Ocean 4300
Length - 126m
Beam - 15.8m
Draft - 4.15m
Weight - 4300t
Propulsion - CODLOG
Max speed - 30knts
Range - 6,000nm at 15knts
Crew - 90-100
127mm MK45 main gun, 32 cells MK41, 2 quadruple AShM launchers, Phalanx CIWS.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Length - 126m
Beam - 15.8m
Draft - 4.15m
Weight - 4300t
Propulsion - CODLOG
Max speed - 30knts
Range - 6,000nm at 15knts
Crew - 90-100
127mm MK45 main gun, 32 cells MK41, 2 quadruple AShM launchers, Phalanx CIWS.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
That specification also looks like a significant increase in range, which might also explain the increased tonnage. The Korean Daegu class only lists range as 4500nm at 15 knots.
The big change for me was the reduction in crew from 140 to 90-100… same as the Mogami/Upgraded FFM.That specification also looks like a significant increase in range, which might also explain the increased tonnage. The Korean Daegu class only lists range as 4500nm at 15 knots.
Not very much bigger than an ANZAC, especially not on the beam, but the VLS looks to be significantly lower down, which is good for top weight. The ANZACs look top-heavy with CEAFAR, & I understand they had to be ballasted down.
This is a bit surprising. I would view it is relatively easy to add radar and control system packages, even include the 32 VLS.
Reducing crew generally by this much requires heavy automation and substantial internal equipment modifications. It suggest a change of philosophy.
I imagine however that the Koreans face the same staffing pressures as the rest of us, so this is a useful innovation for their own navy. Expect to see this in their own next batches.
The Australianised 4300 certainly gives the Upgraded Mogami a run for its money. It will be interesting to see what the final Mogami offer includes.
Meanwhile crickets from the Spanish and Germans. This already feels like a two horse race.
downunderblue
Member
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but FWIW I really like the look of that design. All the angles look right, but tbh looks count for little. I assume the Mogami has an improved LO but who knows.
Does anyone have any issues with how they can re-engineer an existing design to improve lethality/ capability yet also reduce the crew component from 130-140 to 90-100 all in one brushstroke?
I have to avoid confirmation bias as for me the Mogami seemed the best around capability, but should we cast doubt on a design that works on paper alone?
Again I should be fair that in the Korean and Japanese bids, they are both offering bids which differ a lot from their existing builds. Doesn't this go completely against what the CoA was looking for? A low risk OTS design that could guarantee deliveries commencing in 2029 (I have to check on that date but I thought we planned to have 2 before the first Hunter?)
On paper I love the designs, but isn't this adding project risk which we specifically were aiming to avoid. The more risk the more likely we won't get the hulls on time, which is a major issue when were decommissioning the Anzacs and total surface combatants are dropping (7, I think until the first GPF).
Project risk is a real issue. Changing proven designs may make the RAN very happy, but Cabinet and the ANAO not so much.
Does anyone have any issues with how they can re-engineer an existing design to improve lethality/ capability yet also reduce the crew component from 130-140 to 90-100 all in one brushstroke?
I have to avoid confirmation bias as for me the Mogami seemed the best around capability, but should we cast doubt on a design that works on paper alone?
Again I should be fair that in the Korean and Japanese bids, they are both offering bids which differ a lot from their existing builds. Doesn't this go completely against what the CoA was looking for? A low risk OTS design that could guarantee deliveries commencing in 2029 (I have to check on that date but I thought we planned to have 2 before the first Hunter?)
On paper I love the designs, but isn't this adding project risk which we specifically were aiming to avoid. The more risk the more likely we won't get the hulls on time, which is a major issue when were decommissioning the Anzacs and total surface combatants are dropping (7, I think until the first GPF).
Project risk is a real issue. Changing proven designs may make the RAN very happy, but Cabinet and the ANAO not so much.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
As far as I know the Evolved Mogami is starting down the production queue as the design is finalized and production winds up on the original design. I'm not sure about the Korean offering. It seems incredibly quick to increase firepower and reduce crewing.
I think TKMS might be out, couldn’t meet the deadline. Current builds behind schedule and new F127 planned.
downunderblue
Member
Yes Mogami is more evolved, but it's only in the last two ships that they introduced a 16cell Mk41 VLS.
Much to my surprise, the model recently shown in Perth has 32 VLS. Whether or not this will be the new JMSDF build is lost on me but the assumption is they are sticking to 16 cell design.
Now I'm actually in favour of 32 considering the low count in our other surface combatants, but again it deviates away from OTS and increases risk.
There was past evidence that the DPM/MinDef and RAN leadership fell out over procurement blowouts caused by over modification. Shortly after we saw a strict OTS criteria for the GPF.
Per the below quoted ADM article ... “The first criterion is speed to minimum viable capability. Therefore, you will have no design changes". Deputy Secretary Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group (NSSG), Jim McDowell, said during Senate Estimates on 5 June ...
Sources close to Sea 3000 have told ADM that Defence has allowed the competitors to make changes to address safety and obsolescence concerns as required.
The only thing we’ve been approved to [change] is if it’s in a different language,” Head of Navy Capability, Rear Admiral Stephen Hughes, told the Senate on 28 June.
Any other changes, he said, will require the project team to first go back to the Defence Committee – which is chaired by the Secretary of Defence - and then seek the approval of the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC)".
Now RAN wants capability and commonality, but CoA/ the Minister's Office are more focused on minimising program risk, avoiding embarassing ANAO reports and ensuring hulls are completed on time and on budget. Here we end up with a situation where everyone has differing ideas and the suppliers now seem to throwing the curve ball of substantially modified designs.
For me, I'd love a Rolls Royce like Mogami, but tbh, I'd just like to ensure we have a program delivered on time, as the real issue is only having 7 available surface combatants until 2029. That's way too low.
The defence minister’s war with his department
Increasing tensions between Richard Marles and Defence are fuelled by bickering about new weapons and the government’s inability to deliver a funding boost.
Project Sea 3000: What we know - Australian Defence Magazine
The Royal Australian Navy’s new general purpose frigate program – Project Sea 3000 – is something of an oddity as it’s the government, not Defence or the RAN, that’s in the driving seat | Ben Felton
www.australiandefence.com.au
The Mogamis were originally built for a crew of 90 people. There are several platforms in the water. From what I've heard and read 90 people is achievable but stretched, but largely a proven approach. I works.
These ships are heavily automated. For instance, from my understanding, the engine rooms are monitored from the CIC, the machinery robustness rivals the stuff being developed for the LOCSVs, and the CCTV system is better than a bank installation. They can run the entire propulsion plant and hotel services with one remote watchkeeper. An ANZAC for comparison has four.
Conversely, the FFX series were built for a crew of 140 people. With I think three batches now in services, all have needed 140 people. They don't appear to have the same level of automation that a Mogami does. My guidance is that they run a more traditional and separate engine room control centre, and need additional watchkeepers roving to check on machinery. Call it two/three, in comparison to the Mogami one. It's still a good proven system.
For the FFX, with the 4300 iteration, to suddenly drop 50 people, or a third of its workforce, it feels suspect. You can't do that without a fundamental redesign of systems. It's not an evolutionary change. It would be a totally new beast with new control systems, instrumentation and modes of operation
Now good on the Koreans for making that leap, but the 4300, with that crew size is unlikely to have a baseline reference with the earlier FFX batches. It won't be able to demonstrate its reliability in comparison to the earlier batches,and that it can actually operate with that number of people.
Last edited:
My view is that the eventual GPF will hold to this principle of minimal changes. Unproven changes bring risk to schedule and cost. I think this is a smart approach.Yes Mogami is more evolved, but it's only in the last two ships that they introduced a 16cell Mk41 VLS.
Much to my surprise, the model recently shown in Perth has 32 VLS. Whether or not this will be the new JMSDF build is lost on me but the assumption is they are sticking to 16 cell design.
Now I'm actually in favour of 32 considering the low count in our other surface combatants, but again it deviates away from OTS and increases risk.
There was past evidence that the DPM/MinDef and RAN leadership fell out over procurement blowouts caused by over modification. Shortly after we saw a strict OTS criteria for the GPF.
Per the below quoted ADM article ... “The first criterion is speed to minimum viable capability. Therefore, you will have no design changes". Deputy Secretary Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group (NSSG), Jim McDowell, said during Senate Estimates on 5 June ...
Sources close to Sea 3000 have told ADM that Defence has allowed the competitors to make changes to address safety and obsolescence concerns as required.
The only thing we’ve been approved to [change] is if it’s in a different language,” Head of Navy Capability, Rear Admiral Stephen Hughes, told the Senate on 28 June.
Any other changes, he said, will require the project team to first go back to the Defence Committee – which is chaired by the Secretary of Defence - and then seek the approval of the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC)".
Now RAN wants capability and commonality, but CoA/ the Minister's Office are more focused on minimising program risk, avoiding embarassing ANAO reports and ensuring hulls are completed on time and on budget. Here we end up with a situation where everyone has differing ideas and the suppliers now seem to throwing the curve ball of substantially modified designs.
For me, I'd love a Rolls Royce like Mogami, but tbh, I'd just like to ensure we have a program delivered on time, as the real issue is only having 7 available surface combatants until 2029. That's way too low.
The defence minister’s war with his department
Increasing tensions between Richard Marles and Defence are fuelled by bickering about new weapons and the government’s inability to deliver a funding boost.www.afr.com
Project Sea 3000: What we know - Australian Defence Magazine
The Royal Australian Navy’s new general purpose frigate program – Project Sea 3000 – is something of an oddity as it’s the government, not Defence or the RAN, that’s in the driving seat | Ben Felton
That said, I don't see a fundamental difference between the Mogami and the New Mogami. It's hull is larger, but its systems (the complicated bit) are the same or slightly evolved. Same propulsion, same CIC, same gun, same bridge, same helo. Perhaps some more spacious beds and better ergonomics. Maybe the next iteration of software and some minor hardware updates.
Note the original mogami was built for a 16 VLS from the start, just not fitted to the first nine. I suspect this was a budgetary constraint and allowed them to get the early platforms out quickly. All are scheduled for a 16 VLS backfit installation over the next two years.
The bigger hull is in large part to fit a better radar (an evolution of the original) and a larger 32 VLS (and just a bit more leg room in general). Neither is a revolutionary change and both are mature technologies.
I would view that in the order 90% of the new mogami has a baseline reference in the original mogami, and its the platform now in hot production. I don't think the new mogami is much of a compromise to the no change policy, and does not reflect significant additional risk.
This is very different for the FFX 4300, which appears to be a major deviation to the batch II and III (and even IV), and is likely a concept lacking detailed design. I would consider there is limited liklihood of the 4300 being considered over a new mogami, as much as I think it looks great.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
You're right, I feel the Ocean 4300 is more of a major redesign. It looks good and the radar fit looks more compatible with what we're currently using but my money's on the Evolved Mogami. Less changes and a low crew number from conception.
Mogami is strong in many areas, and automation is one, integration is another. Reducing crew size really needs a proven model, and Mogami has that. Its not theoretical, its there, you can talk to the crew, embed on the ships.
The competition between Japan and Korea is hugely fierce. However, ships of this type are going to be important. Korea is still going to build some ships off its design, and still wants to compete on the international market. I don't think anyone is disappointed in Korea, just their offering and timelines don't quite match up with the Japanese. Remembering when the original Mogami/30ff/30dx was shown off, it had almost no interest from Australia.
IMO the Americans should acquire the Korean design and build that instead/or in addition to the Constellation class. That type of crewing is probably a better fit for them.
The original ships were built with 16 vls in mind, they just wanted to accelerate production they, are being refitted. The new ships will have 32 VLS for Japan. If we choose the second flight mogami, we will get 32 VLS. They are building the ships extremely fast.
Japan to procure 12 new FFM in just 5 years - Naval News
Japan will acquire a total of 12 new FFM frigates in five years from 2024 to 2028 at a very high pace, which reflects the increasingly severe security environment surrounding Japan.
www.navalnews.com
So by the time we get ours, there will be a whole fleet of ships in service. With likely 3 yards in Japan, and 1 yard in Australia spamming them out. Australia as a production center is a key concern for Japan.
This biggest risk to the project is probably the RAN being able to accept ships at the rate they are going to be delivered to us. We are going to have to start embedding crew as soon as the deal is signed on the existing Mogami class hundreds of sailors, perhaps decom another anzac to do it. The biggest risk is us.
My experience is that in most part Japanese and South Korean companies are far more customer and support oriented compared to European companies. As far as I recall our major projects coming from French and Spanish companies have with few exceptions been problematic and getting resolution of post delivery issues ( and there have been quite a few …Taipan, Hobart, MRT, Tiger, AOR has never been quick. not to say US supplied equipment hasn’t been without issue either and also not to say the RAN hasn been it’s won worst enemy with design changes.
But the Stk Koreans in particular seem to have a mindset that once you ask for a capability and it’s all agreed…they will deliver and support it.
On a different level but possibly reflecting their culture.
5 year $5000 Miele oven with issues You get reamed on support and service and you fit into their schedule in 1-2 weeks time and an unpleasant technician comes and looks at you with disdain while doing the repair because your not in the multi million dollar house he is used to …about $1500.
3 year old Hisense TV that developed a spot on the screen. They turn up the next working day with new TV and take the old away no questions asked No cost.
Last edited:
Possibly more of an issue is that it would require the government to bring forward the $billions they have committed to defence spending. They seemed to like the idea of committing but not having to actually find the money for the big spend until the 30s.Mogami is strong in many areas, and automation is one, integration is another. Reducing crew size really needs a proven model, and Mogami has that. Its not theoretical, its there, you can talk to the crew, embed on the ships.
The competition between Japan and Korea is hugely fierce. However, ships of this type are going to be important. Korea is still going to build some ships off its design, and still wants to compete on the international market. I don't think anyone is disappointed in Korea, just their offering and timelines don't quite match up with the Japanese. Remembering when the original Mogami/30ff/30dx was shown off, it had almost no interest from Australia.
IMO the Americans should acquire the Korean design and build that instead/or in addition to the Constellation class. That type of crewing is probably a better fit for them.
The original ships were built with 16 vls in mind, they just wanted to accelerate production they, are being refitted. The new ships will have 32 VLS for Japan. If we choose the second flight mogami, we will get 32 VLS. They are building the ships extremely fast.
12 ships in 5 years. One ship basically every 5 months from the start of the project. They won't arrive at that tempo, but time wise project divided by ships, that is effectively what they are attempting to do. They already have a previous class and proven that is probably achievable. This is a naval arms race, and this ship is at the center of Japans efforts.Japan to procure 12 new FFM in just 5 years - Naval News
Japan will acquire a total of 12 new FFM frigates in five years from 2024 to 2028 at a very high pace, which reflects the increasingly severe security environment surrounding Japan.
So by the time we get ours, there will be a whole fleet of ships in service. With likely 3 yards in Japan, and 1 yard in Australia spamming them out. Australia as a production center is a key concern for Japan.
This biggest risk to the project is probably the RAN being able to accept ships at the rate they are going to be delivered to us. We are going to have to start embedding crew as soon as the deal is signed on the existing Mogami class hundreds of sailors, perhaps decom another anzac to do it. The biggest risk is us.
I suspect the Japanese and Korean tenders will come with accelerated delivery options (say two hulls by 2029), and/or potentially four rather than three overseas hulls by 2034. They may also propose accelerated local build solutions (people secondments, technology transfers, supplier development, possibly even equity ownership) that can have our own yard ready sooner.
To your point bob, it will be interesting to see if the government would bring the funding forward to take advantage of this.
Four GPFs, three ANZACs, three Hobarts, and one Hunter at 2034 (11 platforms), and then one new GPF/Hunter hull every nine months thereafter, makes for a robust future.
Aardvark144
Active Member
That's because they are not 'committing' just 'promising'.
Both Korean options offered accelerated timelines of all 3 delivered by 2030. 1x2029, 2x2030. Somehow this could accelerated to all 3 ships by 2029.
The new FFM, only 1 could be delivered in 2029 (The first 2 are to be delivered 2028 to JMSDF, 2029 commissioning)
ROK government commits to delivering Australian frigates by 2029 - APDR
The South Korean government has committed to delivering Australian frigates by 2029 according to a Korean admiral
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
Sounds too good to be true.
3 ships by 2030,.... with 32 mk41s, and CEAFAR....reduced crew.....it does tick a lot of boxes...
3 ships by 2030,.... with 32 mk41s, and CEAFAR....reduced crew.....it does tick a lot of boxes...