By David Dunlop, 18 June 2022
The Canadian Surface Combatant SPY-7 Radar has earned official government of Canada designation. Lockheed Martin’s advanced SPY-7 radar received its Government of Canada official nomenclature – AN/SPY-7 (V)3. This recognizes the radar’s ability. The radar can be used for multiple missions, such as early warning, situational awareness, tactical surveillance and air defence. SPY-7 is currently utilized in maritime and land platforms in the United States, Spain, and Japan. See "The Canadian Surface Combatant SPY-7 Radar Earns Official Government of Canada Designation, in Canadian Defence Review, http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/3427.
11 thoughts on “AN/SPY-7(V)3”
There is little doubt that it will be used in the North Warning System, which will be comprised of multiple parts…
The new setup will include an “Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar” to provide early-warning radar coverage and threat tracking from the Canada-U.S. border to the Arctic Circle.
The second component will be a “Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar” system to provide the same coverage and tracking over and beyond the northernmost approaches to North American including Canada’s Arctic archipelago.
A third piece will be a new network called Crossbow, comprised of sensors with what Defence Minister Anand calls “classified capabilities” that will be located throughout northern Canada to provide another layer of detection.
A final component will be a space-based surveillance system using satellites to collect intelligence and track threats.
I wonder which of the first two above will use the LRDR derivative, maybe both?
Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-to-spend-49-billion-on-modernizing-norad-defences/
Hello Alex. Some interesting views from you. The US already has started the land-based LRDR system in Alaska. Perhaps other Land-Based LRDR set-ups in northern Canada as part of the “Arctic/Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar” systems? This “Crossbow” network sounds interesting.
One other thought. If Canada were to include BMD on the CSC Frigates, perhaps that would include Hypersonic Missile Systems in the MK 41 Extended length in the silos? Just a thought.
David,
No, this radar is not “currently utilized” in either Spain or Japan. Spain does eventually plan to use the AN/SPY-7 radar on its new F-110 frigates, construction of the first of which began this March. Japan had decided to build two, larger land-based missile defence systems incorporating the SPY-7 radars, AEGIS, and the SM-3 missile. However, on 15 June 2020, the Japanese government announced that it was suspending construction of this missile defence system, primarily because of the safety danger posed by discarded missile rocket boosters to civilian population centres.
An additional factor in Japan’s decision was cost. Each Aegis Ashore installation was originally estimated to cost $1 Billion each, but the cost soon doubled. Furthermore, one analyst noted that the SPY-7 radar was only compatible with the older Baseline-9 version of Aegis software, whereas Raytheon’s more mature SPY-6 radar operates with the latest Baseline-10 version.
One should also be careful about the idea of just sticking land-based radars developed for use against ballistic missiles rather than other air-based threats, on a warship. For example, Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6 radar has been under development for well over a decade, yet because of power consumption and cooling issues, this system is only now being tested for operational certification onboard Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Incorporating this new radar on Flight III Arleigh Burkes required significant structural configuration changes and software modifications to the well established destroyer design.
Major modifications of this type related to the proposed new SPY-7 radar probably help explain the significant weight and costs increases reported for Canada’s CSC variant of the basic British Type-26 frigate design. We are already hearing reports of how a new radar system – the Australian-developed CEAFAR2 – has impacted the development of the Australian Hunter-class variant of the Type-26. This new frigate is now significantly heavier (at about 10,000 tonnes full load displacement, almost the same as Canada’s CSC’s reported full load displacement of 9,400 tonnes – and has been subject to many complex design changes. According to the “System Design Review Exit” report, the Hunter-class design, which uses the same power plant as will the CSC, is now seriously underpowered and noisy, more costly to operate, and poses potentially dangerous stability issues. If this wasn’t sufficiently worrying, the report also notes that, because of this power generation deficiency, future ship captains may have to choose between operating the new radar or operating the main propulsion systems.
So, is the Australian experience something that Canada’s CSC will have to look forward to? Canada’s CSC planning team always knew that the choosing a new, untested radar system would be a major program risk and cost-driver. In the end, I have few doubts the new AN//SPY-7 radar can be successfully developed for use on the CSC. But will the risks and inevitable delays and extra costs be worth it? Does Canada really new such a high-end radar?
I have argued elsewhere that if there is one area of agreement among our major federal political parties, it is that Canada will not become directly involved in ballistic missile defence, and the Canadian public strongly supports this consensus. This is unlikely to change.
With the prospect of only minor employment and technology transfer benefits to Canada, it may well be that Ottawa’s decision to adopt the SPY-7 radar may be tipping point which undermines the entire CSC program.
References
1. Loren Thompson, “Japan’s Rethink of Aegis Ashore Could Tie Up Navy, Increase Costs And Cause Big Delays”, Forbes.com (11 August 2020).
2. David Axe, “Japan’s Got Leftover High-Tech Radars – Why Not Stick Then On A Frigate?”, Forbes.com (7 September 2020).
3. Ben Pakham, “”445bn frigate slow, unsafe”, The Australian ( 1 February 2022).
Hello Dan. You are correct in saying that Spain & Japan do not “currently utilize” the ship-based SPY 7 (V) 2 (the nomenclature for the Spanish F-110 frigate) however, Spain has already started construction of their new frigate and the SPY 7 will be fitted on it. Japan is further along with their new frigate as well, again using the ship-based SPY 7 (V) 1/2 radar. So these two frigates will be operational well before the CSC Frigate build begins in 2024. So, we should have preliminary results as to how well the CSC SPY 7 (V) 3 system will fare. There surely will be some “hiccups” with these systems as there always are, but should be well ironed out before the CSC build starts. If Baseline 9 Aegis software is compatible with the CSC frigates CMS 330 software, then Baseline 10 software should be able to be incorporated as well down the line. Don’t forget that CEC will be incorporated on the CSC frigate so US Ships using Baseline 10 with the same CEC capabilities should be compatible. The Lockheed Martin CSC frigate SPY 7 (V) 3 LRDR has already been fully tested “ashore” by LM and is “Scaleable” and will weigh less than either the Flt III Raytheon SPY 6 (V) 1 (which does not begin testing of its SPY 6 (V) 1 AMDR until later this year-2022) or the Australian-developed CEAFAR2 for the Hunter class so, SPY 7 (V) 3 weight should not be an issue. If you take a look at LMs comparison of the spy 7 (V) 1 vs the Raytheon SPY 6 (V) 1 you will see the SPY 7 (V) 1 superiority over the SPY 6-(https://www.defensedaily.com/lockheed-martin-boasts-spy-7-radar-going-well-says-superior-spy-6/missile-defense/) As far as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) goes for NORAD or the CSC Frigate, Canada has not yet decided to invest or re-enter negotiations with the US for BMD. In My Own Opinion (IMOO), I believe Canada will not have a choice but to be “directly involved” in BMD if it wants to be part of a renewed NORAD system to defend against Ballistic or Hypersonic missiles across the north or with our CSC frigates at sea. So, BMD is not “yet” dead here in Canada.
Alex,
With respect to your second component, the Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar (OTHR) system, a good open source overview of earlier developments of such systems can be found in R.J. Riddolls, “A Canadian Perspective on High-Frequency Over-the-Horizon Radar (Ottawa: DRDC, Technical Memorandum TM 2006-285, December 2006).
Riddolls documents the US efforts in its COBRA MIST system of the early 1970s to develop the basis for such a system. Problematic aspects of such early experimental systems included: atmospheric auroral clutter, huge power requirements, huge geographic footprint, susceptibility to jamming, high costs, and potential opposition of local populations. These ultimately led to the abandonment of this experimental effort.
In 2018, Raytheon Canada Limited was awarded two contracts to test the effects of the aurora borealis on two OTHR sites in the Canadian arctic.
It may be that the results of these tests in part underlie Ottawa’s recent announcement to bolster Canada’s contribution to arctic surveillance. However, given the federal government’s oft-stated plans to drastically reduce Canada’s reliance on carbon-based fuels like oil, gas, and diesel, how will this new system be powered with a minimum environmental impact? Wind and solar power, while perhaps appealing in the abstract, make little practical sense in the harsh conditions of the arctic (last I heard, the sun disappears for many months up there).
Or, as some defence analysts suspect, perhaps this announced upgrade has more to do with deflecting attention from Ottawa’s persistent failure to achieve its stated NATO obligation to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence annually? Successive governments in Ottawa have repeatedly demonstrated a determination to appear to be a reliable defence ally, than actually bolstering its defences in a meaningful fashion.
Hello Dan. Yes, you could very well be right on all your comments to Alex. One power source however for you have not touched on other than wind or solar systems to power the OTH Radar systems. That is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) or Small Micro Modular Reactors (SMMRs) now being developed in Canada (Ontario/New Brunswick/Saskatchewan). This would be an excellent source of renewable, clean energy systems to power these future Radar systems.
Hi Dan,
It appears that the aforementioned signal propagation and radar clutter issues are being tackled using advanced signal processing systems. One Canadian company called D-TA systems is actually positioning itself as being part of a solution (http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/3398), and have already been involved in upgrading Lockheed Martin’s AN/FPS-117 radars scattered along the DEW line. I foresee cooperation between the two again as main contractors will be obliged to maximize Canadian content.
Regarding power, the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar array will be positioned close to the CAN-US border, and most of the Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar array should likely be located in the northernmost portions of the Provinces where either existing power line infrastructure exists, or will be economically feasible to extend to for main power. For positions higher up in the Arctic Archipelago (above the NWP) fossil fuel based power generation will obviously need to be used, as you said there is no other feasible option. Regardless, SPY-7/LRDR is GaN based so significant power and size savings are achieved in comparison to legacy systems. (I am not going to speculate on whether the radar blocks can be combined and scaled up to increase the range of the radar as has been implied by Lockheed Martin, potentially eliminating the need for Arctic Archipelago sites altogether!)
David,
While it is true that Lockheed Martin (LM), like most defence contractors, produces very positive assessments of its own products in its own press releases, I tend to be more cautious. Contractors notoriously tend to overestimate the technical performance of their products, while at the same time downplaying risks, delays, and potential cost overruns, and denigrating their competitor’s products. This is a familiar game and should be treated with circumspection. Brochures and press releases do not a product make!
The press release (dated sometime in 2021) you cite here indicates that LM would be prepared to go head-to-head with its SPY-7 radar against Raytheon’s SPY-6 radar in an even competition, and that its new radar and is “expected to have initial operational capability in 2021 compared to 2024 for SPY-6″.
This conveniently overlooks a number of things: the SPY-7 lost to the SPY-6 in a US Navy selection competition for backfitting the Flt III Arleigh Burkes, and for use on the US Navy’s new Constellation-class frigates; as far as I can determine, the maritime version of the SPY-7 still does not yet exist, let alone have received initial operational capability, while the final certification testing for the SPY-6 is almost complete this year and so this latter radar would certainly be ready for use aboard the CSC whenever Irving begins construction; and finally, if by new Japanese frigate you mean the mean the Mogami-class DX-30 frigate, this warship uses the OPY-2 X-band multi-purpose active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, not the SPY-7.
Hello Dan: While it is true that there is a “healthy” competition between Lockheed Martin’s (LMs) SPY 7 (V) 1 Long Range Descrimination Radar (LRDR) and Raytheon’s SPY 6 (V) 1 AMDR AESA radar, SPY 7 (V) 1 radar technology has been fully tested by LM in their Moorstown N.J. facility and is ready for deployment where Ratheons is a little further behind in their “verification” process for Flt III; SPY 7 (V) 2 will first be installed on Spain’s F-110 Frigate now being built by Navantia ship building and then on the CSC Type 26 Frigate. The OPY-2 AESA Radar system on the Mogami class DX 30 Frigate is an “X” Band AESA medium range Illumination Radar and does not have the Air Search capabilities or range of the SPY 7 (V) 1 LRDR AAW Radar system. SPY 7 is a true “S” Band AAW long range radar as is the SPY 6 (V) 1 AMDR and the SPY 1 D (V) radars for long range AAW search. Japan is looking at “back-filling” their SPY 1 D (V) radars with LMs SPY 7 (V) 2/3 technology on their Destroyer classes. MacDonald Dettwiler Associates (MDA) Canada has been selected by LM to develop/deliver an “X” Band Illumination AESA Radar (below the SPY 7 (V) 3 radar mast) on the CSC Type 26 Frigates. This may be an MDA designed radar system or possibly an existing “X” Band AESA Illumination radar from “off-shore” for medium/short range search, tracking and targeting.
How many ships will have the SPY 7 Radar?