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.