological barrier and start shooting and then very quickly transition to asymmetric warfare.
As part of such a strategy, the RCN would not require 15 River-class DDGHs. It would only need a certain quantity for the expeditionary, alliance, and “tripwire” roles. The rest of the navy’s funding and efforts should be invested in SSKs and perhaps raiding forces, which would NOT employ the large and expensive LPAs for which I have previously argued.
This new strategy would also require us to move away from American equipment and software in order to avoid seeing our defence forces hamstrung by withheld parts and ammunition and virus-infected software.
I do agree fully with you that we need to spend much more on our defence. We must, however, spend in consequence of our new reality and not that which was only three months ago.
Ubique,
Les
Do you have any idea the disruption and cost halting our military procurements from the US would cause Canada? The CSC would be years delayed, the P3 which we now have crews training for with the RAF would cost us years. Procurements of SM3’s and everything else US would degrade our military further. It is not just a simple matter of getting new suppliers. Do you want us pulling out of NORAD or any other miliary co-operation with the US? Do want us to pull all our imbedded personnel from US missions? Do you want to expel US personnel from Canada? Do you want to stop joint operations to the North or warship visits to US ports? Where does it stop?
Some US allies like Saudi Arabia, Japan and others get it by investing significant resources in the US economy and buy massive amounts of military equipment, guess what? They do not have tariffs levied against them. Just recently Japan signed a natural gas deal with the US when several years before Japan approached us and our PM said there wasn’t a business case.
We knew Trump was coming to power and how erratic he was, and we did nothing. The last 8 years the Trudeau government made fun of Trump and his government and now, we are reaping the whirlwind. What we should have been doing is strengthening our border and strengthening our military. We had a weak governmental response in both those areas. Trump wants to see himself as a winner. What we should have done was ask for a massive rearming of the military from US sources to meet and exceed our 2% promise instead of kicking the can down the road and investing into the US economy. Trump sees that and moves on. Now we have a government officials and leaders calling on shutting off strategic minerals and energy from them and escalating the situation further. That will not end well for us. Years of inaction and living under the umbrella of US protection is finally coming home to roost.
Good afternoon Ted,
You argue for the status quo in spite of changed circumstances and seek to blame Trudeau for all that we now face.
I find that you are indulging in the wisdom of hindsight. Can you honestly say that you knew that Trump would: avoid legal sanctions for his crimes, win the 2024 election, and fixate on conquering Canada? If you actually foresaw all of this, I suspect that you are in a select group of one.
I believe that we should try to make the existing defence arrangements with the USA work as best we can while pursuing a new national strategy (see my earlier post). Our new geo-strategic situation requires us to be creative and stop doing the “same as last year” including for equipment. I do believe, though, that we should start building the first three River-class DDGHs.
Ubique,
Les