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?

 

[oldcpu]

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

I recall reading MacDonald Dettwiller are to provide a (x-band) target illuminator, but it is not clear to me how (if at all) that integrates to the AN/SPY-7(v)3. I have not looked at this in any detail.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

I recall reading MacDonald Dettwiller are to provide a (x-band) target illuminator, but it is not clear to me how (if at all) that integrates to the AN/SPY-7(v)3. I have not looked at this in any detail.

Hello uçuyorum. Yes, you are quite right. That was the "plan" in the beginning, however, that was before we really "got to know" Lockheed Martin's SPY 7 characteristics and what it could actually do as an AESA radar having a "built in" TI so, no need for a separate X Band Target Illuminator for the SPY 7 (V3).

 

[oldcpu]

The Trident news (online) has an article on a test facility build in support of the River Class Destroyer:

River Class Destroyer Land-Based Testing Facility | Trident Newspaper

The Department of National Defence (DND) is building a Land-Based Testing Facility on a portion of DND-owned land at Hartlen Point in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia. Frequently Asked Questions ↓ Public Update (January 9, 2025) Community Information Bulletin Construction timeline update...

tridentnewspaper.com

River Class Destroyer Land-Based Testing Facility

The Department of National Defence (DND) is building a Land-Based Testing Facility on a portion of DND-owned land at Hartlen Point in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia.

Construction timeline update

Construction of the River Class Destroyer Land-Based Testing Facility (LBTF) will now take place at Hartlen Point in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia, between summer 2025 and fall 2027. This includes building the facility and supporting infrastructure such as security fencing, parking lot, roads, and utilities. See the most recent rendering of the LBTF below (Figure 1) for reference. Although construction is expected to be complete by fall 2027, timing is subject to change based on the progress of the design and construction processes. Updates will continue to be provided as new information is available.

The article is fairly long, so I won't copy and paste it all here.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

The Trident news (online) has an article on a test facility build in support of the River Class Destroyer:

River Class Destroyer Land-Based Testing Facility | Trident Newspaper

The Department of National Defence (DND) is building a Land-Based Testing Facility on a portion of DND-owned land at Hartlen Point in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia. Frequently Asked Questions ↓ Public Update (January 9, 2025) Community Information Bulletin Construction timeline update...

tridentnewspaper.com

River Class Destroyer Land-Based Testing Facility

The Department of National Defence (DND) is building a Land-Based Testing Facility on a portion of DND-owned land at Hartlen Point in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia.

Construction timeline update

Construction of the River Class Destroyer Land-Based Testing Facility (LBTF) will now take place at Hartlen Point in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia, between summer 2025 and fall 2027. This includes building the facility and supporting infrastructure such as security fencing, parking lot, roads, and utilities. See the most recent rendering of the LBTF below (Figure 1) for reference. Although construction is expected to be complete by fall 2027, timing is subject to change based on the progress of the design and construction processes. Updates will continue to be provided as new information is available.

The article is fairly long, so I won't copy and paste it all here.

Hello "oldcpu". Yes, the LBTF is coming along much faster than our CSC River Class Destroyer build!!

 

[oldcpu]

Lockheed Martin awarded contract for Canadian Navy AEGIS warships

From 17-January-2025, in case any missed this:

Contracts for January 17, 2025

Today's Defense Department contracts valued at $7.5 million or more are now live on Defense.gov.

www.defense.gov

Lockheed Martin, Rotary and Mission Systems, Moorestown, New Jersey, is awarded a $280,418,928 cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and cost type modification to previously awarded contract N00024-23-C-5101 for combat systems engineering efforts of the planned modernization and new combat system capabilities selection for international partner Canadian Royal Navy ships operating AEGIS.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey and is expected to be completed by January 2028. Foreign Military Sales (Canada) (100%) funds in the amount of $126,174,827 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

- - -

This is different from the original $63,820.154 contract to Lockheed Martin (18-Sep-2023):

Contracts for September 18, 2023

Today's Defense Department contracts valued at $7.5 million or more are now live on Defense.gov.

www.defense.gov

Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, Moorestown, New Jersey, is awarded a $63,820,154 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for establishment of the AEGIS Canadian Surface Combatant land-based test site in New Jersey. This contract involves Foreign Military Sales to the Royal Canadian Navy. Work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey (93%); Clearwater, Florida (3%); Orlando, Florida, (3%); and Owego, New York (1%), and is expected to be completed by November 2026. Foreign Military Sales (Canada) funds in the amount of $63,820,154 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10.U.S. Code 3204 (a)(4) (International Agreement). Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-23-C-5101).

 

[oldcpu]

Out of curiousity, I took a look at the US Department of Defense contract site for aspects that could be River Class destroyer related. Here is a somewhat 'obscure' one I stumbled across (13-May-2024):

Contracts for May 13, 2024

Today's Defense Department contracts valued at $7.5 million or more are now live on Defense.gov.

www.defense.gov

DRS Laurel Technologies, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, is awarded a $23,802,296 firm-fixed-price modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-17-C-4109) to exercise options for Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplexing System production shipsets in support of DDG 51 New Construction, land-based test sites for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Royal Australian Navy and the Canadian Surface Combatant programs, and input output modules in support of planned software upgrades to core 2022; a software and firmware update that addresses system bugs and resolves numerous cybersecurity issues.

Work will be performed in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and is anticipated to be completed by August 2025. Fiscal 2023 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funds in the amount of $16,426,770 (69%); FMS funds in the amount of $4,752,610 (20%); fiscal 2013 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funds in the amount of $2,090,434 (9%); fiscal 2024 other procurement, (Navy) funds in the amount of $301,708 (1%); and fiscal 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funds in the amount of $230,774 (1%) will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., is the contracting activity.

= = =


Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplexing System (GEDMS) ? Possibly some sort of secure LAN on the warships?

So I surfed on that, and found this article:

Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplex System (GEDMS) installed on Navy destroyer for shipboard networking

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif., 27 Oct 2011. Engineers from the Argon ST subsidiary of the Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA) in Huntington Beach, Calif., have installed a Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplex...

www.militaryaerospace.com

I read this is to transfer data in a network that provides a reliable, redundant, mission-critical network backbone for surface warships. Purportedly GEDMS increases a surface ship's capacity to support data transfer for the upgraded hull, mechanical, and electrical systems. Claimed additional benefits include manpower reduction and increased crew safety by using video and sensors for monitoring of remote or confined spaces (according to Boeing officials).

 

[oldcpu]

As noted, out of curiousity, I took a look at the US Department of Defense contract site for aspects that could be River Class destroyer related. Here is another somewhat 'obscure' one I stumbled across (14-June-2024), where < my speculation > this could be for IFF (identification friend or foe):

Contracts for June 14, 2024

Today's Defense Department contracts valued at $7.5 million or more are now live on Defense.gov.

www.defense.gov

BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems, Nashua, New Hampshire, is awarded a $17,032,142 modification (P00002) to a firm-fixed-price contract (N0001923C0052). This modification exercises an option to provide for the production and delivery of eight OE-120/UPX antenna group systems (six for the Navy, and two for the government of Canada); four OE-120 retrofit kits for the Navy; and two OE-120 installation and checkout kits for the government of Canada. The antenna group supports a wide range of systems, including identification of friend or foe, secondary surveillance radar, and air traffic control radar.

I don't know if this is for the River Class, but when I surfed on "OE-120/UPX antenna" I stumbled across this:

Navy asks BAE Systems to build circular shipboard antennas for radar, IFF, and air traffic control systems

OE-120 is an electronically steerable antenna that shipboard operators can redirect within 50 microseconds to interrogate any target on the horizon.

www.militaryaerospace.com

OE-120 is an electronically steerable antenna that shipboard operators can redirect within 50 microseconds to interrogate any target on the horizon
...

The OE-120B antenna groups offer instantaneous multiple-target identification for use against today’s sophisticated air threats. It accommodates all standard IFF modes.

The antenna system adapts to land and sea applications to support a variety of mission environments, and its electronically steered system architecture offers increased reliability and reduced maintenance. Its array configuration allows for smooth performance degradation in the event of a failure.

The OE-120 electronically steerable antenna is suitable for the Navy's Ticonderoga-class cruiser (CG 47), the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG 51), the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship (LHD 1), the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock (LPD 17), aircraft carriers, and the Japanese Kongo-class destroyer (FMS DD 173) -- a version of the U.S. Burke-class destroyer.

This does not specifically mention the River Class Destroyer thou.