Canada Navy Surface Combatant (CSC) Program

[oldcpu]

A system like Raven needs to be used in conjunction with a chaff/IR system such as Rheinmetall MASS (deployable chaff/IR), where I note the River Class also does not have a system such as Rheimetall MASS planned, from what I have read. The River Class instead has adopted the very expensive, disposable Nulka approach, which while hopefully highly effective, also makes me think not sustainable for weeks in the type of scenario we observed in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden. One may run low on Nulka after some time, and that 'running low' could adversely affect command decisions.

I note Australia, with their Type-26 frigates (Hunter class) are planning to procure both Nulka and MASS Omnitrap (which has many different types of ECM munitions possible).

As I note in the above quote, I would like to see the RCN also procure a chaff dispensing system such as MASS, where chaff is relatively inexpensive.

Hence I read a recent article, which suggested the RCN may be procuring the LEED (Long Endurance Electronic Decoy) system for the River Class - where LEED is an USA under development (still ??? ) drone decoy ECM system (sort of like a long life Nulka). While Nulka only lasts for minutes, purportedly LEED is to intended stay airborne for a longer period of time, and LEED will communicate with the launching warship such that (presumably) its ECM transmissions can be varied and tuned even after launch. However LEED is disposable (not recoverable), from what I read - and assuming I have that correct, then I still believe chaff could be useful in a long duration conflict, as chaff is relatively inexpensive and a LOT of chaff can be carried on board.

A question i asked myself is would LEED replace Nulka ?? ... and my own view is that the two do have differences and both could be embarked. Nulka can be fired in seconds for immediate deployment upon missile homer detection, while I have not read anything yet that suggests LEED would also provide such an immediate deployment capability. Rather possibly < I am unsure > LEED may need to be deployed in advance of such missile detection.

Here is a link to an 'old' article on LEED : https://www.twz.com/news-features/m...missiles-think-its-a-warship-on-navy-wishlist

 

[oldcpu]

I note that the The L3Harris spec sheet ( https://www.l3harris.com/sites/default/files/2025-07/L3Harris-SPEIR-SPATIAL-sell-sheet-hr.pdf ) notes the SPEIR has these key elements:
- Wide Field Sensor Subsystem ((WFSS) - implementation of WFOV (Wide Field of View) EOSS) ,
- Narrow Field Sensor Subsystem ((NFSS) - implementation of NFOV (Narrow Field of View) EOSS).

The RCN for the River Class destroyer is purportely procuring the MK20 EOSS as part of a shift to the BAE Mk45 127mm gun, where I speculate the Mk20 EOSS could provide some (all ? ) of the NFSS functionality.

It is not clear to me what equipment the RCN is procuring to fullfill the WFSS role as part of SPEIR/SPATIAL for the River Class destroyer.

One speculative idea I had (speculation is the 'operative word' ) is the WFOV (wide angle field of view) EOSS could be the AN/SAY-3 I-Stalker, or a derivative of that (if such a derivative is available).

And I speculate that the Mk20 could be the NFOV.

As noted, I am speculating.

I also wonder if MDA (who are to provide a laser warning and optical surveillance system) have any involvement in this regard. I am putting 'straws' together here, so I could be wrong.

 

[oldcpu]

Hence I read a recent article, which suggested the RCN may be procuring the LEED (Long Endurance Electronic Decoy) system for the River Class - where LEED is an USA under development (still ??? ) drone decoy ECM system (sort of like a long life Nulka).

I note as of today, the Canadian Government page (FAQ) for the River Class destroyer now lists "LEED" instead of "Nulka".

River-Class Destroyer Fact Sheet - Canada.ca

The future Protecteur-class Joint Support Ships will replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s former Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels and eventually be commissioned under the same names Protecteur and Preserver. The new ships will provide core replenishment, limited sealift capabilities, and...

www.canada.ca

I am a bit surprised that SIGINT (Strongbow - AN/SRD-506 - communications intercept) is not listed (as I believe I see its antenna in the model and graphic depictions) - but perhaps some security/classification policy is coming into play here.

 

[oldcpu]

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?
.

After some time - Some speculation by me follows.

Following the recent widely public news of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) purportedly adopting the BAE Mk 45 127mm gun and the MSI-DS Mk 38 Mod 4 30mm gun (in lieu of the Leonardo 127mm Volcano and Leonardo 30mm Lionfish guns), I note that the Leonardo NA-30S Mk2 fire-control radar does not appear on the recent River-class configuration.

According to a U.S. Congress document (link https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2026-01-06/html/CREC-2026-01-06-pt1-PgS39-2.htm ), the Canadian River-class is also slated to receive four Next Generation Surface Search Radars (NGSSR) and four Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optic Infrared (SPEIR) systems.

Some online commentary speculates that the AN/SPS-73(V)18 NGSSR may be installed in place of the NA-30S Mk2.

While the SPS-73(V)18 is not a dedicated fire-control radar, and it is a 2 dimensional X-band radar, it is capable of tracking multiple targets simultaneously, unlike the NA-30S Mk2, which tracks one target at a time. I speculate that this radar could correspond to the NGSSR referenced in the Congress document.

This leads to speculation that the RCN may be moving away from the traditional philosophy of a dedicated gun fire-control radar. Instead, a combination of:

(1) AN/SPY-7 AESA radar + Aegis combat system,
(2) SPEIR EO/IR tracking systems, coupled with the MK-20 EO/IR gun sight system (EOSS), and
(3) AN/SPS-73(V)18 NGSSR

could provide multi-target tracking and sensor fusion, feeding tracking and targeting data to the MK-34 Gun Weapon System’s MK-160 Gun Control System for firing of the Mk 45 127mm gun and MSI-DS Mk 38 Mod 4 30mm gun.

I think this speculative approach is consistent with a broader trend among modern navies. For example, Australia (Hunter class) and Japan (ASEV) have designed some of their latest warships without a dedicated fire-control radar for their 127mm guns, instead relying on software-driven sensor fusion and EO/IR targeting.

Obviously - speculation is the 'operative' word here.

 

[oldcpu]

According to a U.S. Congress document (link https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2026-01-06/html/CREC-2026-01-06-pt1-PgS39-2.htm ), the Canadian River-class is also slated to receive four Next Generation Surface Search Radars (NGSSR) and four Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optic Infrared (SPEIR) systems.

Some online commentary speculates that the AN/SPS-73(V)18 NGSSR may be installed in place of the NA-30S Mk2.

As opposed to AN/SPS-73(V)18 for the Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) that was referenced (but the model/make # not specified) in that Congressional document, I wonder if the exact radar could be a radar other than the AN/SPS-73(V)18?

I note a Breaking Defense artice from Sep-2025: ( https://breakingdefense.com/2025/09/navy-preparing-for-future-x-band-radar-competition/ ) where it notes the USN Navy announced plans to issue a competitive solicitation to design, build and integrate its Future X-Band Radar, a key capability for allowing the service’s surface fleet to detect and track incoming missile threats.

The future X-band radar would replace the service’s current AN/SPQ-9B Anti-Ship Missile Defense radar, which is installed on a number of amphibious ships, destroyers, cruisers and carriers, and complements the capabilities of the SPY-6(V) family of S-band radars made by Raytheon.

The article notes that the older “ AN/SPQ-9B scans out to the horizon and performs simultaneous and automatic air and surface target detection and tracking of low flying Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs), surface threats and low/slow flying aircraft, UAVs and helicopters,” according to Naval Sea Systems Command."

From this one could speculate any new USN system for a future X-Band radar would so to work with USN systems, be designed to be compatible with Aegis, and with the MK-34 Gun Weapon System’s MK-160 Gun Control System (for firing of the Mk 45 127mm gun and MSI-DS Mk 38 Mod 4 30mm gun). If so - then there would (one would expect) be minimal development costs for the RCN River Class destroyer if such a new system were procured instead of the AN/SPS-73(V)18.

Again - a LOT of speculation by myself.

 

[oldcpu]

As opposed to AN/SPS-73(V)18 for the Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) that was referenced (but the model/make # not specified) in that Congressional document, I wonder if the exact radar could be a radar other than the AN/SPS-73(V)18?

Checking up on myself ...

Having typed the above, I do note a couple of references ( here and here ) which equaate the AN/SPS-73(V) 18 as being the USA's Next Generation Surface Search Radar program , which matches the 'NGSSR' wording of the Congressional document.

How much 'faith' can one place in knowing what specific system is associated with the NGSSR wording?

I think that I am deep into speculation territory.