Mogami/DEX/30FFM class frigate

Apophenia said:
And into economics and ownership rights.

Outside of the US, 'eminent domain' is usually known as expropriation or compulsory acquisition. In New Zealand, compulsorily acquiring private land falls under the Resource Management Act (RMA). And it follows a bureaucratic process.

Kiwi landowners faced with compulsory acquisition [1] have the right to full market value of their land as well as disturbance payments and/or compensation for any resulting business losses, increased mortgage payments on replacement properties, etc.

Base housing isn't directly related to the Mogami class but it does beg the questions of whether bases market housing should have been allowed around bases and whether existing bases in built-up areas should be retained. Compared to funding new bases, procuring a few Mogami class will look like a bargain ... :eek:

______________________________________________________________

[1] AFAIK, compulsory acquisition under the RMA assumes the actual use of acquired properties ... not just holding on to lands that might be handy in future. Indeed, if the land is not repurposed immediately, resident owners have the right to stay on the property until its use is reallocated. Point being, it is a potentially messy process that dictates careful planning and scrupulous execution.
Click to expand...
Compulsorily aquiring land for base housing would not meet the requirements, so would definitely be contested in the courts. Moving the base away from the main population centre probably makes it dificult to recruit the sort of technical skills they need.

Anyway, back to topic...
 
Ozair said:
Not much choice though given the decision to take the ships as close to Japanese configuration as possible. The rest of the RAN fleet use the LM2500 although the Hunters will also use the MT30 so the LM2500s will end up being the orphans, in the RAN fleet at least.
Click to expand...
I fully expect that the MT30s will replace the LM2500s, either in midlife refits or as new classes come online.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I fully expect that the MT30s will replace the LM2500s, either in midlife refits or as new classes come online.
Click to expand...
New build seems likely but it would be an unusual decision to replace the LM2500 with an MT30 for an in-service vessel at a mid-life refit... The Canberra class for example uses a single LM2500 with power and size significantly below the MT30 and I suspect the Hobart class with two LM2500s wouldn't see a swap to a single MT30 either.
 
Ozair said:
New build seems likely but it would be an unusual decision to replace the LM2500 with an MT30 for an in-service vessel at a mid-life refit... The Canberra class for example uses a single LM2500 with power and size significantly below the MT30 and I suspect the Hobart class with two LM2500s wouldn't see a swap to a single MT30 either.
Click to expand...
No, I'd expect a 1-for-1 replacement, with the extra power going into generators.
 
While having surplus power on Australian warships would be a significant advantage in future weapon deployment,
but it remains questionable whether it would be worthwhile for large-scale refits, given the challenges of the international shipping(ship mean ship, Is it right my translation?) supply chain.
 
ayatsuji said:
While having surplus power on Australian warships would be a significant advantage in future weapon deployment,
but it remains questionable whether it would be worthwhile for large-scale refits, given the challenges of the international shipping(ship mean ship, Is it right my translation?) supply chain.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be worthwhile at all. The cost to remove perfectly capable and functional LM2500s and refit with MT30s, not taking in to account the recertification and training costs, for little operational benefit makes it a non starter. Neither Canbera or Hobart are getting weapons that require additional surplus power and Hobart doesn't have the growth margin to accept anything else anyway.
 
Ozair said:
It wouldn't be worthwhile at all. The cost to remove perfectly capable and functional LM2500s and refit with MT30s, not taking in to account the recertification and training costs, for little operational benefit makes it a non starter. Neither Canbera or Hobart are getting weapons that require additional surplus power and Hobart doesn't have the growth margin to accept anything else anyway.
Click to expand...
Not even SEWIP-equivalent?
 
To be honest, even as a Japanese person, I’m still surprised that Australia is importing the Mogami-class frigates.

The Mogami-class was developed to break the deadlock facing the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force: a powerful Chinese navy right on our doorstep, while older ships are being retired one after another and our numbers are shrinking. The whole point was to increase the number of hulls and build up combat power as quickly as possible. Under the design philosophy that “no matter how capable a ship is, it’s useless if you can’t field enough of them,” they focused on acquiring only the capabilities most urgently needed right now, while giving up on everything else just to get the numbers up. For air defense, they leave that to other ships; for damage control, the doctrine is that if the ship is judged to be unable to continue sailing, they abandon ship immediately and prioritize saving the crew’s lives—so it only has the bare minimum.

These Mogami-class specs are something that emerged precisely because Japan is on the front line against China. I had doubts about how well they would fit Australia, which is in the rear area against China. Of course, the Mogami-class is a good ship, and compared to the other frigate candidates at the time of selection, I don’t think Australia’s choice was wrong. But I also think Australia had the option of jointly developing a much more capable frigate with Japan.
 
The RAN honestly was facing much the same problem, though. It needed a way to increase numbers rapidly at a relatively low cost, given the delayed timeline and rising cost of the Type 26.

And the version they are getting is more capable than the original Japanese Mogami. Maybe not dramatically, but noticably.

Could they have developed a better ship? Perhaps, but clearly not on the timeline and cost of the Upgraded Mogami.
 
The intent as well is a tier 1 and tier 2 combatant force. No one expects the Mogami in RAN service to fight first day of war. Its purpose is presence for everything else and general support in conflict to wider task forces.
 
takacosta said:
To be honest, even as a Japanese person, I’m still surprised that Australia is importing the Mogami-class frigates.

The Mogami-class was developed to break the deadlock facing the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force: a powerful Chinese navy right on our doorstep, while older ships are being retired one after another and our numbers are shrinking. The whole point was to increase the number of hulls and build up combat power as quickly as possible. Under the design philosophy that “no matter how capable a ship is, it’s useless if you can’t field enough of them,” they focused on acquiring only the capabilities most urgently needed right now, while giving up on everything else just to get the numbers up. For air defense, they leave that to other ships; for damage control, the doctrine is that if the ship is judged to be unable to continue sailing, they abandon ship immediately and prioritize saving the crew’s lives—so it only has the bare minimum.

These Mogami-class specs are something that emerged precisely because Japan is on the front line against China. I had doubts about how well they would fit Australia, which is in the rear area against China. Of course, the Mogami-class is a good ship, and compared to the other frigate candidates at the time of selection, I don’t think Australia’s choice was wrong. But I also think Australia had the option of jointly developing a much more capable frigate with Japan.
Click to expand...
Regarding damage control the Japanese navy said that it's pointless to add too much damage control/hull survivability as the models showed a single heavy asm hit sinking a ship of that size regardless of the damage control measures applied.
 
takacosta said:
To be honest, even as a Japanese person, I’m still surprised that Australia is importing the Mogami-class frigates.

The Mogami-class was developed to break the deadlock facing the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force: a powerful Chinese navy right on our doorstep, while older ships are being retired one after another and our numbers are shrinking. The whole point was to increase the number of hulls and build up combat power as quickly as possible. Under the design philosophy that “no matter how capable a ship is, it’s useless if you can’t field enough of them,” they focused on acquiring only the capabilities most urgently needed right now, while giving up on everything else just to get the numbers up. For air defense, they leave that to other ships; for damage control, the doctrine is that if the ship is judged to be unable to continue sailing, they abandon ship immediately and prioritize saving the crew’s lives—so it only has the bare minimum.

These Mogami-class specs are something that emerged precisely because Japan is on the front line against China. I had doubts about how well they would fit Australia, which is in the rear area against China. Of course, the Mogami-class is a good ship, and compared to the other frigate candidates at the time of selection, I don’t think Australia’s choice was wrong. But I also think Australia had the option of jointly developing a much more capable frigate with Japan.
Click to expand...
Maybe in future there will be Japanese Hunter class, and/or a jointly developed air warfare destroyer.
 
DJK said:
Maybe in future there will be Japanese Hunter class, and/or a jointly developed air warfare destroyer.
Click to expand...
I don't see that happening.

The Japanese already have their own 13DDX programme in the planning
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/jmsdf-ddr-destroyer-revolution-13ddx.21462/

and also are simultaneously researching for the Kongo class replacement.

Most importantly, RAN has no need for a new surface combatant for the next 2 decades, now that they have Hobart, Hunter and T2SC all set, completing their fleet.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
I don't see that happening.

The Japanese already have their own 13DDX programme in the planning
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/jmsdf-ddr-destroyer-revolution-13ddx.21462/

and also are simultaneously researching for the Kongo class replacement.

Most importantly, RAN has no need for a new surface combatant for the next 2 decades, now that they have Hobart, Hunter and T2SC all set, completing their fleet.
Click to expand...
Not very many Hobarts to go around and not that many VLS per ship. But wasn't the DDX a pretty huge thing aimed at BMD?
 
DJK said:
Not very many Hobarts to go around and not that many VLS per ship. But wasn't the DDX a pretty huge thing aimed at BMD?
Click to expand...
So you may think, but Surface Combatant Review from 2024 didn't call for any more destroyers so it's not for us to decide whether they need or could afford more destroyers.

If anything, they have cut down on Tier 1surface combatants and created a provision for Tier 2 SCs, making the fleet better equipped and more flexible at the cost of a few premier SCs. I don't see RAN demanding increase of fleet size for T1 SCs.

Also, 13DDX is a Murasame and Takanami class replacement, not the AEGIS DDG replacement. Envisioned to be BMD capable yes, but BMD coverage for mainland Japan is reserved for AEGIS DDGs.
 
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ami-frigates-and-submarine-offers-from-japan/

Mogami offered to Indonesia. As usual, its obscured if it's the 30FFM or 06FFM being offered to them. However NN is pretty good about specifying, so I have a feeling that maybe the older FFM class is being offered. Would be interesting if they sell off the old Mogami's at a discount and just expand production for a full fleet of the new Mogami's instead.
 
Kota said:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ami-frigates-and-submarine-offers-from-japan/

Mogami offered to Indonesia. As usual, its obscured if it's the 30FFM or 06FFM being offered to them. However NN is pretty good about specifying, so I have a feeling that maybe the older FFM class is being offered. Would be interesting if they sell off the old Mogami's at a discount and just expand production for a full fleet of the new Mogami's instead.
Click to expand...
Besides Indonesia could see the Philippine Navy interested in used Mogami as well.
 
Used Mogami-class(30FFM) VLS only have anti-submarine missiles.
Just as Japan and Australia have an agreement for local manufacturing, if it is, Indonesia will probably either manufacture them locally or buy them from Australia.
But I don't think Indonesia would be allowed to buy them from Australia.
 
ayatsuji said:
Used Mogami-class(30FFM) VLS only have anti-submarine missiles.
Click to expand...
VLASROC and ESSM. Also I don't see the issue with this because just based on a cursory glance, the majority of the Indonesian navy's ASW assets are 40+ year old corvettes. Meanwhile they have like 4 different nearly brand new classes of AAW frigates.

Everything seems to point to buying 30FFMs. The initial sale offer to Indonesia a while ago was prior to 06FFM so if it's just carrying on that framework, then it would be for 30FFMs still. There is also the submarine half of the offer which is for Oyashio's, not even Soryu's, let alone Taigei's. Indonesia being offered 2 generation old submarines either because of cost or what Japan would be willing to sell Indonesia atm, doesn't exactly align with them getting 06FFMs
 
Kota said:
VLASROC and ESSM. Also I don't see the issue with this because just based on a cursory glance, the majority of the Indonesian navy's ASW assets are 40+ year old corvettes. Meanwhile they have like 4 different nearly brand new classes of AAW frigates.

Everything seems to point to buying 30FFMs. The initial sale offer to Indonesia a while ago was prior to 06FFM so if it's just carrying on that framework, then it would be for 30FFMs still. There is also the submarine half of the offer which is for Oyashio's, not even Soryu's, let alone Taigei's. Indonesia being offered 2 generation old submarines either because of cost or what Japan would be willing to sell Indonesia atm, doesn't exactly align with them getting 06FFMs
Click to expand...
It's more that Japan keeps two or three classes of any given ship type in service at a time. Oyashios were superseded by Soryus, but weren't replaced until Taigeis came out.
 
"Mogami"-class frigate, talks on export to NZ — Japan, Australia, NZ defense ministers hold trilateral meeting
【Singapore = Ryota Ogata】 Japan, Australia, and New Zealand (NZ) held a defense ministers’ meeting in Singapore on the 30th. They discussed the export of Japanese frigates to New Zealand. Japan is expanding its export destinations, centering on cooperation with Australia, which has already decided to introduce the vessels.

https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA2853S0Y6A520C2000000/

While the export of the Mogami has not yet been finalized, it appears that Japan has taken the initiative and is leading the way ahead of its rivals.
 
I saw something saying Japan was considering selling missiles, so there may be a chance to at least include the the Type-12 or ChuSAM if a country needed them. Hope we can get our CAMMs integrated.

Reading up on "New FFM" and suprised by a couple of things.
1. Its got hull sonar and towed array designed in, presume that means a pretty quiet hull to make that worthwhile. No hybrid electric though.
2. The mission bay connects directly to a stern launch ramp under the flight deck, nice!
3. Guns seem limited to a couple of 12.7mm RWS, nothing optimised for swarm defence against USVs and UAVs. Presume you could add a couple of 35mm AA guns but more challenging for anything requiring a through-deck mount like a Bofors.
 
DJK said:
I saw something saying Japan was considering selling missiles, so there may be a chance to at least include the the Type-12 or ChuSAM if a country needed them. Hope we can get our CAMMs integrated.
Click to expand...
Right now the only confirmed thing for missile sales is the older Type 90 SSM-1Bs for the PAF since they don't really have a low cost SSM asset and it clears out JP inventories for Type 25 SSM. Old Type 03 Chu-Sam were also speculated to be in the works for export, but nothing confirmed yet.

For FFM06 export to ADF specifically though, the SSM will be NSM and AAW missile will be quad packed ESSM. I would imagine Type 23 A-SAM is on the table now if they want it, but the relaxation on missiles happened after the ADF deal, so it would have to be a separate contract and purchase.
 

Comparison Summary​

FeatureLM2500MT30
Length~12 m8.6 m
Width~3 m2.7 m
Height8.2 m3.5 m
Approx. weight4.7–5.25 tons30 tons (package included)
Footprint typeShipping container-sized enclosureCompact marine package
NotesModular installation, sound/thermal isolationFewer parts, high power-to-weight ratio, optimized for compact vessels
In summary, the LM2500 occupies a larger and taller enclosure resembling a full-size shipping container but with a lighter weight, while the MT30 delivers a comparable or higher power output in a smaller footprint with a robust, compact packaged design suitable for naval installations

Rolls-Royce+3

The weights aren't that useful, i.e. apples and oranges, but even if the MT30 arrangement is heavier, its low-down weight, hence could be beneficial.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's more that Japan keeps two or three classes of any given ship type in service at a time. Oyashios were superseded by Soryus, but weren't replaced until Taigeis came out.
Click to expand...
They keep a certain number of any ship type in service that they replace as they age out For example right now the poan for subs is 22 with a build rate of one per year. Oyashios will therefore stay in service until 22 Soryu/Taigei/post-Taigei boats are in service.

The Kongos are due for relacement at 35 years, which is standard for surface warships.

The Mogamis are a bit of an odd class since they aren't a like for like replacement.
 
30FFM(Mogami) has only type 07 ASROC, Her OPY-2 system cant guidance ESSM and A-SAM(Japanese new SAM).

06FFM can use A-SAM too with new OPY-2 base Fire Guide system(has Interrupted Continuous Wave Illuminator mode).

Now We dont know She can has ESSM.
 
Volkodav said:

Comparison Summary​

FeatureLM2500MT30
Length~12 m8.6 m
Width~3 m2.7 m
Height8.2 m3.5 m
Approx. weight4.7–5.25 tons30 tons (package included)
Footprint typeShipping container-sized enclosureCompact marine package
NotesModular installation, sound/thermal isolationFewer parts, high power-to-weight ratio, optimized for compact vessels
In summary, the LM2500 occupies a larger and taller enclosure resembling a full-size shipping container but with a lighter weight, while the MT30 delivers a comparable or higher power output in a smaller footprint with a robust, compact packaged design suitable for naval installations
Rolls-Royce+3

The weights aren't that useful, i.e. apples and oranges, but even if the MT30 arrangement is heavier, its low-down weight, hence could be beneficial.
Click to expand...

This isn't like for like by any measure.

Here's the GE datasheet for the LM2500 family. The module is 8m long, 2.6 m wide, and 2.4 m high. And there a new lightweight version that uses carbon fiber instead of steel for the walls and shaves like 2¼ tons off the weight. (Pretty sure the weights cited for the LM 2500 above are turbine dry weights, not the weight of the equipped enclosure.)

https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/LM2500-Datasheet.pdf
 
ayatsuji said:
30FFM(Mogami) has only type 07 ASROC, Her OPY-2 system cant guidance ESSM and A-SAM(Japanese new SAM).

06FFM can use A-SAM too with new OPY-2 base Fire Guide system(has Interrupted Continuous Wave Illuminator mode).

Now We dont know She can has ESSM.
Click to expand...
ESSM block 2 is Active radar homing so its doesn't need to be guided like the Block 1 which need radar guidance due to its semi active radar homing.
They have already integrated ESSM with FCS-3A in Akizuki class Destroyer in 2010 and OPY-2 is based on FCS-3A radar so its can guide ESSM by default.
 
Andhakara said:
ESSM block 2 is Active radar homing so its doesn't need to be guided like the Block 1 which need radar guidance due to its semi active radar homing.
They have already integrated ESSM with FCS-3A in Akizuki class Destroyer in 2010 and OPY-2 is based on FCS-3A radar so its can guide ESSM by default.
Click to expand...
Right, that’s what we thought too. That’s why we were surprised when the captain said, "The ship doesn't have that on board."
https://twitter.com/x/status/1800151516390818092
View: https://x.com/i/status/1800151516390818092
 
ayatsuji said:
Right, that’s what we thought too. That’s why we were surprised when the captain said, "The ship doesn't have that on board."
https://twitter.com/x/status/1800151516390818092
View: https://x.com/i/status/1800151516390818092
Click to expand...
Probably it's more mission related than equipment related. Since Australia will be using ESSM.
To be honest 16 vls is not enough for anti air warefare nor is AAW part of mogami's portfolio, it is a primarily ASW and mineware ship. So it doesn't make sense to use it as an AAW ship.
However the upgrade mogami with 32 vls and new radar mast which separates search and track panels and has dedicated illuminators seems be much more suited for AAW. They are more likely to used for air defence with ESSM and type 23 A-SAM.
 

Attachments

  • october-2025-mhi-model-of-mogami-class-for-australia-also-v0-iqcbqiz2cfwf1 (1).jpg
    october-2025-mhi-model-of-mogami-class-for-australia-also-v0-iqcbqiz2cfwf1 (1).jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 25
Andhakara said:
Probably it's more mission related than equipment related. Since Australia will be using ESSM.
To be honest 16 vls is not enough for anti air warefare nor is AAW part of mogami's portfolio, it is a primarily ASW and mineware ship. So it doesn't make sense to use it as an AAW ship.
However the upgrade mogami with 32 vls and new radar mast which separates search and track panels and has dedicated illuminators seems be much more suited for AAW. They are more likely to used for air defence with ESSM and type 23 A-SAM.
Click to expand...
I was gonna say the same thing about it being a mission thing. However 16 cells is pretty decent for a AAW loadout and you can get 64 ESSM in them. 32 cells is much nicer to have though. Australia hasn't made any purchases or commitments past ESSM, so they will likely be running a full 128 missile load. Japan's 06FFM will probably be a bit more complex though with a mix of Type 23, ESSM, and maybe a few Type 07.
 
Andhakara said:
To be honest 16 vls is not enough for anti air warefare nor is AAW part of mogami's portfolio, it is a primarily ASW and mineware ship. So it doesn't make sense to use it as an AAW ship.
However the upgrade mogami with 32 vls and new radar mast which separates search and track panels and has dedicated illuminators seems be much more suited for AAW. They are more likely to used for air defence with ESSM and type 23 A-SAM.
Click to expand...
16 VLS is plenty for self defense AA. Remember that ESSMs quad-pack into Mk41 cells, so 16x Mk41 cells means 64x ESSMs.
 
LightningFan1959 said:
That's only about 32 stowed kills, though, going by NATO practice for missile based interception.
Click to expand...
That's still several manageable AA engagements. And several(2-3) ground batteries' worth of missiles.
It doesn't help to store more - the cost will be substantial, and single big salvo will overwhelm defenses all the same, so realistically it's more like 24-40 interceptors, with rest being allocated to VL-ASROC(or type 7).

Large SAM stores (of expensive high-end missiles) make sense when you are responsible for a significant area. This is just not the case here.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom