Mogami/DEX/30FFM class frigate

[Kota]

Still think they're going to keep the ASROCs for ASW since I don't see any lightweight torpedo tubes, but that's a little better for protecting the ship itself.

6x VL-ASROCs, 12x ESSMs in quadpacks, ~3x SM3s, ~20x A-SAMs. Still tight.

Torpedo tubes are on both Mogami's, so still unlikely to need* ASROC for it's mission.

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 711189
Torpedo tubes are on both Mogami's, so still unlikely to need* ASROC for it's mission.

Odd place for them, I was expecting them back aft at the helo hangar...

edit: But not needing to use ASROCs for ASW defenses makes a lot more room in the VLS, 6x more A-SAMs/SM2s/SM3s really helps when you only had space for ~20x before. They may still stick a few ASROCs in there, but probably less than 6x.

 

[kqcke for you]

Do we know If A-SAM is dual packed?
Also If they carry no VL-ASROCs then they maybe also carry more ESSM. Like 20 ESSM, 24-27 A-SAM/SM-2 (If single packed) or 0-3 SM-3.

 

[TomS]

Do we know If A-SAM is dual packed?

It isn't.

@NMaude will like this one, because it actually uses the booster from the Japanese Type 07 VL-ASROC (which is different from the US version).

Japan tests new A-SAM system at sea - Naval News

According to Japan's ATLA a launch test of a new SAM system was conducted from Experimental Ship JS Asuka (ASE-6102) in December 2022.

www.navalnews.com

 

[raptor82]

新型FFM （or “FMF-AAW”)

Japan's MHI shows 'New FFM' Frigate at Indopacific 2023

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries shows New FFM concept. Air warfare frigate for Japan. Twelve hulls to be constructed between 2027 and 2036.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

新型FFM （or “FMF-AAW”)

Japan's MHI shows 'New FFM' Frigate at Indopacific 2023

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries shows New FFM concept. Air warfare frigate for Japan. Twelve hulls to be constructed between 2027 and 2036.

www.navalnews.com

Stretched 10m, 1m wider in beam, and the forward deckhouse is a full deck taller.

Still not sold on only 32 VLS cells, though.

 

[asVAL]

View attachment 711189
Torpedo tubes are on both Mogami's, so still unlikely to need* ASROC for it's mission.

JMSDF has torpedoes that can reach as far as VLAs?
Wheres the mindblown emoji?

Edit: so FFG-62 removes the torp tubes in favor of VLA but Mogami went the opposite...
A Mk32 SVTT is really cheap, the cost is in the round itself. IIRC some Soviet destroyers has 533mm tubes that can fire rocket-boosted torpedoes. A buried-in-hull double tube that can fire ASROCs would be an interesting way to compensate for the low VLA magazine on the current 32-cell set imo.

 

[Kota]

JMSDF has torpedoes that can reach as far as VLAs?
Wheres the mindblown emoji?

I never claimed as much. My point is the primary role of the new Mogami's is AAW and will be part of an escort flotilla likely with initial spec Mogamis and heavily ASW focused DDs like Akizuki and Asahi classes. They just need some basic self defense.

 

[asVAL]

I never claimed as much. My point is the primary role of the new Mogami's is AAW and will be part of an escort flotilla likely with initial spec Mogamis and heavily ASW focused DDs like Akizuki and Asahi classes. They just need some basic self defense.

That's even more terrible.
Surface-launched lightweight torpedoes have near-zero, scrap that, zero chance to actually intercept a sub. Unless the JMSDF decided that it will fire only antitorpedotorpedo only. Palet NK vibe right there.
That being said, 32 cell is barely usable even for a pure AAW mission. Unless they want to make it local area defense only - use MR-SAMs and ESSM to supplement heavy theater AAW/BMD destroyers, and nothing else.

It is interesting how Asian frigates seem to be converging into the same role: low-cost, local AAW/ASW capable vessel. Hell they are even trying to look the same: intergrated mast, fore VLS magazine, and mid-shipe slant AShM launchers.

 

[Kota]

That's even more terrible.
Surface-launched lightweight torpedoes have near-zero, scrap that, zero chance to actually intercept a sub. Unless the JMSDF decided that it will fire only antitorpedotorpedo only. Palet NK vibe right there.

Surface launched torpedoes are relatively cheap and take up minimal overall space.

Unless they want to make it local area defense only - use MR-SAMs and ESSM to supplement heavy theater AAW/BMD destroyers, and nothing else.

Yes thats the entire point. Fielding A-SAMs and ESSMs. Japan is planning to have 56 guided destroyers in service by 2030 including the 2 ASEVs. They don't need a bunch of do it all 8000-10000t "frigates" that the Europeans are doing because they will have more destroyers than almost every western European country combined.

It is interesting how Asian frigates seem to be converging into the same role: low-cost, local AAW/ASW capable vessel.

This has basically been the role of frigates for the longest time.

Hell they are even trying to look the same: intergrated mast, fore VLS magazine, and mid-shipe slant AShM launchers.

It's crazy they are doing the same things with their planes too! Wings mounted on the side, cockpit at the front, vertical stabilizer mounted vertically, ordnance mounted under the wings! You basically gave a description that applies to basically every modern surface combatant out there. Of course it's all the same.

 

[asVAL]

This has basically been the role of frigates for the longest time.

You seriously couldn't just say "European oversized frigates do-it-all" right before this lolol

It's crazy they are doing the same things with their planes too! Wings mounted on the side, cockpit at the front, vertical stabilizer mounted vertically, ordnance mounted under the wings! You basically gave a description that applies to basically every modern surface combatant out there. Of course it's all the same.

Except that they aren't?
A Daegu-class has a uniform fused superstructure with a single spiky tripod mast.
A Formidable-class has a low bridge with a radar mast atop and a midship intergrated mast fused into the funnel and reccessed AShMs.
A Gowind is rather distinct with its low length-beam ratio.
A Type 054B is the opposite of that.
A Type 26 with its mast protrusions is also incredibly recognizable.
And FFG-62 probably has the most Cold war looking bow.
Mogami is unique in its own rights. The only thing that has some connection to other frigates is the lower mast design (FDI). The upper part looks like a tampon.

 

[Kota]

A Daegu-class has a uniform fused superstructure with a single spiky tripod mast.
A Formidable-class has a low bridge with a radar mast atop and a midship intergrated mast fused into the funnel and reccessed AShMs.
A Gowind is rather distinct with its low length-beam ratio.
A Type 054B is the opposite of that.
A Type 26 with its mast protrusions is also incredibly recognizable.
And FFG-62 probably has the most Cold war looking bow.

Reminder that your initial comment was

intergrated mast, fore VLS magazine, and mid-shipe slant AShM launchers.

All of your examples have integrated masts (except the Constellation, but we are talking about the US here they are the outlier), bow VLS, and mid ship slant AShM launchers. Now you are trying to bring up all these nuanced details that weren't a part of your initial claims such as beam, bow shape, AShM launchers being recessed (they are still slanted and midship).

Mogami is unique in its own rights. The only thing that has some connection to other frigates is the lower mast design (FDI). The upper part looks like a tampon.

So then it isn't all trying to look the same?

 

[asVAL]

All of your examples have integrated masts (except the Constellation, but we are talking about the US here they are the outlier), bow VLS, and mid ship slant AShM launchers. Now you are trying to bring up all these nuanced details that weren't a part of your initial claims such as beam, bow shape, AShM launchers being recessed (they are still slanted and midship).
So then it isn't all trying to look the same?

Because I couldn't bother to type out every exact details? Does that bothers you that much that I chose not to clarify on why I think a Daegu is superficially similar to a Type 054B or a Mogami?
All of them have a small AAW loadout and dedicated AShM launchers a contained within a streamlined hull with an intergrated mast. It's as generic as you can get. My original comment on their appearances was a reflection on the prior sentence: they are doing the same job, hence- form follows function. Of course a Japanese frigate with Japanese components and hydrodynamics would be very different from a Chinese one and vice versa.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Surface launched torpedoes are relatively cheap and take up minimal overall space.

And are basically the modern day depth charge. They don't have the range to threaten a sub that is attacking the ship with the lightweight torpedoes.

Crud, you could get really sneaky with the torpedoes in a convoy attack, set your first volley slow, cut wires as soon as they're past the escort, reload, and shoot a fast torpedo at the escort, all timed to arrive at about the same time. Or, shoot a fast torpedo at the escort, wait for it to impact, then launch AShMs at the convoy.

You really need VL-ASROCs and helicopter-dropped torpedoes to hunt subs at a range where they will struggle to engage the surface ships.

Yes thats the entire point. Fielding A-SAMs and ESSMs. Japan is planning to have 56 guided destroyers in service by 2030 including the 2 ASEVs. They don't need a bunch of do it all 8000-10000t "frigates" that the Europeans are doing because they will have more destroyers than almost every western European country combined.

You do know that Japan calls almost all their large ships "Destroyers" due to their constitution's Article 9, right? Even those big flattops are officially Helicopter Destroyers, not carriers.

 

[Kota]

And are basically the modern day depth charge. They don't have the range to threaten a sub that is attacking the ship with the lightweight torpedoes.

They still have their role and can even be used against USVs that need to operate much closer than a submarine.

You really need VL-ASROCs and helicopter-dropped torpedoes to hunt subs at a range where they will struggle to engage the surface ships.

You guys keep acting like this thing is going to be operating alone in a vacuum. If there is even remotely a known threat of submarines there will be P-1/P-3Cs above. It will be part of an escort flotilla with either an Akizuki or Asahi that has 32 cells just for loading Type 07 VLASROC and some ESSM. There will also be a couple Aegis DDGs with some ASROC. There will likely be a Hyuuga or Izumo with some SH-60s. You have the Mogami itself with SH-60s. You have the other 7 destroyers in the flotilla each with 1-2 SH-60 or MCH-101. This thing literally just has to shoot down incoming missiles and planes because there are 7 other destroyers just in its group with VLASROC or SH-60s to handle ASW.

You do know that Japan calls almost all their large ships "Destroyers" due to their constitution's Article 9, right? Even those big flattops are officially Helicopter Destroyers, not carriers.

That constitutes 4 total ships and 2 of those are likely to change designation. It's not an article 9 issue, it's just the proper designation given for their role when they were built. The Osumi class is designated as LST and Japan has plenty of other examples of calling flat tops their proper name when it fits the role.

 

[helmutkohl]

Mitsubishi unveils Hibiki class to replace the Mogami class (their words) in this video

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rnTh5N-G8c

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Before talking further, you guys should first understand that FFMs are NOT meant to be deployed in Escort Flotilla (goeitaigun). They are meant to replace aging surface forces of current Local Flotilla/District (chihoutai), which will soon be restructured into Auxillery Fleet. They are meant to be built in numbers, unlike DD, DDG and DDH. Go back a few pages on this thread and take a look how the original DEX were meant to be like. JMSDF first line of defence was, is and will continue to be the Escort Flotilla.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Before talking further, you guys should first understand that FFMs are NOT meant to be deployed in Escort Flotilla (goeitaigun). They are meant to replace aging surface forces of current Local Flotilla/District (chihoutai), which will soon be restructured into Auxillery Fleet. They are meant to be built in numbers, unlike DD, DDG and DDH. Go back a few pages on this thread and take a look how the original DDX were meant to be like. JMSDF first line of defence was, is and will continue to be the Escort Flotilla.

Thank you for clarification on the role, but my concern is that this craft is already starting at bare minimum AAW missile capacity.

 

[Kota]

Before talking further, you guys should first understand that FFMs are NOT meant to be deployed in Escort Flotilla (goeitaigun). They are meant to replace aging surface forces of current Local Flotilla/District (chihoutai), which will soon be restructured into Auxillery Fleet. They are meant to be built in numbers, unlike DD, DDG and DDH. Go back a few pages on this thread and take a look how the original DDX were meant to be like. JMSDF first line of defence was, is and will continue to be the Escort Flotilla.

I know the old Mogami class was put into the Mine Warfare force out of Yokosuka, but I thought part of this new flight of Mogamis was partially to replace Murasames in the the escort flotillas.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I know the old Mogami class was put into the Mine Warfare force out of Yokosuka, but I thought part of this new flight of Mogamis was partially to replace Murasames in the the escort flotillas.

To my knowledge, Murasame class will be replace by 13DD and the New FFM will be deployed in the new 海上輸送群, which was called 両用群 (was part of Mine Warfare Force in the 31大綱 document). I'm not sure if the newer reiwa era 防衛大綱 outlined any changes to this plan, but at least to my knoweldge FFM are not meant to replace any DDs in the Escort Flotilla.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To my knowledge, Murasame class will be replace by 13DD and the New FFM will be deployed in the new 海上輸送群, which was called 両用群 (was part of Mine Warfare Force in the 31大綱 document). I'm not sure if the newer reiwa era 防衛大綱 outlined any changes to this plan, but at least to my knoweldge FFM are not meant to replace any DDs in the Escort Flotilla.

So the FFM are supposed to provide AAW cover to the minesweepers etc, then?

Is there an English translation of the plans anywhere? My Japanese is way too rusty to even try.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Thank you for clarification on the role, but my concern is that this craft is already starting at bare minimum AAW missile capacity.

This thing will basically be the Japanese Constellation class, which, for quite a coincidence, also only has 32 cells of Mk.41. Add to that, the New FFMs will be given less importance than FFG(X). I don't see much problem.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This thing will basically be the Japanese Constellation class, which, for quite a coincidence, also only has 32 cells of Mk.41. Add to that, the New FFMs will be given less importance than FFG(X). I don't see much problem.

Yes, and the Constellation class is very likely getting stretched in the second flight to hold at least another 16 cells, if not another 32, because 32 cells is just flat not enough against Russian or Chinese bomber regiments or Oscar SLCM attacks. The original buy was to have minimal engineering changes from the Euro design.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

So the FFM are supposed to provide AAW cover to the minesweepers etc, then?

They are meant to operate in littorals, support mine warfare force and amphibious assault force.

Is there an English translation of the plans anywhere? My Japanese is way too rusty to even try.

Not that I know of, but you could try machine translate in MoD homepage. Keyword is 30/31/01~05 防衛大綱.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Yes, and the Constellation class is very likely getting stretched in the second flight to hold at least another 16 cells, if not another 32, because 32 cells is just flat not enough against Russian or Chinese bomber regiments or Oscar SLCM attacks. The original buy was to have minimal engineering changes from the Euro design.

Yes, and like I've said FFMs have less importance compared to FFG(X) roles in USN.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes, and like I've said FFMs have less importance compared to FFG(X) roles in USN.

Still a terrible idea to have your ship's missile capacity maxed out at the start of a career. 48 cells will provide some extra capacity to cover the littoral fleet, while 32 cells is painfully tight, likely to be exhausted after one defense scenario.

 

[GHH]

Odd place for them, I was expecting them back aft at the helo hangar...

edit: But not needing to use ASROCs for ASW defenses makes a lot more room in the VLS, 6x more A-SAMs/SM2s/SM3s really helps when you only had space for ~20x before. They may still stick a few ASROCs in there, but probably less than 6x.

If they still follow conventional JMSDF doctrine, 8x VLASROC seems the most likely. That is the standard ammunition quantity used in a single engagement.
SAM would be somewhere in between 24x A-SAM to 96x ESSM, I doubt New-FFM could operate SM-3 due to lack of SPY radar.

Still a terrible idea to have your ship's missile capacity maxed out at the start of a career. 48 cells will provide some extra capacity to cover the littoral fleet, while 32 cells is painfully tight, likely to be exhausted after one defense scenario.

PACIFIC 2019: MHI Unveils OPV & DDG Designs Based on Future JMSDF Frigate - Naval News

At PACIFIC 2019, the international maritime exposition which opened its doors in Sydney, Australia, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan unveiled two news ship designs based on their FMF frigate: Two OPV and a DDG designs.

www.navalnews.com

At least, It does not seem difficult to replace the rear SSM with 16 cell Mk.41.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Still a terrible idea to have your ship's missile capacity maxed out at the start of a career. 48 cells will provide some extra capacity to cover the littoral fleet, while 32 cells is painfully tight, likely to be exhausted after one defense scenario.

Doesn't really matter since FFMs are meant for second-line missions. They are tasked in threat environments in which something's going seriously wrong if they empty their magazines.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Doesn't really matter since FFMs are meant for second-line missions. They are tasked in threat environments in which something's going seriously wrong if they empty their magazines.

Assuming zero ASROCs, we're probably looking at 3 cells worth of ESSMs as the ship's point defense, then 26-29x A-SAMs with 0-3x SM3s if the radar can handle them.

SM3s are for DF21s, obviously. Let's assume that those are either not a predicted threat (unlikely) or that the radar can't handle them (more likely).

So we have an available magazine of 26x A-SAMs with a ~50km range... Wait a minute. That's ESSM range! Why would the Japanese want single-loaded A-SAMs when they already use ESSM quadpacks with the same range? I thought A-SAMs had SM2 range!

Now I'm confused. Got any ideas, Maro.Kyo?

 

[Kota]

with a ~50km range

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but 50km is the estimated range for the basic Type 03. A-SAM is based on the Type 03 Kai with an added booster from the Type 07 VLASROC.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but 50km is the estimated range for the basic Type 03. A-SAM is based on the Type 03 Kai with an added booster from the Type 07 VLASROC.

Thing is, your basic SM2MR has a ~150km range, and the SM2ER Block IV doubles that.

The only way this makes sense to me is if the A-SAM has a ~150-200km range, and that's a huge improvement over the basic Type 03. Otherwise max out the racks with 8x VLASROC and 24x quadpacked ESSMs for 96 total birds.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Now I'm confused. Got any ideas, Maro.Kyo?

You're confused because you're making all these assumptions and assertions based off of ignorance and wrong assessment. Who says A-SAM is same range as ESSM? It is very widely known that this thing is long-range SAM. They are devleoping FC network, a Japanese take on NIFC/CEC just so that they could utilise A-SAM range to its full potential. This is all part of their grander scheme to build up network centric navy. Also, SM-2 is SARH and SM-6 are very expensive.

Conversely, I'm truly currious why you'd think that the Japanese, after all these years of operating ESSM, would suddenly opt to develop and field a missile that is arguably inferior to ESSM, if your assumptions were to be right.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You're confused because you're making all these assumptions and assertions based off of ignorance and wrong assessment. Who says A-SAM is same range as ESSM?

Wiki entry, for lack of better references on my part.

It is very widely known that this thing is long-range SAM. They are devleoping FC network, a Japanese take on NIFC/CEC just so that they could utilise A-SAM range to its full potential. This is all part of their grander scheme to build up network centric navy. Also, SM-2 is SARH and SM-6 are very expensive.

Okay, makes sense so far.

Conversely, I'm truly currious why you'd think that the Japanese, after all these years of operating ESSM, would suddenly opt to develop and field a missile that is arguably inferior to ESSM, if your assumptions were to be right.

I don't, which is why I was highly confused:

I thought A-SAMs had SM2 range!

But my available reference for range said 50km.

I could understand the Japanese suddenly developing their own ESSM equivalent, so as to not be tied to US production. Or to buy a license to produce ESSMs for their own use and for US 7th Fleet supply.

I could not understand the Japanese making a significantly worse ESSM-class missile (active homing and TVM but not quadpackable, so losing massive capacity for a completely fire-and-forget missile), so I knew something had to be wrong.

 

[kqcke for you]

So we have an available magazine of 26x A-SAMs with a ~50km range... Wait a minute.

(A-SAM and Type 03 have not the same Design)

That's ESSM range! Why would the Japanese want single-loaded A-SAMs when they already use ESSM quadpacks with the same range? I thought A-SAMs had SM2 range!

Well we dont know If its SM-2 range (which is a large range spectrum) but we do know its possible for it to achieve. We dont know the full extension of its modification but from the look we are in the Ballpark of 5.5-6.5m length with 4.9m (in Case the Missile upper part itself didn't Change) Long.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I could not understand the Japanese making a significantly worse ESSM-class missile (active homing and TVM but not quadpackable, so losing massive capacity for a completely fire-and-forget missile), so I knew something had to be wrong.

Fair enough, so we were on the same page.

 

[kqcke for you]

Just so we all know.
A-SAM (Chu-SAM Kai with a booster)

Chu-SAM Kai (improved Version of Type 03)



Type 03

 

[kqcke for you]

A little more detailed look at A-SAM

 

[Kota]

Now I'm just waiting for XRIM-4 (as it was originally intended) resurfaces. A quad packed modified AAM-4 with an active AESA seeker to replace ESSM would be really competitive as ESSM mostly doesn't have competition. However XRIM-4 developed into A-SAM, so idk how likely it is to see a return to the quad pack concept.

 

[kqcke for you]

Now I'm just waiting for XRIM-4 (as it was originally intended) resurfaces. A quad packed modified AAM-4 with an active AESA seeker to replace ESSM would be really competitive as ESSM mostly doesn't have competition. However XRIM-4 developed into A-SAM, so idk how likely it is to see a return to the quad pack concept.

I think the chances are better that they Develop it into a dualpack compatable design. SM-2 had the possiblity so why should A-SAM not. Foldable wings, control surfaces and thinner booster should allow it.

 

[Kota]

I think the chances are better that they Develop it into a dualpack compatable design. SM-2 had the possiblity so why should A-SAM not. Foldable wings, control surfaces and thinner booster should allow it.

Dual-pack A-SAM would be nice, but I'm talking about the original concept which was for an ESSM replacement based on the Type 99(B) missile, not the Type 03 Kai based missile we have now