Sensor and weapon intergration could be the strongest argument for the MEKO A-200. The design might be a little long in the tooth and it may not quite have the tiny crewing levels of the other contenders but we could use a lot of what we have learned from the ANZACs. Possibly the safest option.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
That speculation that isn't useful.
Because if it is largely lifting the entire suite (9LV, CEAFAR, ESSM, Nulka, which are already well integrated) into a new hull, that sounds like old ANZAC class wine into a SK/Japanese/German bottle. What new capabilities does that bring?
If we accept that RAN will want "new capabilities" to go with new hulls, at this stage, we don't know what that looks like.
Well we won't know what we will be getting until next year any way.
All we know for now is that future RAN will have 3 Hobart's and 6 Hunters, and we still don't really know what the Hunters will look like regarding systems.
In 2032 we might have 3 Hobart's, and 5 or 6 ANZACs and maybe 6 Araruras and maybe a Virginia and some Collins. That's how it actually looks for the next 10 years.
I really hope that HIMARs , the ICVs , SPGs are in service by then, but realistically, I can't see much changing for a while.
RAAF is the workhorse for the next 10 years, and a couple more MRTTs and P8s would be handy for sure!
All we know for now is that future RAN will have 3 Hobart's and 6 Hunters, and we still don't really know what the Hunters will look like regarding systems.
In 2032 we might have 3 Hobart's, and 5 or 6 ANZACs and maybe 6 Araruras and maybe a Virginia and some Collins. That's how it actually looks for the next 10 years.
I really hope that HIMARs , the ICVs , SPGs are in service by then, but realistically, I can't see much changing for a while.
RAAF is the workhorse for the next 10 years, and a couple more MRTTs and P8s would be handy for sure!
Ok the systems integrated into a platform need foundations, power and cooling.
Systems integrated into a combat system are different and more complex.
The thing is, the RAN has already integrated most systems it wants into the core SAAB 9LV system.
So basically you get the ship designer to integrate 9LV into their platform and then all they need to do is ensure there are space, weight, foundations, power and cooling and the RAN can basically fit any of its current weapons systems and sensors.
Systems integrated into a combat system are different and more complex.
The thing is, the RAN has already integrated most systems it wants into the core SAAB 9LV system.
So basically you get the ship designer to integrate 9LV into their platform and then all they need to do is ensure there are space, weight, foundations, power and cooling and the RAN can basically fit any of its current weapons systems and sensors.
Brissy1982
Active Member
I've been reading about the progress of the Mogami-class FFM build - the 12 ships of the "Batch 1" FFM design for the JMSDF are currently approaching the end of their construction run. It appears the first 6 ships were completed without the installation of their 16-cell Mk-41 VLS, which is to be fitted later, while the remaining 6 ships are being completed with the 16-cell Mk-41 VLS.
The 12 ships of the Batch 1 Mogami-class will be followed by a class of 12 Batch 2 improved Mogami-class FFMs for the JMSDF, which will be somewhat larger than the Batch 1s (Batch 2 standard displacement of 4,500t - 4,880t and full load displacement of ~6,200t vs 3,900t standard and 5,500t full load displacement for Batch 1; Batch 2 length 142m and beam 17m vs Batch 1 length 133m and beam 16.3m), while keeping the same top speed at 30+ knots and the same crew size at 90, and increasing the Mk-41 VLS to 32 cells. The Batch 2 ships will be more capable in a range of areas than Batch 1.
Even with plans for Indonesia to construct 8 Batch 1 Mogami-class FFMs including the first 4 being constructed in Japan, it seems likely that the Batch 1 production run in Japan will be finished before Australia makes a decision about which Tier 2 frigate to acquire in 2025. If the Batch 1 Mogami-class FFM is chosen for the RAN, the Batch 1 production line might no longer be "hot", necessitating it being either re-started from "cold", or at least kept "warm", until construction is ready to commence, which could be problematic with the construction of the 12 Batch 2 ships for the JMSDF in full swing. Accordingly, if the Mogami-class FFM is chosen for the RAN, there may need to be a decision made as to whether to select the Batch 1 or the Batch 2 design in order to get the first three RAN FFMs into service within the timeframes outlined in the Surface Fleet Review.
These articles discuss the differences between the Batch 1 and Batch 2 Mogami-class FFM designs - if the FFm is chosen for the RAN, which do you think would best meet the RAN's needs?
Japan's MoD Awards Contract for New FFM Vessels - Naval News
Japan to procure 12 new FFM in just 5 years - Naval News
The fleet for the next eight to nine years
Three Hobart's - needing a refit
Around six Anzacs
Six Collins - needing a refit
Six OPVs
Capes , LHDs Supply Class, Choules.
Aging MCM and Survey vessels.
New Army water craft.
Yes Air Force will be the workhorse.
The rhetoric of the DSR does not mirror a maritime enhancement for the fleet.
Just to repeat, for eight to nine years the fleet will stay the same.
So what could we ralistically do to enhance this fleet .
Regards S
Hang on - all these “old capabilities” are being fitted to our brand new “Tier 1” frigates.
Or are you suggesting we don’t need some or all of them?
RAN is going to be re training the entire work force , all at the same time. Commissioning the Virginias and working on AUKUS class, the new frigates and the Hunters all at once. They are going to be real busy!
At the same time, ADFA will be training a lot of junior Navy officers.
I'm not sure how the trade schools work anymore, but I imagine they will also need expanding.
Yep, there is a lot of lead time, and timing will be everything, imagine training a host of crews only to be let down by not having ships for them, discharge and start again.
What can be done?
IMO , get at least 4 more P8s. 2 or 3 more MRTTs. Consider leasing or buying an interim long range strike platform or long range drones.Continue to develop the ghost bat.
I have not mentioned the proposed 6 "Optionally manned frigates" because there is little to no chance of seeing them in the early 2030s flying an Ensign IMO.
Build nuclear weapons.....that's not going to happen, but realistically, that's exactly what the ADF needs now.
Last edited:
Unfortunately at this stage it's impossible to prevent a contraction in the size of the fleet before any growth can happen. This is just a result of decisions which should've been getting made ten years ago being made now. "Better late than never" is a fun bit of optimism but I only hope the inevitable shrinkage in navy personnel with the fleet contracting won't be as hard to reverse as the shrinkage which resulted from the old DDGs and three of the Adelaide-class being retired entirely without replacements for their crews to transfer to.
The new FFM is superior, that is why they stopped the Mogami build at just 12. (22 were planned).I've been reading about the progress of the Mogami-class FFM build - the 12 ships of the "Batch 1" FFM design for the JMSDF are currently approaching the end of their construction run. It appears the first 6 ships were completed without the installation of their 16-cell Mk-41 VLS, which is to be fitted later, while the remaining 6 ships are being completed with the 16-cell Mk-41 VLS.
The 12 ships of the Batch 1 Mogami-class will be followed by a class of 12 Batch 2 improved Mogami-class FFMs for the JMSDF, which will be somewhat larger than the Batch 1s (Batch 2 standard displacement of 4,500t - 4,880t and full load displacement of ~6,200t vs 3,900t standard and 5,500t full load displacement for Batch 1; Batch 2 length 142m and beam 17m vs Batch 1 length 133m and beam 16.3m), while keeping the same top speed at 30+ knots and the same crew size at 90, and increasing the Mk-41 VLS to 32 cells. The Batch 2 ships will be more capable in a range of areas than Batch 1.
Even with plans for Indonesia to construct 8 Batch 1 Mogami-class FFMs including the first 4 being constructed in Japan, it seems likely that the Batch 1 production run in Japan will be finished before Australia makes a decision about which Tier 2 frigate to acquire in 2025. If the Batch 1 Mogami-class FFM is chosen for the RAN, the Batch 1 production line might no longer be "hot", necessitating it being either re-started from "cold", or at least kept "warm", until construction is ready to commence, which could be problematic with the construction of the 12 Batch 2 ships for the JMSDF in full swing. Accordingly, if the Mogami-class FFM is chosen for the RAN, there may need to be a decision made as to whether to select the Batch 1 or the Batch 2 design in order to get the first three RAN FFMs into service within the timeframes outlined in the Surface Fleet Review.
These articles discuss the differences between the Batch 1 and Batch 2 Mogami-class FFM designs - if the FFm is chosen for the RAN, which do you think would best meet the RAN's needs?
Japan's MoD Awards Contract for New FFM Vessels - Naval News
Japan to procure 12 new FFM in just 5 years - Naval News
Any flaws in the design of the Mogami have been fixed on the new FFM.
Some of the pics illustrating the difference between the new FFM and the Mogami (externally)
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes it is interesting to consider the time between the public release of force structure plans in the 2009 white paper https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf and selection and acquisition.
20 Offshore combatants were planned (became SEA1180). That became 12 (now 6) offshore patrol vessels selected in 2017, first vessel will be commissioned in 2024 ( ?)
8 Future frigates were planned (changed to 9 now 6). Ship selected in 2018. Construction commences in 2024 (https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/ELSCF_Factsheets_South_Australia.pdf ). first vessel to be commissioned in 2034 (https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-02-20/press-conference-sydney
12 future submarines were planned, replacement selected in 2016. Cancelled in 2021. New capability to be in service from early 2030s.
The new force structure options arrived with government in 2023. The structure was announced in 2024. A selection is planned in 2025 with construction to start in 2026 with the first ship commissioned in 2030.
As several posters have commented the new acquisition plan seems impossibly fast. What are the reasons for optimism?
1. Most of the worst decisions occurred between 2010 and 2021 when prime ministers and defence ministers changed rapidly.
2. COVID movement restrictions across state and national borders were especially problematic for the specific shipbuilding plans (build two Arafuras in Adelaide and then 10 in WA).
3. The shipbuilding infrastructure has been substantially developed and has been used to build actual ships (OPVs) in two yards,
While I am as despondent as everybody else that the fleet will reduce in size over the next decade before it starts to expand, there are a number of items that are positive and will provide some bridging capabilities in the short term.
While we may not be able to support deployments like the Red Sea for a while, we will still have the capability and capacity to manage our own region and this will not be lost. Perhaps this is a better focus for us anyway.
- The first is that the ANZACs remain good platforms despite their age. The progressive upgrades over time have kept them potent and up to date (say what you want about new ship procurement, however the Navy has invested very well with significant foresight in their existing equipment). It has as many ESSM as other larger ships (32), a very capable radar package and will shortly get 8 odd NSM. It is as quiet or quieter than several modern designs, and just as fast. Its EW and countermeasure systems (such as Nulka) are all leading products and the current versions. Six of these will remain over the period and by the looks of things we have sufficient crew for them. They should not be discounted and they can still punch. Other than additional VLS, they already have most of the combat systems that would be fitted to a new GP frigate. They do have a shortfal with drone defence (lacking a CIWS), but I am sure this is being looked into.
- Likewise the AWD is a very effective platform with modern, high end systems. Its scheduled Aegis upgrade will improve this even further.
- The seahawk fleet is being expanded and has been modernised with the Romeos. We will shortly have 36 available (including 12 new ones), providing in the order of 8-12 deployable. It means every operational ship can have an ASW capable helo onboard.
- There is huge investment happening in shore facilities, most of this is not making the news, but it is necessary behind the scenes infrastructure for all three branches, that hardens, strengthens logistics and force multiplies. Some of this is very high end and is perhaps more valuable than a new ship.
- As of 2027 we will have US and UK nuclear subs based in WA. While not Australian badged, these will progressively have larger Australian crew compliments, and will provide the mission capability we need in our region. People seem overly focused on when we get our own subs in the early 30's, however the capability really becomes available at this point.
- Indigenous missile manufacturing will accelerate. At the moment it is focused on the HIMARS system with GLMRS and shortly PrSM, but I would expect that the next development will be Naval, probably NSM, perhaps ESSM. Regardless, the procurement of additional warstocks is already occuring with multiple orders placed.
- AI and autonomous systems. We have all heard about the ghost bat, however there are submersible systems that are almost as capable that are nearing the field trial stage. This technology will be deployed in the late 20's, particularly in the surveillance role, and probably in numbers to make a difference. We all heard that Australia will have a weapons capable autonomos aircraft this year, and I would suggest that a weapons capable autonomous submersible would follow. These will enhance the ships we have, and cover gaps where we don't have a ship available.
While we may not be able to support deployments like the Red Sea for a while, we will still have the capability and capacity to manage our own region and this will not be lost. Perhaps this is a better focus for us anyway.
Brissy1982
Active Member
IMHO, there is a lot to like about the Batch 2 Mogami-class FFM design as a potential RAN Tier 2 GP frigate in replacement for the Anzac-class.
1. A 32-cell VLS allows potential for a much greater number of AAW weapons to be carried (up to 128 ESSM compared to 32 ESSM for the Anzac-class) and/or a mix of strike (Tomahawk/LRASM) and AAW weapons.
2. A larger hangar for 1x SH-60-type helicopter and a UAV is an improvement over the Anzac-class.
3. Enhanced ASW capability through hull-mounted and towed-array sonar compared to the Anzac-class, though likely not as capable in the ASW area as the Hunter-class.
3. Mine-laying capability from the stern ramp under the flight deck is something that our current surface combatants do not have.
4. Mine-sweeping capability using mine-hunting sonar and UUVs launched from the stern ramp means a dedicated replacement for the Huon-class vessels might not be needed.
5. A larger hull potentially allows greater margin for future upgrades.
6. Australia would be able to tap into a hot production line through Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan for the first three ships while Henderson is being readied to start construction of the remaining 8 ships in Australia.
If I was 20 years younger I would leap at the chance to serve on a Batch 2 Mogami.
Last edited:
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
From my reading of this thread (thanks for the informed comments) it seems as though there is a clear preference for the two larger options with more capability and margin for long term growth - the Meko A200 and Mogami FFM30. That makes sense in terms of their greater capability.
In terms of which design to build, from a cost and design/engineering/manufacturing support point of view the Japanese and Korean shipbuilders would beat all other options easily. Both nations make more ships per year than all EU countries combined. So if it was close I would say chose the Mogami.
The question then is which is easier to "Australianise" the frigate as per Morgo's comments below. The critical bit is how easy is it to fit 9LV and CEAFAR? Everything else looks doable. Would the Meko have an advantage in integrating 9LV and CEAFAR? If yes, build Meko, if no, build Mogami.
[Morgo Sunday]
"What would an "Australianised" Mogami (for sake of example) look like?
- 9LV. Probably the biggest one? A botched systems integration would be a great way to blow out the timetable, reduce the benefits of automation in the original design and destroy the budget.
- CEAFAR. Solving power and top weight problems obviously key.
- ESSM / NSM / MU90 - Should be relatively straightforward replacements. NSM seems to be about 40% lighter than the Japanese Type 17 so could help with CEAFAR.
- Nixie & Nulka."
In terms of which design to build, from a cost and design/engineering/manufacturing support point of view the Japanese and Korean shipbuilders would beat all other options easily. Both nations make more ships per year than all EU countries combined. So if it was close I would say chose the Mogami.
The question then is which is easier to "Australianise" the frigate as per Morgo's comments below. The critical bit is how easy is it to fit 9LV and CEAFAR? Everything else looks doable. Would the Meko have an advantage in integrating 9LV and CEAFAR? If yes, build Meko, if no, build Mogami.
[Morgo Sunday]
"What would an "Australianised" Mogami (for sake of example) look like?
- 9LV. Probably the biggest one? A botched systems integration would be a great way to blow out the timetable, reduce the benefits of automation in the original design and destroy the budget.
- CEAFAR. Solving power and top weight problems obviously key.
- ESSM / NSM / MU90 - Should be relatively straightforward replacements. NSM seems to be about 40% lighter than the Japanese Type 17 so could help with CEAFAR.
- Nixie & Nulka."
FWIW - the Meko A210 is a slightly larger version of the A200 in a similar way that the FFM30 is an upgrade of the Mogami Batch 1. Both offer 32 VLS. Mogami has the advantage of the active production line and lower manning - 90 crew.
The govt will be tempted by the cheapest build cost (whichever of the 4 options that is), but also by lower manning cost.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The MEKO A210 is a paper design with a couple of interesting new design features, notably 2xC&C centres (2nd one in front of the Hangar) and of course a revolutionary new bow design. How much appetite is there for another revolutionary new Frigate design alongside the Hunter? However TKMS is very experienced at building MEKO 200/A200 series Frigates with very different fitouts, have built A200s for RSA, Algeria and Egypt all with different fitouts.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Thanks. As I said, IMO if it comes down to cost the Korean and Japanese options will be strongly favoured. Both build ships for much less than European builders, probably for half Australian build costs. This is not a criticism of the latter, it is a result of government policy and economies of scale.
Korean and Japanese government policy has favoured their shipbuilding industries for years. Now China, Japan and South Korea dominate world shipbuilding by a huge margin. Combined they build 94% of the world's ships by tonnage. They have large shipyards with multiple dry-docks in multiple ports. If it comes down to price they will win. I'd have to say that in the commercial world both have good reputations for build quality as well, Japan very good. This video sums up the current market.
IMHO I wouldn't be ruling out the Arrowhead just yet. The report with the 4 potential designs was written back in August last year, Babcock only really started pushing it back in Oct. There could be a possibility of having the first 3 built in say South Korea, New Zealand could jump in then with an order for a couple to bulk it out. Cheers.