Canada SPY 7 vs RMAs for the CSC River Class Destroyer

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC)

SPY-7 vs RMAs for the CSC River Class Destroyer:

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 CSC River Class Destroyers uses 9 RMA's and SPY-7(V)2 that will go on Spain's F110 Class uses 12 RMA's." (Google translation)

That was partly corrected by user by the 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 his numbers of RMAs from. Given the names of the variant SPY-7 (v)1 was inaccurate in Milspec_1967's initial post (where (V3) that was added later noted as a correction by user Ottone), I don't know whether to believe such. Further, no references were provided at all!! So, I would take all of this, with a strong "grain of salt" with regard to RMA numbers for each SPY 7 variant (Japanese Mogami Class, Spanish F-110 Class & the CSC River Class Destroyers).

DID CANADA CHOOSE THE WRONG AESA RADAR?
On another note: on the website "Quora" (see below), it has been reported (with very little substantiation, I might add) that the Raytheon SPY 6 (V1) AESA radar was far and away a superior radar vs Lockheed Martin's (LMs) SPY 7 (V1). This seems to be two rival companies trying to upstage each other to obtain a contract for the German 127 Frigates AESA radar to be built. Did Canada buy the wrong radar? If indeed the SPY 7 (V3) first three (Batch I) CSC River Class Destroyers will have 9 RMAs, (Batch II) CSC River Class Destroyers may have more (at least as many as the Japanese SPY 7 (V 1). I still believe the RCN got a much better deal with the LM SPY 7 (V3/V1) vs the Raytheon SPY 6 (V 1).

https://musingsonnavalmatters.quora.com/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-Squid#:~:text=%C2%B7%20Jan%2030-,AN%2FSPY%2D6%20VS%20AN%2FSPY%2D7%20Which,)%2C%20competing%20companies%20at%20that

 

[oldcpu]

... partly corrected by user by the 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 would take all of this, with a strong "grain of salt" with regard to RMA numbers for each SPY 7 variant (Japanese Mogami Class, Spanish F-110 Class & the CSC River Class Destroyers).

In a December 2023 article, Naval News purportedly reported that Japan’s ASEV would likely use a rotating SPY-7 configuration rather than fixed-face arrays. I have not seen that article, and I suspect that is speculation at this stage (still ??? ) .

I note it purportedly states the ASEV and not the Japanese Mogami Class. Rather Mogami class are anticipated to have a different air search radar (possibly the OPY-2 AESA radar - according to a wiki article - although I wonder if that wik article is also inaccurate and the Mogami class airsearch a different radar entirel).

There is some confusion there - I for one don't know which is accurate.

Further, I was also told that Janes Defence has covered Japan’s ASEV program extensively, where purportedly it noted that the SPY-7(V)1 for Japan could be adapted for rotational operation. I have not seen the article myself.

Following on that, I read that Defense News & Janes (2023–2024) purportedly reports that Canada’s SPY-7(V)3 is a four-face system, distinct from the three-face (V)2 used by the U.S. Navy. I have not seen this article myself. So if accurate I then speculate that Canada's River Class SPY-7(V)3 may have four fixed faces with 9 x RMA each (total ~36 RMA). Obviously - speculation by me.

There is also speculation that Spain's F-110 SPY-7(V)2 has 3 fixed faces, which if accurate could mean 12 x RMA each, possibly totaling ~36 RMA.

In the case of Japan's ASEV, if rotating, that could mean that even less a number are needed for Japan's ASEV. Obviously - speculation. But it brings into question the earlier assertations that I read (and I copied) that the SPY-7(V)1 ordered by Japan will represents the largest maritime configuration. Perhaps it won't be.

This will be interesting to watch as more information is forthcoming.

It is difficult to be accurate on this subject, when relying on different internet sources.