Canada Navy Surface Combatant (CSC) Program

[oldcpu]

Some speculation here ...

Canada’s formal participation in the EU's Security Action For Europe (SAFE) program, effective as of February 14, 2026, has opened a new opportunity for Canadian defense industry involvement. Under the SAFE program, EU-backed low-interest loans are available to support the purchase and integration of European-origin military equipment.

For the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) River-Class (Canadian Surface Combatant) procurement, this agreement could provide tangible benefits. The program’s provisional application, triggered by the signing on February 14, opens a direct pathway for Canadian firms to potentially access financing for their work on European-sourced systems already planned for these vessels. They may also be eligible to provide parts for selective European SAFE procurement programs.

There are a couple European-origin systems, slated for the River-Class Destroyer, that could potentially benefit from SAFE financing. These are Leonardo’s 127mm naval gun, and 30mm Lionfish, all of which are European-made. If Leonardo products are chosen for the River-Class, Canadian industry could qualify for low-interest financing to assist with the integration, maintenance, and support of these systems. Canada could also potentially join larger procurements of these weapons from other participating SAFE countries

The 80% Canadian content implementation within the SAFE framework could also open up opportunities for Canadian firms to participate in other European defense projects, further extending the potential benefits.

If a future River Class Destroyer should decide to add MASS ECM (which I concede is a pit of a pet desire of mine), that too may potentially benefit from SAFE.

So this could be another aspect in our discussion of a Leonardo 127mm vs a BAE 5-inch, where the cost of integrating the Leonardo 127mm (and subsequent maintenance parts synergy and munitions procurement) could ultimately have further benefit from SAFE.

 

[Ted Barnes]

Some speculation here ...

Canada’s formal participation in the EU's Security Action For Europe (SAFE) program, effective as of February 14, 2026, has opened a new opportunity for Canadian defense industry involvement. Under the SAFE program, EU-backed low-interest loans are available to support the purchase and integration of European-origin military equipment.

For the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) River-Class (Canadian Surface Combatant) procurement, this agreement could provide tangible benefits. The program’s provisional application, triggered by the signing on February 14, opens a direct pathway for Canadian firms to potentially access financing for their work on European-sourced systems already planned for these vessels. They may also be eligible to provide parts for selective European SAFE procurement programs.

There are a couple European-origin systems, slated for the River-Class Destroyer, that could potentially benefit from SAFE financing. These are Leonardo’s 127mm naval gun, and 30mm Lionfish, all of which are European-made. If Leonardo products are chosen for the River-Class, Canadian industry could qualify for low-interest financing to assist with the integration, maintenance, and support of these systems. Canada could also potentially join larger procurements of these weapons from other participating SAFE countries

The 80% Canadian content implementation within the SAFE framework could also open up opportunities for Canadian firms to participate in other European defense projects, further extending the potential benefits.

If a future River Class Destroyer should decide to add MASS ECM (which I concede is a pit of a pet desire of mine), that too may potentially benefit from SAFE.

So this could be another aspect in our discussion of a Leonardo 127mm vs a BAE 5-inch, where the cost of integrating the Leonardo 127mm (and subsequent maintenance parts synergy and munitions procurement) could ultimately have further benefit from SAFE.

No, other than the main gun nothing should be changing.

 

[Ted Barnes]

Looks like one only one RAM launcher (21 missiles) vice the two.

 

[oldcpu]

No, other than the main gun nothing should be changing.

I speculate there will be differences between different River class batches and the later batches could have major differences compared to the initial batch.

 

[Ted Barnes]

A new model for the River Class. Note the changes.

• Vulcano and Lionfish are out, replaced by the Mk.45 gun and Mk.38 respectively
• The Leonardo suite (including NA-30S Mk.2) appears to be fully removed
• AN/SLQ-32(V)6 EW suite is now included
• RAM placement is finally confirmed – but only one launcher, not two
• ExLS is gone, confirming it’s no longer part of the design
• Still sitting at 24 VLS cells
• NSM placement has changed again
• New unidentified launcher system showing up on the model (still unclear what it is)

Overall, this model confirms a lot of what’s been expected over the past year—simplification, more standard NATO systems, and fewer experimental additions.


Still some mysteries, but we’re likely getting closer to the final configuration as the program moves toward CDR.

Picture and commentary courtesy of NOAH.

 

[oldcpu]

A new model for the River Class. Note the changes.

• Vulcano and Lionfish are out, replaced by the Mk.45 gun and Mk.38 respectively
• The Leonardo suite (including NA-30S Mk.2) appears to be fully removed
• AN/SLQ-32(V)6 EW suite is now included
• RAM placement is finally confirmed – but only one launcher, not two
• ExLS is gone, confirming it’s no longer part of the design
• Still sitting at 24 VLS cells
• NSM placement has changed again
• New unidentified launcher system showing up on the model (still unclear what it is)

Overall, this model confirms a lot of what’s been expected over the past year—simplification, more standard NATO systems, and fewer experimental additions.

The new model is definitely interesing, and as noted suggests there are indeed changes.

I note a model is just that - a model. Its degree of accuracy in depiction needs to be taken with some grains of salt. I believe more confirmation is appropriate to be certain, else we are still in the speculation stage.

The DND page for the River Class is very generic here: https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer.html

It simply states a 127mm (which could be the Mk45 gun) and it states a 30mm.

Nominally the Mk.38 is NOT a 30mm.

However ....

I read there is a new version of the Mk.38 weapons system (Mk38 Mod-4) which has a 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster II gun. So what NOAH suggests is credible, but confirmation is best..

For me, it also begs the question, ... what fire control would replace the NA-30S Mk2? Since we are speculating, possibly the AN/SPQ-9B associated with the Mk34 gun weapon system? Given the River Class plan to go with the AN/SPY-7 Aegis (instead of AN/SPY-6 with Aegis) I wonder if there will be development costs here (given AN/SPY-7 on River Class).

Also, i believe the 30mm Lionfish was capable of benefiting by the NA-30S Mk2 firecontrol radar. If instead, the Mk38 Mod4 30mm is chosen (instead of Lionfish), I speculate that the Mk38 Mod-4 30mm (which is a new Mk38 implementation) can benefit from the AN/SPQ-9B if chosen.

So that begs the question, if that model is accurate (and there is speculation there at present), is an AN/SPQ-9B to be used in place of a NA-30S Mk2 firecontrol radar?

Looking at the model, I am not comfortable on speculating further there.
.

 

[Ted Barnes]

The new model is definitely interesing, and as noted suggests there are indeed changes.

I note a model is just that - a model. Its degree of accuracy in depiction needs to be taken with some grains of salt. I believe more confirmation is appropriate to be certain, else we are still in the speculation stage.

The DND page for the River Class is very generic here: https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer.html

It simply states a 127mm (which could be the Mk45 gun) and it states a 30mm.

Nominally the Mk.38 is NOT a 30mm.

However ....

I read there is a new version of the Mk.38 weapons system (Mk38 Mod-4) which has a 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster II gun. So what NOAH suggests is credible, but confirmation is best..

For me, it also begs the question, ... what fire control would replace the NA-30S Mk2? Since we are speculating, possibly the AN/SPQ-9B associated with the Mk34 gun weapon system? Given the River Class plan to go with the AN/SPY-7 Aegis (instead of AN/SPY-6 with Aegis) I wonder if there will be development costs here (given AN/SPY-7 on River Class).

Also, i believe the 30mm Lionfish was capable of benefiting by the NA-30S Mk2 firecontrol radar. If instead, the Mk38 Mod4 30mm is chosen (instead of Lionfish), I speculate that the Mk38 Mod-4 30mm (which is a new Mk38 implementation) can benefit from the AN/SPQ-9B if chosen.

So that begs the question, if that model is accurate (and there is speculation there at present), is an AN/SPQ-9B to be used in place of a NA-30S Mk2 firecontrol radar?

Looking at the model, I am not comfortable on speculating further there.
.

That's right I'm sure the model is wrong, especially the guns and the single RAM......

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

That's right I'm sure the model is wrong, especially the guns and the single RAM......

Ted so far you seem to be wrong on just about everything concerning this RCD Model. How can we even tell how "recent" this Model is? It could possibly be an older one that may have been "altered by AI for "effect". I have never seen this Model before. Are you just speculating here? Until we have some confirmation here, I am in "oldcpu's" corner!

 

[Ted Barnes]

Ted so far you seem to be wrong on just about everything concerning this RCD Model. How can we even tell how "recent" this Model is? It could possibly be an older one that may have been "altered by AI for "effect". I have never seen this Model before. Are you just speculating here? Until we have some confirmation here, I am in "oldcpu's" corner!

You are delusional if you think this AI. This updated model was unveiled several days ago in Calgary at the LM/DND booth at DEFSEC West 2026 (Mar 24–26).

 

[Ted Barnes]

AI Indeed.

"Yesterday, the Deputy Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, Rear-Admiral Charlebois, and the Director of Naval Major Crown Projects – Combatant, Capt(N) Tremblay, unveiled a detailed scale model of the River-class destroyer. This impressive display offers a closer look at what’s ahead for Canada’s fleet and helps build awareness around this important shipbuilding project. The first River class is currently under construction and expected to be delivered in the mid-2030s."

 

[Ted Barnes]

Taken from Navy lookout Page and a great analysis. of the changes. A lot of these changes were decided on several years ago.

The latest model of the future River-class Destroyer (RCD), based on the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigate design, was displayed to the public by the Royal Canadian Navy yesterday. Here we look briefly at the discernible changes since the last version in 2024.

This is not an exhaustive analysis, simply what can be observed from the model. The design has not been radically changed, but there have been significant changes to the equipment fit. External changes merely reflect much more complex cost and technical trade-offs being made alongside detailed internal design work.

The medium-calibre gun has been changed from Leonardo’s 127 mm gun (capable of firing Vulcano ammunition) and is replaced by the BAE Systems Inc. 5-inch (127 mm) Mk 45 gun. The ubiquitous Mk 45 equips the Type 26 and Hunter-class, as well as benefiting from broad commonality across NATO. The integration work between this weapon and the platform has already been completed and an example is already in place on board HMS Glasgow, including the automated munitions handling system. The Mk 45 is lighter than the Italian gun, saving topweight, so this change makes a lot of sense from a cost, commonality and technical perspective.

The missile silo behind the funnel has been deleted. It was decided not to have the ExLS system for Sea Ceptor missiles some time ago, but there was speculation that the silo could have been retained for other missiles. The latest iteration shows the ship has just 24 Mk41 cells in (3 x 8-cell silos), although there is space for at least one more 8-cell silo if the RCN decides at a later date to add more firepower. The RCD is primarily an anti-submarine vessel with less emphasis on air defence than the Australian-Hunter class.

The position of the single RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher has been determined – on the port side aft on a plinth with a firing arc. Unlike the Type 26 with its separate communications mast, the River-class have a single integrated mast, making for clearer weapon arcs. The Naval Strike Missile launchers, which were previously arranged symmetrically behind the funnel, firing forward, have been moved to the starboard side and oriented athwartships, possibly to keep them clear of the RAM efflux.

The Leonardo Lionfish 30mm mounts have been replaced by the British-made MSI-DS Mk 38 Mod 4 30mm cannon, also selected by the US Navy. The Nulka EW decoy launchers just ahead of the funnel amidships are shown prominently, probably six sets of twin launchers. The mainmast appears largely unchanged, but the fire control radar for the main gun at the foot of the mast has been replaced with what appears to be a rotating radar in a circular enclosure.

Running behind the UK Type 26 and Australian Hunter projects, the programme will benefit from some of the experience gained during their design and construction. This is especially true for the initial phases, as the hull and propulsion systems are the areas with the least modifications between the 3 variants. If there are concerns about the RCD programme, they stem from the relative weakness of the Canadian warship-building industry and the ship’s price tag within a very constrained defence budget.

First steel was cut for the lead ship, HMCS Fraser, in April 2025 at Irving Shipbuilding, marking the start of full-rate production. She is due for delivery in the early 2030s. The RCD is a major undertaking, expected to comprise up to 15 ships, with the last in service by 2050.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Taken from Navy lookout Page and a great analysis. of the changes. A lot of these changes were decided on several years ago.

The latest model of the future River-class Destroyer (RCD), based on the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigate design, was displayed to the public by the Royal Canadian Navy yesterday. Here we look briefly at the discernible changes since the last version in 2024.

This is not an exhaustive analysis, simply what can be observed from the model. The design has not been radically changed, but there have been significant changes to the equipment fit. External changes merely reflect much more complex cost and technical trade-offs being made alongside detailed internal design work.

The medium-calibre gun has been changed from Leonardo’s 127 mm gun (capable of firing Vulcano ammunition) and is replaced by the BAE Systems Inc. 5-inch (127 mm) Mk 45 gun. The ubiquitous Mk 45 equips the Type 26 and Hunter-class, as well as benefiting from broad commonality across NATO. The integration work between this weapon and the platform has already been completed and an example is already in place on board HMS Glasgow, including the automated munitions handling system. The Mk 45 is lighter than the Italian gun, saving topweight, so this change makes a lot of sense from a cost, commonality and technical perspective.

The missile silo behind the funnel has been deleted. It was decided not to have the ExLS system for Sea Ceptor missiles some time ago, but there was speculation that the silo could have been retained for other missiles. The latest iteration shows the ship has just 24 Mk41 cells in (3 x 8-cell silos), although there is space for at least one more 8-cell silo if the RCN decides at a later date to add more firepower. The RCD is primarily an anti-submarine vessel with less emphasis on air defence than the Australian-Hunter class.

The position of the single RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher has been determined – on the port side aft on a plinth with a firing arc. Unlike the Type 26 with its separate communications mast, the River-class have a single integrated mast, making for clearer weapon arcs. The Naval Strike Missile launchers, which were previously arranged symmetrically behind the funnel, firing forward, have been moved to the starboard side and oriented athwartships, possibly to keep them clear of the RAM efflux.

The Leonardo Lionfish 30mm mounts have been replaced by the British-made MSI-DS Mk 38 Mod 4 30mm cannon, also selected by the US Navy. The Nulka EW decoy launchers just ahead of the funnel amidships are shown prominently, probably six sets of twin launchers. The mainmast appears largely unchanged, but the fire control radar for the main gun at the foot of the mast has been replaced with what appears to be a rotating radar in a circular enclosure.

Running behind the UK Type 26 and Australian Hunter projects, the programme will benefit from some of the experience gained during their design and construction. This is especially true for the initial phases, as the hull and propulsion systems are the areas with the least modifications between the 3 variants. If there are concerns about the RCD programme, they stem from the relative weakness of the Canadian warship-building industry and the ship’s price tag within a very constrained defence budget.

First steel was cut for the lead ship, HMCS Fraser, in April 2025 at Irving Shipbuilding, marking the start of full-rate production. She is due for delivery in the early 2030s. The RCD is a major undertaking, expected to comprise up to 15 ships, with the last in service by 2050.



View attachment 79646

Thanks for that info Ted. My only question is: if this new model update was made public several days ago in Calgary at the LM/DND booth at DEFSEC West 2026 from LM & DND, why not just share that info with all Defence Hub Forum members or is a "Public Forum" a national secret as well?

 

[Ted Barnes]

Thanks for that info Ted. My only question is: if this new model update was made public several days ago in Calgary at the LM/DND booth at DEFSEC West 2026 from LM & DND, why not just share that info with all Defence Hub Forum members or is a "Public Forum" a national secret as well?

I knew about certain aspects of this several months ago which I alluded to in some posts. All I got was I don't believe you. This model "reveal" was literally all over the internet. Its not my problem that you and oldpcu are so uninformed. I don't need to back up anything I say here. Its up to the reader to choose to believe me or not.

 

[oldcpu]

I knew about certain aspects of this several months ago which I alluded to in some posts. All I got was I don't believe you. This model "reveal" was literally all over the internet. Its not my problem that you and oldpcu are so uninformed. I don't need to back up anything I say here. Its up to the reader to choose to believe me or not.

I think it fair to say we are all curious as to the ultimate fit of the 1st (and subsequent) batches of the River Class Destroyer.

Most of us only have unclassified sources to rely on and not some 'contact' in DND nor in Industry. At least no contacts any more (after many decades having passed).

Hence I think it fair to say we are most interested in your view (and the view of others) with no need to put anyone down.

I have always adopted the approach, that without solid references - then its difficult to do more than speculate - and when possible changes are raised - also assess the impact/reasons why such changes (not yet released in the unclassified press) are being suggested by some as a fait accompli.

I personally still would like to see more than just a 'model' as 'proof'.

I am not saying such is wrong ... but I recall my time in the military many decades back, and I recall that a general approximation (for unclassified sources) was all that was considered necessary by 'military management' for a lot of information to be released (with multiple interpretations possible). If the exact equipment/details had not been officially released in an industry nor DND press release, then the model need not be 100% accurate so to distinguish between different possibilities.

That was decades ago - perhaps things have changed.

Still - as noted, it is interesting to read of such possibilities, and assess/consider the reasons.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

I knew about certain aspects of this several months ago which I alluded to in some posts. All I got was I don't believe you. This model "reveal" was literally all over the internet. Its not my problem that you and oldpcu are so uninformed. I don't need to back up anything I say here. Its up to the reader to choose to believe me or not.

Unfortunately Ted, all any one of us have to go by is what is released "publically". With your permission, I will release this latest Model info to the Canadian Naval Review (CNR) Forum members as well. Cheers!

 

[oldcpu]

I personally still would like to see more than just a 'model' as 'proof'.

I think I found my "proof" (or rather - an independent source of information).

I note the following US document that appears to confirm the change of the 127mm gun (date 23-Dec-2025 in a Report Delivered to USA Congress) :

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2026)

Transmittal No. 25-1O

Report of Enhancement or Upgrade of Sensitivity of Technology or Capability (Sec. 36(b)(5)(C), AECA)
(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Canada.
(ii) Sec. 36(b)(1), AECA Transmittal No.: 21-17; Date: May 10, 2021; Implementing Agency: Navy.
(iii) Description: On May 10, 2021, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 21-17 of the possible sale, under Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, of
- four (4) Shipsets of the AEGIS Combat System (ACS);
- one (1) AEGIS Combat System Computer Program;
- four (4) Shipsets of AN/SPY-7 Solid State Radar Components;
- four (4) Shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC); and
- three (3) Shipsets of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System.

Also included were Mode 5/S capable Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment; early ACS development activities for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project to include U.S Government and contractor representative engineering activities supporting design, integration, testing, technical documentation, modeling, and training; hardware to support development and testing in U.S. facilities; software; documentation (including combat system capabilities and limitations); training devices and services; technical support; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost was $1.7 billion. Major Defense Equipment (MDE) constituted $0.7 billion of this total.

On August 10, 2022, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 0L-22 of the inclusion of the following MDE items:

- four (4) shipsets of Global Positioning System Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Service (GPNTS). The estimated total value of the MDE items was $8 million, but did not cause an increase in the total estimated program cost. The estimated total case value remained $1.7 billion with MDE remaining $0.7 billion of this total.

On October 4, 2024, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 24-0L of the inclusion of the following MDE items:
- four (4) of AN/WSN-12 Inertial Navigation System (INS);
- two (2) Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS);
- five (5) Multifunction Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS JTRS) (4 installed, 1 test asset);
- four (4) MIDS On Ship Modernized (MOS Mod);
- two (2) Command and Control Processor (C2P); and
- four (4) AN/SLQ-32(v)6 Electronic Warfare System (EWS).

The following non-MDE items was also included: Global Command and Control System--Maritime (GCCS--Ms), AN/WSN-7 INS; and MK-331 Torpedo Setting Panel (TSPs). The estimated total case value was $2.6 billion. MDE remained as $0.7 billion of this total.

This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items:
- four (4) Next Generation Surface Search Radars;
- four (4) Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Missile Launcher Systems;
- four (4) Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optic Infrared (SPEIR) systems;
- three (3) MK-45 5-inch gun mounts; and
- five (5) command and control processors.

The following non-MDE items will also be included: MK-34 Gun Weapon Systems. The estimated total value of the new items is $1.3 billion. The estimated total cost of the new MDE items will increase by $500 million to a revised $1.2 billion. The estimated total cost of the new non-MDE items will increase by $800 million to a revised $2.7 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $1.3 billion to a revised $3.9 billion.

(iv) Significance: This MDE was not included in the previous notification. The inclusion of this MDE represents an increase in capability over what was previously notified.

The proposed articles and services will increase Canada's capability to meet current and future threats by incorporating tactical components integrated in the Aegis Combat System and currently fielding in the U.S. Navy.

(v) Justification: This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the military capability of Canada, a NATO Ally that is an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress, and a contributor to military, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations around the world.

(vi) This capability will protect Canada by enabling it to neutralize and destroy adversary threats, improving Canada's contribution to collective hemispheric defense and to defense and deterrence in Europe, as directed by NATO's defense plans. Canada will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:
- Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) is the U.S. Navy's multi-mission navigation, surface search and periscope detection radar replacing multiple legacy surface radar systems.
- Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) MK-31 Guided Missile Weapon System, including the Guided Missile Launcher System (GMLS), supports all variants of the RAM all-up-round for launch support and integration to multiple combat system configurations, providing terminal shipboard air defense on surface combatants.
- Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optic Infrared (SPEIR) is an electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) system on surface ships that provides persistent detection and tracking of a wide variety of air and surface targets in support of multi-mission surface ship operations and defense.
- The MK-45 gun mount is a fully automatic gun firing a 5- inch shell. It is the U.S. Navy's primary anti-surface gunnery capability also used for anti-air warfare as part of layered defense. It is controlled by the MK-160 Gun Computing System (GCS).
- The command and control processor is a shipboard system that provides real-time control and management of Tactical Digital Information Links (TADILs) through interfaces with the host combat system and tactical data link terminals. TADILs include Link-16, Link-22, Satellite TADIL J, and Joint Range Extension.
- The MK-34 Gun Weapon System is comprised of the MK-45 gun mount, MK-160 GCS, and MK-20 EO/IR gun sight system (EOSS). The system supports anti-air and antisurface warfare and Naval Gunfire Support through the use of 5-inch rounds and integration to the combat system.

The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to additional items mentioned. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: December 23, 2025.

 

[oldcpu]

I note the following US document that appears to confirm the change of the 127mm gun (date 23-Dec-2025 in a Report Delivered to USA Congress) :

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2026)

Transmittal No. 25-1O

... snipped ...

This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items:
... snipped ...
- four (4) Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optic Infrared (SPEIR) systems;
... snipped ...

(iv) Significance: This MDE was not included in the previous notification. The inclusion of this MDE represents an increase in capability over what was previously notified.
... snipped
- Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optic Infrared (SPEIR) is an electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) system on surface ships that provides persistent detection and tracking of a wide variety of air and surface targets in support of multi-mission surface ship operations and defense.
... snipped ...
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to additional items mentioned. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: December 23, 2025.

I found it interesting to read SPEIR is to be procured ( according to what is being sent to US congress).

Here is a L3Harris marking brochure on SPEIR: https://www.l3harris.com/sites/default/files/2025-07/L3Harris-SPEIR-SPATIAL-sell-sheet-hr.pdf

From that: The Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optic Infrared (SPEIR) system offers a cutting-edge 360-degree EO/IR electronic support capability for surface ships. SPEIR passively detects and tracks threats across multiple domains, continuously monitoring the battlespace to provide early warning to the warfighter. SPEIR provides enhanced ship lethality and survivability, making it an essential asset in modern naval warfare.

 

[oldcpu]

Out of curiousity, I was comparing L3 Harris marketing PDFs for both the L3 Harris M2534 EOSS and the L3 Harris Mk20 (which is extensively used in the USN), and the descriptive 'specifications' are almost identical.

I also speculate that there is likely an existing interface for the Mk20 EOSS to Aegis,
... snipped ....

No change here in my view. I believe we need to simply wait to see if any announcements come out after the final CDR for the River Class.

Further to the above, I note again this Congressional record; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2026-01-06/html/CREC-2026-01-06-pt1-PgS39-2.htm

where it states (in the context of that Congressional record noting FMS to Canada for the Canadian Surface Combatant):

The MK-34 Gun Weapon System is comprised of the MK-45 gun mount, MK-160 GCS, and MK-20 EO/IR gun sight system (EOSS)

What leads me to believe the RCN is planning to procure the Mk-20 EO/IR EOSS , which presumably already has an AEGIS interface, and also likely integrates to SPEIR.