- Messages
- 234
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
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
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
Last edited:
