Canada Navy Canada Surface Combatant (CSC) Program

[oldcpu]

Yes, how many RMAs for each country is a "head-scratcher" you bet with all; LM and the SPY 7 (V1, V2, & V3) countries are keeping that fact "close to their vest".

On the topic of the number of RMA in the different SPY-7 radar variants ...

I note a user by the name "Milspec_1967" wrote in a German language forum ( German language reference: https://forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/showthread.php?tid=5492&pid=242434#pid242434 ) : "SPY-7(V)1 that will go on Canada's FSC uses 9 RMA's and SPY-7(V)2 that will go on Spain's F110 uses 12 RMA's." (Google translation)

That was partly corrected by user by handle "Ottone" ( German language reference: https://forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/showthread.php?tid=5492&pid=242472#pid242472 ) who stated: "Not correct: SPY-7(V) 3 comes on the Canadian River class and is the smallest variant, while SPY-7(V)1 was ordered by Japan and represents the largest maritime configuration." (Google translation)

I have no idea as to where user "Milspec_1967" obtained their numbers of RMA from. Given the names of the variant SPY-7 (v)1 was inaccurate in Milspec_1967's initial post (where v(3) added later noted as a correction by user Ottone), I don't know whether to believe such. Further no reference was provided.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

On the topic of the number of RMA in the different SPY-7 radar variants ...

I note a user by the name "Milspec_1967" wrote in a German language forum ( German language reference: https://forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/showthread.php?tid=5492&pid=242434#pid242434 ) : "SPY-7(V)1 that will go on Canada's FSC uses 9 RMA's and SPY-7(V)2 that will go on Spain's F110 uses 12 RMA's." (Google translation)

That was partly corrected by user by handle "Ottone" ( German language reference: https://forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/showthread.php?tid=5492&pid=242472#pid242472 ) who stated: "Not correct: SPY-7(V) 3 comes on the Canadian River class and is the smallest variant, while SPY-7(V)1 was ordered by Japan and represents the largest maritime configuration." (Google translation)

I have no idea as to where user "Milspec_1967" obtained their numbers of RMA from. Given the names of the variant SPY-7 (v)1 was inaccurate in Milspec_1967's initial post (where v(3) added later noted as a correction by user Ottone), I don't know whether to believe such. Further no reference was provided.

Hello "oldcpu". Don't know where "Milspec_1967" is getting his "unsubstantiated" info from, but if correct, it makes some sense as the CSC River Class Destroyers come on-stream. It was always about Canada's "destroyers" saving weight on the Integrated Mast of the River Class vs better ranges so that maybe the "trade-off" for Canada. Don't know what a SPY 7 RMA weighs but I'm sure not more than what the Mast can handle. 3 more RMAs for the River Class RMA "cluster" panels should be suitable to achieve ranges required. Perhaps Canada is also doing this to save $$ as well or perhaps more RMAs will be added in "Batch II" River Class Destroyers. He does not explain how many RMAs the Japanese Mogami Class Frigates (SPY 7 (V1=9 RMAs?) will have as well? We still really don't know how many RMAs the Canadian SP7 (V 3) will have?? Or perhaps his "theory" of "More RMAs= More power requirements has merit and Canada may need to upgrade it's Generators IOT handle More RMAs. Or perhaps LM has found a way to reduce the RMA numbers (technically) with less power O/P to over-come the RMA power "thingie". In My Opinion (IMO) I believe LM has found a way so that the SPY 7 can out-perform the Raytheon SPY 6 (V1) with fewer RMAs. In any case, I believe this is all "speculation" on Milspec_1967's part. We should know more on all this in the next coming months of 2025/2026. Cheers!

 

[oldcpu]

I have no idea as to where user "Milspec_1967" obtained their numbers of RMA from. Given the names of the variant SPY-7 (v)1 was inaccurate in Milspec_1967's initial post (where v(3) added later noted as a correction by user Ottone), I don't know whether to believe such. Further no reference was provided.

It turns out I was wrong here.

A reference was provided in that German language forum (or it was updated since I posted here, which is not likely) where it stated the Canadian SPY-7(v)3 will have 9 RMA (that reference incorrectly used (v)1 ) and the Spanish F-110 SPY-7(v)2 will have 12 RMA:

This is the reference in that German langauge forum (it references a Quora article - where I can not trace from where the Quora article obtained its information):

https://www.quora.com/AN-SPY-6-VS-AN-SPY-7-Which-radar-is-better-and-why-did-the-US-Navy-choose-AN-SPY-6/answer/JS-Squidley

https://www.quora.com/AN-SPY-6-VS-AN-SPY-7-Which-radar-is-better-and-why-did-the-US-Navy-choose-AN-SPY-6/answer/JS-Squidley

musingsonnavalmatters.quora.com

I did not scroll through that entire German language forum thread ( I use Google translate in Chrome browser). That German language thread is not only about SPY-7, but rather it is more related to Germany navy aspects. I believe SPY-7 discussed as those interested in the German navy are debating what might be best for their next air defence capable warship.

I don't know how many RMA the Japanese SPY-7(v)1 will have, but speculation is that it will be the largest SPY-7 installation, and hence could have a relatively large number of RMA compared to the Canadian and Spanish SPY-7 implementations.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

It turns out I was wrong here.

A reference was provided in that German language forum (or it was updated since I posted here, which is not likely) where it stated the Canadian SPY-7(v)3 will have 9 RMA (that reference incorrectly used (v)1 ) and the Spanish F-110 SPY-7(v)2 will have 12 RMA:

This is the reference in that German langauge forum (it references a Quora article - where I can not trace from where the Quora article obtained its information):

https://www.quora.com/AN-SPY-6-VS-AN-SPY-7-Which-radar-is-better-and-why-did-the-US-Navy-choose-AN-SPY-6/answer/JS-Squidley

https://www.quora.com/AN-SPY-6-VS-AN-SPY-7-Which-radar-is-better-and-why-did-the-US-Navy-choose-AN-SPY-6/answer/JS-Squidley

musingsonnavalmatters.quora.com

I did not scroll through that entire German language forum thread ( I use Google translate in Chrome browser). That German language thread is not only about SPY-7, but rather it is more related to Germany navy aspects. I believe SPY-7 discussed as those interested in the German navy are debating what might be best for their next air defence capable warship.

I don't know how many RMA the Japanese SPY-7(v)1 will have, but speculation is that it will be the largest SPY-7 installation, and hence could have a relatively large number of RMA compared to the Canadian and Spanish SPY-7 implementations.

Hello again, "oldcpu". Hmmmmm. It would appear that even in the Quora article that even they do not really state where their "speculations" that Raytheon's SPY 6 (V1) is a much superior AESA radar vs Lockheed Martin's SPY 7 (V1, V2, V3). Power is power I guess when it comes to radar RMAs but.... We Shall See!!!

 

[uçuyorum]

Hello, I remember that a different, civilian company was initially considered for the radars. So this has changed, then?

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Hello, I remember that a different, civilian company was initially considered for the radars. So this has changed, then?

No, as far as I am aware, the LM SPY 7 AESA Radar was always the one requested by the RCN. If you have other info, please explain?