Talk:River-class destroyer (2030s)

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Weapons Systems and General Specifications Look To Be Pure Speculation

[edit]

None of the references given appear to support any of the claims made as to what weapons systems will be used, aside perhaps for the onboard helicopters. I am removing the characteristics and someone can add them back IF they can provide references and/or citations to back their claims. These ships are still be planned and none have been built. It is uncertain whether any have even started construction.Theshowmecanuck (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radar is confirmed to be SPY7 https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-designates-lockheed-martin-solid-state-radar-an-spy-7v1/ ExLS is confirmed https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success MK41 confirmed qty unknown (24 or 32) http://www.canadascombatshipteam.com/canadian-suppliers/ on same page, 5" gun confirmed Missiles confirmed http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/rcn_csc_factsheet-8x11_web.pdf/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.20.51 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Single Class Surface Combatant Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Single Class Surface Combatant Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contract signed

[edit]

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2019/02/government-of-canada-selects-design-for-canadian-surface-combatants.html

BlueD954 (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close-In Air Defence

[edit]

I'm hoping to clear up any confusion it appears some have since the Canadian Navy has chosen to keep the 6-cell ExLS launchers around mid-ships, even with the cancellation of the CAMM missiles, it's almost certain that the other Close-In Air Defence system, the RIM-116 RAM Block.II, will utilize the 6-cell ExLS VLS launchers given the possible ExLS configurations offered by Lockheed include quad-packed RAM Bk.2s. Because the RIM-116 cannot be loaded/launched individually from a Mk.41-sized cell they are quad-packed as depicted by Lockheed in a manner similar to the ESSM Bk.II missiles. Thus, the configuration is most likely to be a total of 24 x RIM-116B missiles in the 6 vertical launch cells. OfScienceAndArt (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's probably correct. But we need a source saying that. Llammakey (talk)

Updating Cost Estimates

[edit]

According to the latest PBO report from 2022, the cost and timelines are updated compared to the PBO document cited, which is from 2021. Also, in this report the PBO breaks the Acquisition costs into two separate costs, Acquisition - Production and Acquisition - Ancillary, wouldn't it be more clear if this was mentioned in the article?

Additionally, a contract has been signed alongside updated cost estimates for the first 3 ships (CAD 22.2 billion) this would be the most recent and thus most up to date assessment on price, but how do we feel about using Government of Canada figures? Given that the cost estimates used thus far seem to refer to both Governmental and PBO figures, I am not sure which ones to use.

Taken together, it feels like there's enough to write a section specifically on cost increases. OwlbearCamus (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns over American Combat System

[edit]

At the bottom of the Introduction History section a 14/02/2025 News Article is mentioned, which is about the concern over the American content of the ship, but isn't this moot?

In my perspective if the propulsion, and weapons were always going to be American, it matters little in the grand scheme if the combat system is now also going to be American.

I was thinking of adding a sentence pointing this out, something to the tune of:

The extent to which this impacts the ability for the River-class, ships designed to use American propulsion and weapons, to provide a sovereign capability is questionable. OwlbearCamus (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't make that sort of evaluative statement unless you can cite it to a published reliable source. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, which that comment would be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain how stating that the weapons (Tomahawk, SM2, RAM, ESSM, MK 54) and propulsion (the two GE electric motors) are American falls under original research, since both are stated in this Wikipedia article.
I can see the sentence being evaluative, since it does call into question the thesis of the news article. However, the news article does not demonstrate how a Canadian combat management system (CMS) would prevent the ships from being held "hostage over future upgrades or even the provision of spare parts".
How would a Canadian CMS allow the Canadian government to modify or use the River-class against the wishes of the US government? This would only be the case when the modification of Aegis would be blocked, but the continued sales of other non-CMS related items would be permitted by the US government. Should the US government choose, it can exercise its power to block such a modification even in this situation. A Canadian CMS does not prevent such a "hostage" situation, it just means that the US government has to use more heavy-handed coercion (e.g. blocking the sale of weapons or other spares) to affect modifications or usage of the River-class, which it might view as counterproductive.
What a Canadian CMS would allow for, as stated in the news article, is for the ability for the Canadian Navy to modify or upgrade components of the ship without asking for permission from the US government first.
Perhaps instead of adding a sentence, amending it would reflect this fact better?
"On 14 February 2025, a news article by David Pugliese presented concerns raised by defence industry officials that a Canadian-made command management system (CMS) was not being installed as promised by Lockheed Martin Canada, raising concerns that upgrades and modifications to the ship would have to be accepted by the US government." OwlbearCamus (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good compromise, as it presents the statement/question through the eyes of the the secondary source. Llammakey (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the summary. OwlbearCamus (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]