Australian general purpose frigate program

Halcyon66 said:
The contact has not even been negotiated/signed in any capacity and somehow it is a done deal, funny that the AUST govt thinks it has some magical bargaining power. US told Aust to buy them, and they did.
Click to expand...
Do you have any experience with Aus Govt procurement? In submitting a tender bid MHI and TKMS had to submit pricing that was evaluated and is contractually binding for a specific period of time, usually 12 months but with big acquisitions like this could be longer as the time to down select can sometimes be significant. Hence the price is well understood. Additionally, as the mogami is already in production and approaching 12 vessels the price is well understood by the manufacturer including on building the already in production larger version.

Where the price issues are occurring is what it will cost to get the Australian yard up to the spec required to build the vessels and what the almost certainly more expensive Australian workforce will cost over the life of the delivery. MHI would have been provided estimates in the tender documents on those but it is still a guessing game backed by a host of assumptions and identified risks.

You obviously want to pay less but you also claimed earlier you want Australian industry involved. You don't get industry involved without paying extra for it. As I said earlier my preference would be all frigates built in Japan and that saved money be spent in areas of the economy where Australia can make money, not sink it down the pockets of a relatively miniscule portion of the Australian workforce.
Halcyon66 said:
And another point.................

www.dailymail.co.uk

Trump threatens to hike tariffs on Aussie necessity to 250 per cent

Donald Trump has hinted the tariff will be as high as 250 per cent.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Obviously, it must be time for another AUKUS extorsion payment. I think another 1 bill is coming up.

Time for a AUST US disconnect.

Regards,
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the frigate purchase...
 
Actually, I have quite a few companies in various industries. Background global finance and the like yet over the years invested in a lot of industries/start-ups that I have interest. Some of these are mil related. Also being involved in global finance for the last 40 yrs have been around the block.

Your point regarding tenders, is that your backend is not open. You think that you enter an agreement without a price point is somewhat off-piste. This is a hastily put together shitshow to cover the previously hastily put together AUKUS shitshow. Look over here something shiny and new.

I have been on Austender for the last 3~4 yrs since my return to Aust and see the rather pointless planned procurement emails. I would never get involved with any Aust related tender due to the total disconnect of what they say they are trying to achieve.

You seem to indicate that I have interest in local industry involvement, which I do not. I outlined a list of issues in a previous post that you seemed to see as some calling to Aust manufacturing which I don't have.

Second time you have defended the NO USA involvement; you seem to have a point you're trying to make yet not sure why?

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Halcyon66 said:
Actually, I have quite a few companies in various industries. Background global finance and the like yet over the years invested in a lot of industries/start-ups that I have interest. Some of these are mil related.

I have been on Austender for the last 3~4 yrs since my return to Aust and see the rather pointless planned procurement emails. I would never get involved with any Aust related tender due to the total disconnect of what they are trying to achieve.
Click to expand...
I have both run Aus Govt procurements and submitted to Aus Govt tenders. The process is not easy for both sides but it is about as transparent as it can be to ensure a fair playing field and consistency. I would suggest before you continue complaining about the process it would be worth educating yourself on the process and then you can comment with some knowledge and relevance.

The irony here is MHI is probably not going to make more than 5 to 8% profit on this deal and could well lose money on portions of the Australian build given likely contractual obligations.
Halcyon66 said:
You seem to indicate that I have interest in local industry involvement, which I do not. I outlined a list of issues in a previous post that you seemed to see as some calling to Aust manufacturing which I don't have.
Click to expand...
You specifically said in reply #67,

The current system doesn't adequately support the development of a robust local defence industry, which is crucial for self-reliance and job creation.
Click to expand...
Hence excuse me for thinking that was one of the issues you have with the process.

Halcyon66 said:
Second time you have defended the NO USA involvement; you seem to have a point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...
No point other than what you keep posting is irrelevant...
 
Is this another GTX sign in?

MHI is probably not going to make more than 5 to 8% profit on this deal and could well lose money on portions of the Australian build given likely contractual obligations.
Click to expand...

Do you understand this thing called the stock market?


So, the stock has jumped, yet they are going to get pasted according to you. Not sure how that works yet what do I know.

Companies love losing money, or do you not realise that.

I outlined the issues with Aust nothing more in a previous post, was not a poster carrying fanboy. Zero concern on my side.

Once again framing the US involvement as pointless, sorry as you stated irrelevant.

Regards,
 
Ozair said:
You can play those numbers anyway you want though. The larger FFM, compared to the current Mogami, may allow more fuel to be bunkered but I suspect someone has looked at the numbers and said if we sail at 5kts instead of 12 we can go this much further...
Click to expand...
The 10,000 nm range with upgraded Mogami frigate on its diesels is believable as its longer and with a smaller beam than the Iver Huitfeldt class ~6,600 tons with its max range spec on cruising powered by one its MTU 8.2 MW diesels of 9,300 nm @18 knots - Seastate 0, Captain of the Peter Willemoes when interviewed said most efficient at 14-16 knots for nearly 10,000 nm. Long range is a basic requirement for any US warship in operating in the Pacific Ocean, Burke max range ~4,500 nm on one GT, think it may be partially driving the requirement for the new 20 John Lewis Class oilers at a cost of $16.2 billion.
 
Halcyon66 said:
Is this another GTX sign in?
Click to expand...
Really? I think I am generally far more polite... :)
Halcyon66 said:
Do you understand this thing called the stock market?


So, the stock has jumped, yet they are going to get pasted according to you. Not sure how that works yet what do I know.

Companies love losing money, or do you not realise that.
Click to expand...
That profit margin isn't getting pasted, it is pretty standard for hardware in the industry and especially shipping.
Halcyon66 said:
I outlined the issues with Aust nothing more in a previous post, was not a poster carrying fanboy. Zero concern on my side.

Once again framing the US involvement as pointless, sorry as you stated irrelevant.

Regards,
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you bother posting on it then, if you have zero concern in the procurement and the discussion then that would be fine. But that is obviously a changed tune to where you replied to GTX earlier about being a taxpayer and seeking accountability.

US involvement is essentially zero, it isn't a US ship and the procurement was started long before trump came to office for his second term.

I've been posting long before the down select that I think this was the best option for the RAN. I have no skin in the game either way, no stocks holdings in MHI that I am aware of (who knows what my super is invested in). I am interested in the RAN purchasing the best equipment they can get for the approved budget.
 
Cordy said:
The 10,000 nm range with upgraded Mogami frigate on its diesels is believable as its longer and with a smaller beam than the Iver Huitfeldt class ~6,600 tons with its max range spec on cruising powered by one its MTU 8.2 MW diesels of 9,300 nm @18 knots - Seastate 0, Captain of the Peter Willemoes when interviewed said most efficient at 14-16 knots for nearly 10,000 nm.
Click to expand...
Agree and why I listed it as a potential option. Iver Huitfeldt is shorter but wider so I suspect (not being a maritime engineer) might carry more fuel and is a CODAD so probably gains some efficiency at the expense of top speed.
 
Do you actually read previous posts?

Ozair said:
US involvement is essentially zero, it isn't a US ship and the procurement was started long before trump came to office for his second term.
Click to expand...

Before Donald Trump was elected to the US presidency, the Pentagon had been pushing for Australia and Japan to strengthen their defence alliance. And the deal comes as Trump pressures US allies to significantly boost their defence spending.
Click to expand...

www.afr.com

Mateship trumps practicality in Australia’s Japan frigate deal

The purchase strengthens regional defence ties and sends a message to Beijing.
www.afr.com www.afr.com

So what is your angle?

Regards,
 
Ozair said:
Agree and why I listed it as a potential option. Iver Huitfeldt is shorter but wider so I suspect (not being a maritime engineer) might carry more fuel and is a CODAD so probably gains some efficiency at the expense of top speed.
Click to expand...
Upgraded Mogami 142m length & 17m beam vs Iver Huitfeldt 138.7m length & 19.8m beam so Mogami will create less resistance moving through the water per the Froude formula and use less fuel which why said 10,000 nm range believable.
For ref IH quotes 31 tonnes usage per day which equates ~ 670 tonnage fuel load.
 
Halcyon66 said:
Do you actually read previous posts?
Click to expand...
Probably pretty evident I do given I have referenced your comments in them...
Halcyon66 said:
www.afr.com

Mateship trumps practicality in Australia’s Japan frigate deal

The purchase strengthens regional defence ties and sends a message to Beijing.
www.afr.com www.afr.com

So what is your angle?
Click to expand...
No angle. I consider those comments irrelevant to the discussion. Japan and Australia have been coming together naturally over the last 20 years and we signed a Special Strategic Partnership in 2014. That shouldn't surprise, Australia is the significant energy supplier to Japan and has been for a while and both have mutual security concerns for the region and have cooperated together for years. Had Abbott gotten his way Australia would also have bought off the shelf Japanese submarines nearly ten years ago.

The result is that it shouldn't surprise that Australia and Japan are strengthening their defence relationship, nor that Australia would take a bet on MHI and the Japanese Govt to deliver ships given their stellar domestic record.

Now you can look for US influence in everything but the US saying Australia and Japan should get cushy together is just stating the obvious because it had already been happening for years...
 
Kota said:
I don't see why. It's a larger, slower, and worse armed for no major standout advantages to make up for those shortcomings. The Type 31s tend to be trending towards a 5 year cycle while the new FFMs are looking at a 3 year one. If Australia hopped on the Type 31 program they likely wouldn't get theirs until the mid 2030s. If anyone's going to be envious its gonna be the Indonesians and Poles watching Australia get their new frigates commissioned before them despite putting in an order 3 years after them.
Click to expand...
It has space for growth.

It’s noteworthy that the New FFM is a modified Mogami. Modified competitors are not allowed?
 
starviking said:
It has space for growth.
Click to expand...
I mean Mogami was already a clean sheet design with room for growth that had another 10m in length and 700 tons extra displacement to work with.
starviking said:
It’s noteworthy that the New FFM is a modified Mogami. Modified competitors are not allowed?
Click to expand...
No modifications specific to the tender. New FFM design was mostly finalized and slated for production before even entering the competition, so it was seen as a finalized design.
 
For all the breathlessness about the Mogamis & new FFMs it’s worth keeping in mind that it’s just another ESSM shooter with a VDS sonar that will be spending 90% of its time on conventional diesels. There’s nothing really new here that hasn’t been done before…

Arguably Singapore (just to take one example) checked all the same boxes 20 years ago with its Formidable class (minimum manning - check, stealth - check, ASW + AAW capability - check, fast delivery - check, hulls built in foreign + domestic yard with tech transfer - check). But that very successful design (and its follow ons) comes from a shipyard whose name must under no circumstance be mentioned down under.
 
H_K said:
For all the breathlessness about the Mogamis & new FFMs it’s worth keeping in mind that it’s just another ESSM shooter with a VDS sonar that will be spending 90% of its time on conventional diesels. There’s nothing really new here that hasn’t been done before…

Arguably Singapore (just to take one example) checked all the same boxes 20 years ago with its Formidable class (minimum manning - check, stealth - check, ASW + AAW capability - check, fast delivery - check, hulls built in foreign + domestic yard with tech transfer - check). But that very successful design (and its follow ons) comes from a shipyard whose name must under no circumstance be mentioned down under.
Click to expand...
The Formidable class are currently being fitted with Aster 30, ESSM is a significantly less capable missile.
 
Pepin said:
The Formidable class are currently being fitted with Aster 30, ESSM is a significantly less capable missile.
Click to expand...
The roles are completely different. Formidable is Singapore's frontline AAW frigate, Mogami's are drone carrying multirole patrol ships replacing destroyer escorts and missile boats. Think of them as Japan's version of the LCS, after getting a look at the LCS and saying "nope, that didn't work out". The Aegis ships are Japan's AAW ships.
 
Pepin said:
The Formidable class are currently being fitted with Aster 30, ESSM is a significantly less capable missile.
Click to expand...

The Japanese ships are supposed to be fitted with A-SAM, which is in the same basic range class as ASTER-30. For the RAN, I would anticipate that they will be able to support SM-2MR Block IIIC as well as ESSM.
 
One could also compare the 2 PPA sold to Indonesia for around 600 Million € a piece to these FFM's for Australia
Similar length, displacement, propulsion, small towed array, 16 VS 32 VLS cells (again Aster VS by my guess only ESSM), double VS single hangar ...

Ozair said:
The new FFM Mk41 VLS is strike length so the vessel can host SM-2, SM-6 and Tomahawk as well as ESSM..
Click to expand...
Yeah they can, but you need more than just the right VLS cell.
Integrating a whole new set of missiles onto a platform and a CMS that's was never meant for it is asking for trouble.

TomS said:
The Japanese ships are supposed to be fitted with A-SAM, which is in the same basic range class as ASTER-30. For the RAN, I would anticipate that they will be able to support SM-2MR Block IIIC as well as ESSM.
Click to expand...
Forgot about A-SAM ! Will be interesting to see if Australia chose against buying only US missiles.

TBH I had the TKMS option as my favorite so I'll admit I am biased :)
 
Pepin said:
Yeah they can, but you need more than just the right VLS cell.
Integrating a whole new set of missiles onto a platform and a CMS that's was never meant for is asking for trouble.
Click to expand...
It would have been a specific requirement in the tender documentation to support that set of missiles.

Press conference specifically said the following,

The new stealth frigates will also have the ability to fire SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, the most advanced air and missile defence weapons in the world. These missiles, which are also being deployed on our Hobart-class destroyers and on our future Hunter-class frigates, will enable the Navy to strike maritime, land and air targets at long range. The Mogami-class frigate will also have the ability to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, giving the Navy more vessels that can strike at longer distances
Click to expand...
 
Ozair said:
It would have been a specific requirement in the tender documentation to support that set of missiles.

Press conference specifically said the following,


Click to expand...
So that's 11 Mogamis (eventually), 3 Hobarts and 3 Hunters - 17 escorts in all, more than the RAN has manned in a long time. Given that Hunter is now scheduled to be in service in 2032, nearly a decade from now, hands up anyone who thinks the government will build more than the 3 already ordered.
 
Last edited:
One certainly would have concerns about the current government's commitment.
 
Kanga said:
So that's 11 Mogamis (eventually), 3 Hobarts and 3 Hunters - 17 escorts in all, more than the RAN has manned in a long time. Given that Hunter is now scheduled to be in service in 2024, nearly a decade from now, hands up anyone who thinks the government will build more than the 3 already ordered.
Click to expand...
Would have to agree on the Hunters, it might be very tempting to just keep building Mogamis at probably half the cost. A reduction in capability but more hulls which might matter more.

Could also depend on whether an interim submarine is now needed, prioritised and funded.
 
Kanga said:
So that's 11 Mogamis (eventually), 3 Hobarts and 3 Hunters - 17 escorts in all, more than the RAN has manned in a long time. Given that Hunter is now scheduled to be in service in 2024, nearly a decade from now, hands up anyone who thinks the government will build more than the 3 already ordered.
Click to expand...
3 Hunters? Have they dropped numbers again? IIRC the current plans were for 6 Hunters.
 
Ozair said:
Press conference specifically said the following,

The new stealth frigates will also have the ability to fire SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, the most advanced air and missile defence weapons in the world. These missiles, which are also being deployed on our Hobart-class destroyers and on our future Hunter-class frigates, will enable the Navy to strike maritime, land and air targets at long range. The Mogami-class frigate will also have the ability to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, giving the Navy more vessels that can strike at longer distances
Click to expand...
My BS meter is flashing bright red on that statement about SM-2, SM-6 and Tomahawk.

I think there is a lot of political posturing (i.e. "look how good we are compared to the previous government") which leads to overstatements and/or intentional over-simplification:
  • The fact is that the Mogamis and New FFMs do not have the USN fire control hardware needed to launch these missiles. This can only be supplied via an FMS deal from US suppliers like Lockheed Martin.
  • Moreover the JMSDF has no plan to integrate these missiles, now or in the future. They have stated that the main SAM system will be Japanese (A-SAM), we haven't seen a hint of interest from them or an FMS order for AEGIS Fire Control Loop (IAFCL) etc.
  • As for Tomahawk, the JMSDF aren't interested for obvious constitutional reasons, so that integration will have to be done by Australia.
  • To illustrate how non-trivial this is, even the USN has yet to move forward with SM-6 and Tomahawk integration on the first Constellation frigates, despite being mandated by Congress to do so. They are waiting for virtualized missile launch software to be developed (which would allow any missile to be handled without having to install dedicated hardware, servers, control stations etc). And at least they have AEGIS and SPY-6 so the rest of the SM-2/SM-6 fire control loop is already installed, unlike the Mogamis.
So basically the Mogamis' are not going to come with SM-2, SM-6 and Tomahawk out of the box, no matter what the minister says.

This may change in the future, but we'll need to wait for evidence of additional FMS orders for AEGIS/IAFCL for the RAN (which will cost several billion $), for the USN to roll-out virtualized missile launch hardware on its Constellations, and for the US and Japan to figure out how to integrate AEGIS/IAFCL with Mogamis' OYQ-1 CMS and OPY-2 radar.
 
You don't have to have AEGIS to fire SM-2 at least. And if the Mogami CMS actually emulates NIFC-CA, that can support SM-6 already. (That's not a given, but a possibility.)
 
TomS said:
You don't have to have AEGIS to fire SM-2 at least. And if the Mogami CMS actually emulates NIFC-CA, that can support SM-6 already. (That's not a given, but a possibility.)
Click to expand...
Depends if it's actually NIFC-CA or just an equivalent capability
 
TomS said:
You don't have to have AEGIS to fire SM-2 at least. And if the Mogami CMS actually emulates NIFC-CA, that can support SM-6 already. (That's not a given, but a possibility.)
Click to expand...
Not in the past no, but now AEGIS/IAFCL appears to be required for the current SM-2 Block IIICU and SM-6 missiles.

This has been a major stumbling block for international users of older SM-2s, like the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany etc... Notice how they are all moving away from SM-2 and not adopting SM-6 or having to sign multi-billion dollar FMS contracts for AEGIS systems (often including the full US ecosystem including SPY-6 or SPY-7 radars... CEAFAR being the only foreign radar integrated so far).

As for SM-6, if integration was so easy then Constellation would have it out of the box and Congress wouldn't have to twist the USN's arm to spend money on the proper software and hardware.
 
TomS said:
Yep, and that's very unclear. OTOH, Japan is definitely interested in SM-6, so I'd expect them.to make sure their indigenous FC network can work with it.
Click to expand...
The Japanese AEGIS destroyers use US systems and fire control, so they can handle SM-6 with much less effort.

Their other combattants - including the Mogamis - are all non-AEGIS and use Japanese combat systems. Although apparently there is some US hardware under the hood, I wouldn't assume that all the hardware is there or that the Japanese software can easily handle all US missiles (since the USN itself hasn't yet virtualized all its weapons control systems), or that the US will even allow a new integration pathway outside of AEGIS/IAFCL.

In addition, the Mogamis' X-band radar is ill-suited to long range engagements, so the value of installing SM-2 or SM-6 is somewhat questionable. They really would need an S-band radar. But perhaps if the goal is only to serve as an adjunct magazine for a Hobart or Hunter class, rather than fire SM-2/SM-6 autonomously, then some hack might be found to launch missiles on external tracks.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
  • To illustrate how non-trivial this is, even the USN has yet to move forward with SM-6 and Tomahawk integration on the first Constellation frigates, despite being mandated by Congress to do so. They are waiting for virtualized missile launch software to be developed (which would allow any missile to be handled without having to install dedicated hardware, servers, control stations etc). And at least they have AEGIS and SPY-6 so the rest of the SM-2/SM-6 fire control loop is already installed, unlike the Mogamis.
So basically the Mogamis' are not going to come with SM-2, SM-6 and Tomahawk out of the box, no matter what the minister says.

This may change in the future, but we'll need to wait for evidence of additional FMS orders for AEGIS/IAFCL for the RAN (which will cost several billion $), for the USN to roll-out virtualized missile launch hardware on its Constellations, and for the US and Japan to figure out how to integrate AEGIS/IAFCL with Mogamis' OYQ-1 CMS and OPY-2 radar.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt Constellation or other frigates with similar size radars will ever be capable to make use of the SM-6. The Constellation SPY-6(V)3 radar will not have the necessary range or sensitivity to control the SM-6 at range.

Radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture, ^3. The relatively small Constellation SPY-6 (V3) has only three arrays of 9 x 2 sq ft RMAs, 36 sq ft arrays, whereas the SPY-6(V)4 in the planned upgraded Burke IIAs will have four arrays of 24 x 2 sq ft RMA, 96 sq ft per array which gives (V)4 nineteen times the power of the Constellation (V)3 radar, the SPY-6 (V)1 used in the Burke Fight III is more powerful again with four 148 sq ft arrays, near seventy times the power of the Constellation radar array, plus with (V)1 and (V)3 you need to factor in the additional advantage of four arrays whilst (V)3 has only three arrays.
 
Cordy said:
I very much doubt Constellation or other frigates with similar size radars will ever be capable to make use of the SM-6. The Constellation SPY-6(V)3 radar will not have the necessary range or sensitivity to control the SM-6 at range.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are using SM-6 for. As a SAM/TBMD weapon, yes, that small radar is unlikely to be sufficient for an end-to-end engagement. FFG-62 is much more likely to be just a missile donor into a NIFC-CA network with other platforms providing the tracking data.

As an ASuW weapon, it's more likely, IMO. Still highly dependent on offboard sensors, but possibly organic ones (helo or drone) or even shipboard ESM.
 
H_K said:
Thanks - guess I'd missed the big change in Japanese strategy from 2022 onwards. After years of reading about how their armed forces were exclusively for self-defense (including when I used to live there)... that's quite the 180 degree change.
Click to expand...
No change in strategy at all... this is still being considered "self-defense", not "offensive capability'.

To quite the article Kota linked:
The release stated that the MOD and Self Defense Forces (SDF) will be strengthening stand-off defense capabilities to disrupt and defeat forces that may invade Japan early and from far away.
Click to expand...

In other words, to be used only after an enemy has attacked Japanese territory or holdings - not to initiate hostilities.
 
Preemptive Strike Capability (Enemy Base Attack Capability)
Definition: The capability to attack enemy bases when an enemy attack is imminent.
Relevance: Standoff defense capability is a crucial element supporting this preemptive strike capability. Standoff missiles are one means of executing this preemptive strike.
Trigger Conditions: Situations where it is determined that an adversary is attempting armed attack against Japan, such as launching missiles.
Positioning: While maintaining the traditional framework of exclusively defensive defense, this capability is exercised solely when an adversary's attack is imminent, based on the necessity to exercise the right of self-defense.
 
Even before an armed attack occurs, Japan can activate its preemptive strike capability in situations where it is determined that an enemy is attempting an armed attack against Japan, such as by launching missiles.

North Korea's ballistic missile bases, etc.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom