Japanese Defence officials are offering an upgraded and larger version of Japan's Mogami 30 FFM to satisfy Australia’s General Purpose Frigate program, according to an ABC report of 17 December. This is the version I discuss in this briefing.
I always thought these two were the most likely options. I personally see the RAN leaning towards the Mogami class, it's a more modern design, has a very low crewing requirement and it would forge deeper ties with Japan which is something Australia has been pushing for. In my view the Meko represents a back up, a safe and familiar option should the Mogami class fall through for whatever reason.
I agree with your opinion from a political point of view. Germany has been so addicted to short term profits from Russia, far more so from China. It is not the most reliable ally, at least for the moment. And building stronger ties with Japan strategically makes a lot more sense for the latest geopolitical reality for Australia. Technically it is a more modern design too.
@@Strategy_AnalysisThe Meko A210 still a paper design. The upgunned Mogami class would be better than the Meko A200. I have a question is the hunter.class frigate getting upgunned at all? I understand 96 cell MK41 VLS system would take away the ASW capability but wouldn't 64 or 48 cell leave room for a multimission bay and ASW capability for the Hunter class? Such a big ship would be strange to be used as majority ASW when we building 11 smaller frigates for that purpose that will have the same armament of 32 cell VLS and less crew. If they going to use the hunter class as in tier 1 along with the Hobart class. I assume the armament of both ships would be the same if not more. And if not why not? And another question. Why 6 optional crewed vessels? Wouldn't a squadron of B21 be better?
@Dogegeneral-m5s The Hobart class are to much ship for not enough missiles. The Type 26 is huge with not enough missiles. The Mogami class look fairly good. The cure for not enough missiles is optionally manned vessels ideally with a tail and hull sonar alongside a 32 or 48 cell VLS and an anti drone gun.
@Dogegeneral-m5s Australia won't be sending ships to fight Chinese ships head on. These are mostly ASW warships. Australia won't be fighting rusty Russian corvettes either.
@@soulsphere9242 well it depends on if we go into conflict, if so we might be called in by the USA or Britain to fight, and though the Mogadishu class is great we have a small fleet and it needs to be more versatile, in a bigger navy such as Japan they can have ships designed for each role working together our budget don’t allow that.
@Dogegeneral-m5s The days when surface warships go head-to-head are long gone. If Australia was to get involved in a Pacific conflict it will be the subs hunting Chinese ships. You take ships out with subs and aircraft, not with other ships. The surface fleet will either be involved in protecting trade routes from Chinese subs, enforcing a trade blockade against China or supporting some amphibious landings on some undefended South Pacific islands. Likely this will be done all as part of a coalition. As for Russia and the UK, we simply won't be involved.
I wish second batch of Hobart were built to be replace by improved Hunter class so 12 warships fleet is maintain. Japanese would be better option as Japanese can build thtese frigates quickly, much lighter then Meko.
Thank you, very good video on the subject. It stays objective and fact oriented without the jingoism and snarky comments I have seen in so many other videos.
I think a future video you could make is the Hobart class Destroyer replacement options. Current designs that be considered could be the USN DDGX, a modified Type 83 from the UK and the Navantia Flight three Destroyer designs.
Yes, that's a possibility, although that is some time off. Currently the Hobarts are due to be replaced in 2043. Obviously the decision on its replacement will (should) be made way before then.
@ I would guess the process to begin design selection would have to start around 2030 so construction to begin 2036/37 for a 2043 introduction into service?
@@lindsaybaker9480 The up-armed Hunter class variant would be a likely option in my view, BAE have shown the design can be adapted to host 96 VLS and by that point all 6 Hunters will be in service so it would be a low risk option based on a proven design at that point. I've heard talk that the UK could also take the same route when it comes to the Type 83.
@ when they showed that upgunned Hunter class Frigate I thought maybe they were either adding three ships to the nine ship program or make all nine like that instead.
@@lindsaybaker9480 Not to my knowledge, the Hunter class remains at 6 ships. There was a lot of speculation that the Hunter class was going to be scrapped in favour of something more heavily armed so I think BAE was simply showing the design is flexible enough to add more VLS should that have been required.
As a non naval person, the Japanese frigate appears to be more suited to our needs and I am more certain that the Japanese will be able to deliver all three units on time and to an extremely high standard whereas I suspect the German yards might have tighter manufacturing ability. This could be important if there was a need to get more than the first three units built outside of Australia.
@jerryle379 that's a Dutch-German project with possibilities to export it to the netherlands. MEKO A400 AMD is still on schedule. TKMS is also a subcontractor in that project. It's being built in their yards.
@jerryle379 also, Damen didn't build it by themselves, but partnering with Blohm and Voss, A Lurssen subsidiary company who also built MEKO 200. MEKO is developed by Blohm and Voss. They're being built in german yards. Dutch and Belgian frigates from the same design, however, have to be built in Romania and fitting out in the netherlands
My main concern with the Mogami is the supply chain. If it is selected off the shelf none of its munitions are common with the rest of the RAN fleet and its Command and Control system is incompatible with the rest of the RAN fleet. It would mean a ship that can't be integrated into the current RAN fleet to work as a team and it need its own special ammunition. It would have been the same for the Korean ships. Only the Meko and Navantia Tasman could provide off the shelf commonality as thoughs companies had already built warfighting ships for Australia. The idear of choosing an off the shelf zero change ship for the RAN is the most stupid decision a Government could make. We need ships that can have the same combat systems for a streamline supply chain and the same CnC system for intergrates teamwork.
It’s just ironic that the two selected designs are German and Japanese, if you had told that to the leadership of the Australian Navy in 1946 they would have locked you up as a loony.
They would have also known that alliances change all the time. 100 years before WWI, the big threat in Europe was France and Britain and Germany (Prussia) formed an alliance against them. 100 years later and Britain and France have an alliance against Germany. Thats simply geopolitics. Also, in WWI Japan was a British ally and in WWII it was an Axis ally. See how that works?
Understandable though tbh, given the o/a cost of the existing T26 Hunter Class variant programme, it seems unlikely that unless the entire 11 proposed new GPFs now intended to replace the final 3 Hunters, are indeed built, there'll be much seen in the way of real savings, in any case.
I'm yet to hear anyone seriously saying the A210 is on the table. Lots of speculation, but that's it. The government says A200, but admittedly seem to constantly misuse names and use dodgy graphics, which suggests they may just be mistaken, but I doubt it. Well informed reporting rhough says it's NewFFM (Evolved Mogami) vs Al Aziz (Frenchified A200) vs Australianised A200. 210 looks like a great platform, but too immature for this competition.
There are 3 designs on the table, actually. 2 from Germany and 1 from Japan. It's a mature design because MEKO series is already in use in the german navy and other navy with similar needs as the Oz. Strike length VLS? It's already done in MEKO 200 for Turkey and Greece. MCM capability? MEKO 300, AEGIS? MEKO 400 AMD.
we know its the mogami and the A200. There is an unspecified 3rd submission, could either be the A210 or FFM. Not knowing what the 3rd design is makes it much hard to guess whats going
Has the A210 even been built yet? The A200 is in service with several countries although none of them have been fitted out with ESSM and SM2 as armament. Could be a issue with the current hull size without been tested for weight
Why is the Mogami better? That's an honest question, from a first looks it seems Meko has more missiles and more close in weapons, but I'm always curious to learn more.
Mogami core crew is 90 without the air crews. MEKO crews are 100-120 with air crews for 2 helicpters. MEKO A210 is a no brainer. Because if OZ have to buy Mogami, Oz also have to change or integrate its SOP and JMSDF culture besides the CMS amd other hardwares. Simple example is the JMSDF galley layout in Mogami. 2 helicopters space are also a major point for ASW. MEKO is also cheaper compared to the Imrpoved Mogami. $500-600 Million for MEKO compared to $600-700 million for improved Mogami and its inclduing CEAFAR.
Reading through these comments, a lot of you seem to be misunderstanding what the RAN actually plans to do with these new general purpose frigates and why the Mogamis are a bad choice here. Let me elaborate further. As you probably know, the RAN is planning to operate a 2 tier surface combatant system. Tier 1 being comprised of a total of 9 vessels (3x Hobarts & 6 Hunters), tier 2 being comprised of a total of 11 vessels (either 11x Mogamis or 11x Meko A200 (not the A210s btw, never been stated that they are)). Now to the part that a lot of you seem to be confused about. In a wartime scenario, the tier 1 combatants will operate alongside the amphibious force (Canberra, Adelaide and Choules) as well as the submarine force. The tier 2 combatants meanwhile are tasked with protecting the Australian mainland and (more importantly) securing the sealines of communications with western asia and ensuring the steady supply of materials, tech, fuel. These ships are ESCORTS, not frontline combatants (for the most part). Now what kind of threats are these 2nd tier vessels going to encounter in their operational region? The shear distance to the Chinese mainland (cuz hands down, China is the most likely scenario here) means that the air threat is relatively minimal, so is the threat of surface groups getting through australias A2AD complex. Or in other words, these 2nd tier combatants will need to be potent ASW platforms. But why are the Mogamis a bad choice here while the A200s aren’t? I’m gonna try to summarize the main points here: 1. Airborne capabilities: Easily the most important aspect of modern ASW is helicopter operations. And simply put, the A200 in all is SAN, AN and EN variants has a double hangar able to house 2x MH60 and MH90 sized helicopters as well as available space for 2 medium sized UAVs. The Mogamis meanwhile only have a single hangar, limiting operations to a single helicopter (couldn’t find anything on space for UAVs). 2. Sensor Suite and Combat Management System: The current A200s versions are a generational replacement to the original A200s (or Anzacs on this case), meaning in terms of system architecture it’s relatively similar. It uses the same Saab 9LV Combat Management System as on the current Anzac class and the same optronic and sonar infrastructure as the future Hunter class, meaning interoperability and relatively little conversion training. The Mogamis meanwhile utilize an almost 100% domestic system infrastructure, none of which are currently in service with the RAN. It’s combat manage,ent systems are endemic to the Japanese navy, meaning the RAN would have to operate 3 SEPERATE CMS, spread of the Hobarts, Hunters and Mogamis. Not to mention that in a potential war with China, the supply chain of spare parts for these endemic Japanese systems may very well be cut by the chinese navy, potentially rendering ships completely inoperable. 3. Future Upgrades: May often be overlooked but warships undergo periodic refits to stay competitive against an evolving threat. This is another field where the A200 takes the cake, simply down to it design. From day one, the current A200 series was supposed to be an export platform, one which can accommodate the individual wishes and needs of multiple customers across the world. It’s system architecture and layout allows for relatively easy conversions and refits of existing parts. An upgraded CEAFAR mast f.e. may very well be integrated in the future, simply by installing a different mast on the open and easy to reach architecture. The Mogamis meanwhile are purpose built vessels for the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Forces. They were never envisioned to be sold as exports and such are specifically designed around Japanese requirements and systems. The stealthy design may be an advantage in intelligence gathering but refitting any of the used components in this closed architecture is pretty much impossible. What you see is what you get so to say. And the heavy use of automation will also become on issue here, hence every new system installed will require tweaks in order to work with this automation in the first place. 4. Weaponry: Adding to my 3rd point, the A200s are capable of carrying a variate of weapon systems such as the Mk41 VLS, Harpoon and NSM ASCM as well as the MU90 and Mk46 torpedoe in service with the Anzacs, Hunters and Hobarts. The Mogamis meanwhile underlay the same drawback as stated in my 2nd and 3rd point, employing largely domestic weapon systems. While they are capable of carrying the Mk41 VLS, they’re not capable of carrying the Harpoon, NSM or the MU90/Mk46. Instead, they feature the Type 17 ASCM and the Type 12 torpedoes, none of which are in service with any other RAN vessel, complicating the supply chain. And as stated in 3. integrating the Mogamis with these weapon systems will most likely not be possible. 5. Cost: While exact numbers on the most recent A200 design are not public, these frigates are expected to cost between 250-300mio$ per vessel. The Mogamis rn have a per unit cost of 450-500mio$. While I think that cost shouldn’t be the main determining factor in this program, it is a metric that is relevant if the full set of 11 vessels are to be acquired. Australia has a relatively limited budget that will also fund the Hunter, Aukus and Virginia programs. 2.75-3.30bio$ for the A200s as opposed to 4.95-5.50bio$ for the Mogamis speaks for itself. 6. Availability: A smaller point but no less important. The Mogami class is currently in service with the Japanese navy which is currently building 4 and plans on an additional 4 vessels to start construction between now and 2027. And this is only regarding the current Mogami class as an improved version has already been drafted after 10 vessels of the original class were canceled. While there are currently no dates on when this improved Mogami class is gonna start construction, it’s likely that these 10 remaining vessels will start construction between the late 2020s and early 2030s. Naturally, a country will prioritize its own navies requirements before granting the construction of exports, so we’re looking at the mid 2030s before the first Mogamis for RAN begin construction. The last A200s meanwhile, ENS Al-Jabbar of the Egyptian navy, was launched in 2023 and is fitting out. Currently, there are no further orders for the A200 class, meaning construction of potential australian vessels can commence within the next year (if so desired by the RAN). 7. Yard infrastructure: A smaller point again but the Anzacs and A200s are built by the same company, Blohm + Voss of germany, and are generational variants of the same design class. Only the first 3 vessels are supposed to be built abroad, the remaining 8 will be constructed in Australia. Which given that the shipyard infrastructure for the Anzacs already exists will be much easier and cost effective. Buildings, maschinery and staff can be adjusted and retrained to accommodate the new generation of vessel relatively easily, know how and experience is still there. For the Mogamis, you’d essentially have to start from scratch. The only areas I see the Mogami class excel over the A200s are these: crew size and political relations. However, given all the prior stated aspects, these 2 don’t justify purchasing the Mogami class imo. Operating a ship that is a worse ASW combatant, less adaptable and suited for australias weaponry, systems and requirements and costs much more than to potential option would be extremely ill advised, especially in regards to the RANs other lengthy, massive and cost consuming projects. Ik that there’s a little bit of a stigma surrounding the Anzac class so naturally, considering the generational replacement to these vessels is gonna get ppl salty. However, you have to realize that the Anzacs biggest flaw is that they weren’t replaced earlier. These were capable ships for the context they were built in, but they’ve been around for far too long. Don’t let that prejudice run to the opposite.
@@dopepopeurban6129 when the Collins replacement program was close to having the winner announced everything I was reading was pointing to the German type 216 submarine being chosen because there was so much anti French feeling, in regards to defence purchases, that the German boat was obviously going to win but than bam, the French won that, until ScoMao interfered with it because things weren’t going fast enough even though they’re basically redesigning the interior of the entire back half.
Also that price tag on Mogami is for the Mogami class, the proposal to RAN is the Improved Mogami class, and that is far more expensive because it has more cells, larger dimensions, improved radar, and so on.
The crew size in Mogami is also not so far different with MEKO. Mogami core crew is 90 without the aircrews, whilst Meko can range from 100 to 120 with aircrews for 2 helicopter.
I have read that the Hunter class will be built in two sets. The first 3 as previously announced and the second 3 with a different missile capacity (double?). It seems that Morgami is the preferred frigate by Govt, but I fully agree with the long comments as to why it should not be ordered.
Seeming most of the systems and all the weaponry will be changed over to Australian/US systems, remove most of your concerns on the Mogami, and the RAN request on small crew (the A200s current crew are what 210 from wiki) tilts to the Mogami add to the fact they tack "stealthy design", as for parts you missed the 1st 3 built overseas the rest here...
The number of platforms sounds impressive, but I suspect the workforce planners will be very busy trying to crew them while maintaining a sustainable sea time / shore posting rotation plan.
Australia has really f’d up their naval procurement. The fleet will be at reduced strength (with anzacs retiring and hunters not yet in service) at a time when the risk is rising.
But the MEKO A210 doesn't exist yet (wasn't that a key component of the GPF program: basically MOTS?), and every Australian Government media release I've seen says MEKO A200.
@@68arclight yes, I mentioned this in the briefing. The first 3 are built to an existing design, so if the MEKO is selected these will be A-200s. The follow on ships would be A-210s, which as I say means increased risk.
The whole premise for tier 2 is to obtain effective vessels that can be introduced into service quickly. Although "Upgraded Mogami" appears attractive and Japan is a rapidly developing strategic partner, it is also the riskier option. MHI has never exported a warship to an external country before nor setup offshore partner manufacturing. They even sought assistance from BAE Systems Australia to respond to the RFP. In comparison, TKMS is a familiar operator in country with close relationships with the RAN, established supply chains and engineering support services. They are the ones with runs on the board re offshore builds and that is with the A200 design itself. IMO there is a clear choice here. We were in a similar position with the Hunter Class where we should have chosen Navantia for an evolved Hobart leveraging all that was already established. Instead we pivoted to BAE which has resulted in the most expensive frigates in the world at $9B each with no deliveries planned for 10 years.
Thanks for the comment. As I say in the briefing, both options have their Pros and Cons. As you say, the main driver for this process is to get capable frigates in service ASAP.
There is no evidence that the A210 is on offer. There is confirmation of the upgraded Mogami from Japanese documents. The A200 is all we know for sure.
The 10 year gap before there is any reasonable numbers of new ships is a huge concern. There has been way too much dithering since the Hobart destroyers were commenced. And our insistence on bespoke options instead of using existing designs still baffles me when there is so much urgency.
You've been run down deliberately by wef owned governments just like Britain. Surprise surprise it's at the same time as China is getting ready to assault Taiwan. Your new ships won't arrive until it's all passed. But wef don't yet control Japan and South Korea who are both arming fast. The US military is struggling greatly with the woke crap trying to cripple it.
@@rhysb1004 I'm a firm Labor partisan, but I can admit where my side has stuffed up (Gillard government in particular dithering on submarines, failing to keep the AWD programme on track, and failure to go hard on the OCV), but you're right: the current mess is absolutely the Coalition's mess. They were the ones who downgraded the OCV to the Arafura, and had they either made a serious effort at the OCV or ordered second block of three AWDs in 2018 or 2019, we probably wouldn't need the GPF programme right now; the surface navy would be lean, but it would be in okay shape. We haven't had a really great defence minister since Beazley, though if he pulls the current plan off, Marles might count in 5 years or so.
Interesting that you say the Saab CMS and CEA PAR will be in the MEKO... but no mention of the this on the Mogami. It's my understanding that the RAN has not mandated either of these in the design of the GPF - unless you know something we don't? Also, I believe that neither of the remaining two options could be modified to accept Saab's CMS or CEA's PAR. Please feel free to elaborate...
Thanks for the comment. 1. Correct - the Government has not mandated a radar or combat system. 2. The government has directed that (at least the initial 3) vessels are unmodified from existing in-service vessels. 3. I mention that the MEKO can be fitted with these as this may help its case. 4. The Mogami has other factors in its favour.
@@Strategy_Analysis clearly the first 3 ships would cone off an existing production line, so it would be the new 06FFM from 2025 and not the current 30FFM. The only way we are getting 30FFM is if they lease or sell some of the 12 from batch 1.
@@lancebond2338 Yes, the new name for the latest Mogami is "Mogami Upgraded", at least in some Japanese releases I've seen, but whatever its export name is, as you say that is the version Australia would be building, if the Japanese offer is selected.
Does the RAN need to replace the Hobart? With the addition of the USV and its 32 cell vls, 2 x USV’s sailing with a Hunter, utilising collaborative combat, gives you an Arleigh Burke with a better sonar.
If Marles had half a clue, he would have kept the order for nine Hunters and taken up BAE's offer of hulls 4-6 being modified to include an additional 64 VLS cells and further 8 NSMs at the expense of the multimission bay, and further to this, actually increasing the order to 12, with hulls 10-12 again being the air defence variant, which would come online as the Hobarts retire, and result in the Navy having 12 'tier 1' vessels with exceptionally high commonality. With respect to the 'tier 2' vessels, the LOCVs would be redundant if the above 'tier 1' ships were in inventory, given the entire purpose of the LOCVs is to try to make up for the low number of VLS cells on the ASW version of the Hunter. The GP frigate order should also be 12, and of the two down-selected designs, surely the upgraded Mogami has the inside running, given Japan is an ally in the region, with a track record of making high-quality military equipment, and it ticks all the stated boxes for capability.
The wise move would be to buy from both Nations, Australia getting this technology is priceless for the future of Australia's ship and weapons manufacturing. Every class of new vessels including Submarines should be purchased from several nations with future home production in mind.
17 วันที่ผ่านมา +3
It's too complicated to use two different types of ships for the same role. You need to train crews for two ships, maintain two ships, and stock more spare parts. It's bad enough that our destroyers don't share any common parts with our frigates, let alone dividing the same class of ship into two different vessels.
you get twice the knowledge with two systems including weapons, missiles and torpedos, you get the ships twice as fast with two supply lines so if there is a war with China you can still get what you need from Germany to run half your ships nothing would be coming from Japan. you are training the same amount of crews who in the future many of them will be the guys building Australia's future fleet.
They should order 12 of the German Frigates and 12 of the Japanese Frigates. And as both proposals will build 3 vessels in the shipyard of origin and deliver by 2030, this means that the RAN would put into service 6 new frigates by 2030 and they can phase out the ANZAC class early. And by having two differnt suppliers, if there are problems with one type the other will still be available. This would give the RAN 24 new vessles coming into service by the 2030-2040, instead of just 12. This would mean that the RAN would have a fleet of 3 Hobart Class destroyers, 6 Hunter Class ASW Frigates, and 24 General Pupose Frigates plus the 6 OC Frigates = a 39 frigate / destroyer fleet.
Manning will always be the issue for the RAN, not many want to serve, adn its even more less attractive with possibility of conflict. The number sof boats mentined above would be great...IF we could man them!
@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u south Africa Meko A200 use Umkhonto-IR Block 2 range 15 km to 20 km flight altitude 8 km (5.0 mi) speed Approx. Mach 2 missiles as main armament. Egypt varent eqwiped with Umkhonto and some ESSM. But theirs no current hull overseas fitted with ESSM and SM2 . The VLS system they use isn't the MK41 VLS Egypt varent having issues firing of its ESSM with software issues with VLS launcher as it is European system not American MK41 VLS system Because RAN armament requirements, they will not use short-range sams such as Umkhonto. The RAN would want an armament package atleast ESSM and SM2. Most likely, they would require an MK41 VLS system that is compatible. Since theirs no built Meko A200 or Meko A210 class overseas fitted with that exact armament, the ship hull size count for weight for range and speed woukd need a re valuation For the price and offering the ship has I prefer the Japanese Mogami class frigates that is slightly larger, come with the same engine as the hunter class frigates rolls royce has a greater armament package to suport American missiles the RAN use. as well as a newer phased aray radar system. The only Hick up is that Japan Mogami-class frigate uses a French design integrated computer system developed by Mimitsubishi that Japan will need to share data for future upgrades. But, since the ship weaponry and launch system, including adaptable radar systems already configured with the design of the ship. Australia can also fit our own Saab system and computer interface instead without the need to change anything.
Like and kind training and maintenance requirements going with the MEKO's again. And if built locally as well as in Germany, you could get more hulls in the water faster. All of the relationships for this to move forward should be well established and assumedly on solid ground. And despite my user name, I'm not German or from Germany, so I have no bias being an American. I would have loved to have seen the MEKO design have been purchased for our FFG requirements instead the FREMM fiasco we've ended up with.
@@DerHossMeister USN is opening procurement options or collaboration from and with SK. Like getting frigate modules from SK and ship it to US shipyard.
Is the future laser system a U.S. Navy system now under development? Missile defence? Is the no room for it on the Mogami vessel, or no adequate power supply?
Good question. We should absolutely expect the RAN to have lasers at sea during the life of these ships. Don't know if the Mogami is "plumbed" for DEWs as the A-210 is.
@ Still trying to get the concept. Attack terminal explosives or electronics in incoming missiles? Damage aircraft that are within line of sight? Cannon shells? Assume you charge and discharge some massive capacitor, and recharge very quickly.
They need 32 Vls cells and 8 anti ship nsm launchers I can foresee the hunters being greatly delayed or even scrapped because of time and money And see this could be a fed gov bait and switch for mogami for hunters even
@MrBlackACT They might be able to turn 6 of them as the new AWDs upgunned them to the 96 cel thatl BAE systems offered might be best bet. Get rid of the optional crewed ships and build more general purposes for frigates instead of 11 build 16
These two frigates seem a bit a the light side in terms of weight. Especially when compared to new frigates being developed by other nations. I’m surprised at the small size of Australia’s navy. You would think an island nation with a massive coastline would have a much bigger navy.
Why not the Type 26? from my understanding the shipyards are stemming along in their production. Would Australia not get a better product from the Brits, or has their Naval technical know how plummeted?
@@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u Its the "Hunter Class" that is the Type 26 lol... Why buy some T2 crap? wont BAE systems that is rapidly expanding their manufacturing share IP?
@@Unknown-gi1uj They're still building the Hunter class, which is the Australian version of the Type 26, that hasn't Gona away, they just lowered the number from 9 to 6. The ships in this video are for a separate requirement, a cheaper and slightly lower end option to build in larger numbers.
@@Cravendale98 The unmanned systems look interesting, but i would think for the role they want them to operate in, they would be more likened to a historical battleship then a modern vessel. Which really begs the question, do these policy makers actually know what it is they are after, as you have no carriers, they have no F35Bs, i mean what are for, a couple LHD with some chinooks. Sort of reminds me of the autonomous military trucks they want to acquire, to me that's just a free cache to capture.
Maybe the Australian government of the day should make s decision favouring a supplier with demonstrated ability to provide on time on budget,then pay up front.That way they can't cancel.
I could never understand why the Anzacs were never in a continuous build. When first commissioned, they were acceptable, just. Over the years they have been built up to an acceptable standard, but still lacking. These ships should have been used as a starting point to create the next class. Additional VLS tubes, larger engines to provide more electrical energy, better point defence systems, etc. Why does Australia continually reinvent the wheel? We know how to build Anzacs, or we did. With a continuous build phase, these skills would not be lost, and we could keep our fleet in a much better state of readiness.
I have seen so many people say there will be 11 frigates, the fleet review says from 7 to 11 frigates. My guess is maybe up to 11 meko or maybe 7 mogami, personally i would hope for the mogami
A clean superstructure also seems to work well in heavy and sometimes very cold seas. I would argue that Canada started this particular style because of their subArctic patrol areas BUT I would also point out that one class of WWII Japanese destroyers was ahead of Allied ships in regard to clean superstructure design.
Congrats, a review that actually acknowledges the upgraded versions TKMS & MHI officially tendered SEA 3000 for over a year. On its own, Meko packs a better punch (+ provision for energy weapons) than Mogami BUT...TKMS couldn't sell Australia quality used conventional subs (Soryu) off the shelf, like a well developed Japanese strategic, production & technology transfer driven alliance could WHEN not if AUKUS Pillar 1 collapses. Nor could TKMS get Australia's foot in the door should Japan, UK & Italy's 6th Gen Fighter turn out to be a winner. Am all for the potential of AUKUS but the need for a massive escalation of combined strategic/production alliances with Japan & South Korea passed URGENT a decade ago. Great vid, keep up the good work sir.
Soryu won't be able to patch up Oz needs of operational op tempo in the south china sea if there's a delay in SSN Aukus. Also, it's not like buying a car, you have to use or integrate the Japanese CMS and weaponry that Oz has no experience of.
@mickeyjuiced huh? Virginia class is still on schedule. If Oz got Soryu, RAN would have a hard time to be on station in SCS for more than 2 weeks. Japan doesn't need Nuke submarine because their frontyard is already in the hot zone. Not to mention the battery lifespan problem with lithium on submarine service.
@mickeyjuiced oh, also fun fact, it was the German who has integrated the non magnetic steel alloy earlier in their submarine than the Japanese. But Oz was also rejected it (Type 216) for a nonexistent French sub
11:25 New Zealand may find Australian choice a suitable replacement for NZ ANZAC Class frigates Anzac class (also identified as the ANZAC class and the MEKO 200 ANZ type) is a ship class of ten frigates; eight operated by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and two operated by the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN). mid-capability patrol frigate by modifying a proven German design for Australian conditions. A souring of relations between New Zealand and the United States in relation to New Zealand's nuclear-free zone and the ANZUS security treaty prompted New Zealand to seek improved ties with other nations, particularly Australia. As both nations were seeking warships of similar capabilities, the decision was made in 1987 to collaborate on their acquisition. By 1989, the project had selected a proposal by Germany's Blohm + Voss, based on their MEKO 200 design, to be built in Australia by AMECON at Williamstown, Victoria. The modular design of the frigates allowed sections to be constructed at Whangārei, New Zealand and Newcastle, New South Wales in addition to Williamstown. The RAN ordered eight ships, while the RNZN ordered two and had the option to add two more. The frigate acquisition was controversial and widely opposed in New Zealand, and as a result, the additional ships were not ordered. ....most is from wikipedia
@@Strategy_Analysis. I dare say NZ needs to step up and contribute more financially to maritime security in our region. Two frigates doesn’t cut it. You need a minimum of three vessels to have at least one available for rapid deployment at any one time.
@ There seems to be some dispute in comments here that the government had shortlisted the MEKO A200 - not the A210 listed here! ( personally I like the A210 variant simply because it has Laser defence fore and aft & 16 NSMs) What say you ? I think the Mogami will be chosen for political reasons as the AUKUS members seem to want Japanese inclusion into Tier 2. - that would indeed draw them in I’m sure.
@johngodden4363 Yes John, there are actually 2 separate elements to this project. The initial 3 ships will be of an existing design, so in the case of the MEKO that would be the 200. However, the subsequent ships would be the A-210 variant, if the MEKO was chosen. As I have said elsewhere, don't understand the broader geo-strategic drivers.
Should have gone with the Korean model. A VERY smart move would be to get the Japanese ship. Germany is collapsing and there's going to be all sorts of supply problems and cost blowouts due to almost no industry surviving in the near future. The whole timeline is a joke. China is building a ship a week almost, and we are stuffing around with a MAYBE number of ships built WHENEVER. Don't get me started on the submarines which we will NEVER get.
Why does it take 10 years to build a Hunter, is this normal? We could have had ~20 Mogami’s in a similar timeframe…..and at 30% the cost….and they can also perform MCM.
Both would be good boats, but why are we so short on missiles. You only have to look at the expected opposition and see that we will run out and be sunk. Yes it’s a frigate not a destroyer but you still gotta be able to throw a punch. Either boat will be a disaster because Australia will do what Australia does and make design changes, screw up the project cost and timeframes
The LOCV's are stupid for Australia. If the had 96 VLS for the US maybe. The hunters are WAY over priced and miserably under gunned. WE should have continued the Hobart program (updated of course) and not gone to the Hunters. If the Hobart program had continued, we would now have a mature, large war ship building capacity active in Australia NOW and not be looking to another "restart'. The Mogami is too fat and has too few guns.
@@MrTallpoppy58 The LOCVs are the solution to the Hunters being undergunned though? Between it's CEA radar and Aegis, Hunter will probably have some of the best air warfare sensors in the world. Pair that up with a couple of 32 cell LOCVs and you have Arleigh Burke numbers of VLS, better sensors and better ASW. As a system, it will be world leading.
@@MattWeberWA So you are suggesting a Hunter & LOCV at $10billion for 64 VLS is the end game ... the solution ? Give me 2 x updated Hobarts at $7billion for 96 VLS EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. The ADF could not be more incompetent. Oh btw the Arleigh Burke's have 96 VLS at A$4 billion (I think they get a bulk discount).
@@MrTallpoppy58 I'm not going to defend the Coalition's failure to order the fourth AWD (or ideally a second block of three) If they had, the surface fleet would be in much better shape right now. Nor am I going to defend the cost overruns on the Type 26 conversion to Hunter. But restarting AWD production at this point would require us to either give up on continuous naval shipbuilding and build the in Spain, or push back the delivery of our next tier 1 by years. The LOCVs are a band-aid on a bad situation. Fortunately, that ultimate band-aid solution is going to be a good one, but it's going to be enormously expensive. The cost of poor decision making? Probably. But we're in a box right now, and it's the best option we have.
@@MattWeberWA Matt, agree mostly. The LOCV' are a bad Idea, unless you run them as a companion to an aircraft carrier. Useable for the US but a complete waste for Australia. Ideally we need to get as few Hunters as we can. We have gone from 8-9 to 6 and I hope that drops to 4 (I have hear whispers). I admit to being a great fan of the Hobarts and the Spanish are still willing to build them for us in Australia (a 1 year delay is actually a saving against the Hunter schedule).
@@MrTallpoppy58 I don't quite agree. I think we're on the cusp of some pretty big changes to surface warfare. Most major surface combatants can and I think will benefit enormously from unmanned escorts. It allows sensors, particularly towed array sonars, to be distributed over a wide area very efficiently, it allows exquisite sensors like CEAFAR/Aegis to support an enormous number of VLS cells without the centralised risk of an arsenal ship or the crew and logistical requirements of a massive cruiser or battlecruiser. They can either be super cheap with barely any sensors or with fairly cheap and rudimentary air search radars they can serve as radar pickets to extend the motherships sight over the radar horizon. They can do a lot as part of a SAG, I truly don't think they need a carrier. And as for the Hunter's, I do think a world-leading ASW capability is valuable for Australia, especially with the regional proliferation of AIP subs, the upcoming UUV revolution and China's ever growing undersea competence. Undersea swarms are going to be a thing eventually, but we're not quite there yet. And rather than further decreasing the numbers and going into the cost death spiral, I have hope that what we have lost financially on the current generation we can make up (only in part I'm sure) by using upgunned versions of them to replace the Hobarts. With that option having close to zero development cost and logistical efficiencies associated with having essentially a two-class fleet of major surface combatants, we can potentially see some serious cost and time savings over the life of the programme.
Your displacement figure for Hunter is incorrect, it’s 10,000 tonnes per senate estimates, with a lightship of 8,200. It displaces more than a flight III Arleigh Burke ….
To reasons I wouldn't go for the Japanese offering is the range that I have scene is only 4000 nm, and the cree numbers seem just a bit to few for a warship of its size. Repair and rescue parties eat into your war staff very quickly.
Australia needs 4 to 6 Arsenal ships as well as our existing surface fleet, we are in direct competition with China,we need to present some sort of deterence ffs
to be honest i think iur defence department in Australia has no clue what they are doing they seem to be after the latest shiny new technology no matter how expensive or effective/ineffective it might be. i still see no good reason why we need a nuclear submarine when we could easily get equal capacity in conventional submarines especially from the siuth koreans who even have conventional missile submarines.
Australia has the most inefficient shipbuilding in the world. If they keep insisted to build the warship on their own soil, future RAN would be bleak. They should consider to build half of them in their respective countries who propose to build with greater efficiency, just not to put their long term planning on the line.
The Mako class frigates are pretty good warships. However, I don't feel they would be much good in the RAN. However, the Mogami class Frigates are a bit more modern and, in my opinion, are better suited for the type of ships 🚢 the RAN needs. So if I were the RAN. I'd go with the Mogami vessel's.
The obvious problem with all this is that for the next 10 years, minimum, we have stuff all. There's only 2 of the Hobart Class because they are so poorly done, that over the next 15 years, there will always be one in upgrade. The ANZACS are a joke, one bank of a low-altitude air defence system, an engine left out, inadequate crewing to operate them all. Then we are doing away with the patrol boats and disarming them while still in service. We have the disgusting Arufa Class, which Defence spent money on ensure they have no war-fighting ability. Then, we are meant to be at war China within 5 years. No problem here, Australia.
There's lots of potential in cheap anti-drone air defence from deck guns, also in countering small surface targets like the unmanned sea baby drones or the Iranian swarming suicide boat tactics. But also things like warning shots in the constabulary mission - there's plenty of value in a deck gun beyond tradition.
@@MattWeberWA respectfully. zou mises the point, a 5.5 inch is for ship to ship or ship to land only, a 40mm or 57 mm rapid fire is anti drone, this is old tech for a new tech battlefield
@@astiparlane5627the 127mm main gun is quite capable of firing airburst rounds and can be used against drones too. It is after all just the modernised version of the gun used in WW2, which could also shoot down planes and did regularly. Plus we want it for naval gunfire support.
Well, all this told me is that Australia needs a high volume indigenous LRASM manufacturing capability, and that the RAAF needs more platforms to deliver them. RAN will be shattered in weeks of a HI conflict.
Short answer is that you don't. Sir Nick Hine, ex UK second sea lord, is now working at Babcock, and was talking about the crew size of the Arrowhead 140, which is similarly small on a podcast. Summarised, his argument was that damage in modern naval combat is either catastrophic or non-existent - i.e. if you get struck by a decent sized missile (he was talking hypersonic, but I would imagine that for a frigate or equally small ship, it probably applies to a large ASCM like a YJ-12 or YJ-18 as well) damage control isn't going to save the ship: the priorities need to be preventing the hit, then getting the crew out safely if that fails. Whether that philosophy is still correct in today's world, post red sea and black sea combat (the conversation was in September 2023) is an open question, but when they were designing the arrowhead a few years back, that was the philosophy. I'd imagine very similar conversations were happening when the Mogami was being designed. Honestly, when you think about a ship over its lifetime, it might be a tradeoff worth making. We can't crew a fleet of eleven GPFs with crews large enough to functionally DC them, and they've been trying to fix retention and recruitment for years, without major success so far. So we either have to choose a smaller fleet of ships with larger crews, or accept the risk that in combat, a ship might take a hit that wouldn't have been catastrophic with a bigger crew, but sinks the ship we have. Neither option is great, but I think I'd rather have the additional hulls, as long as suitable provisions have been made for the safety of the crew. Probabilistically, the risk seems acceptable.
Given that Australia has so few warships in the water ( currently 10 made up of 3 AWDs and 7 light frigates) with a very modest combined total of 200 VLS, I simply cannot understand why Australia chose to continue building the Hunter Class with just 32 VLS! Bae systems has offered the Australian government a modified variant of the Hunter Class with the multimission bay removed and replaced with another large bank of 64 VLS ( totalling 96 per vessel ). Granted the first three are already being constructed as per original order, it is incredulous to me why they haven’t decided on the up gunned variant. Given that China is building the equivalent of the British navy every eighteen months we need whatever vessels we have to be heavily armed in order to provide a modicum of deterrence. I personally would have the contract of nine vessels to remain but with the last six configured as missile Destroyers. I hope future decisions are made based on the dire strategic environment not a political unwillingness to annoy Beijing. And another thing. I’m predicting that the Japanese upgraded Mogami Class ship will be chosen for our tier 2 vessels, the first to be delivered in 2030. That is all well and good. But given the fact that we will continue to have around nine or ten ships for the next ten years, we clearly need to mitigate construction of our navy ( which China is doing en Masse. I submit that after the first three vessels have been built in Japan that they continue building them - concurrently with the Australian shipyard to accelerate construction. War will visit this region folks - sooner than we would like it to happen. It’s time to stop messing around.
Australia is never going to deter China with a VLS count. People focus on VLS count whilst not understanding the purpose of the vessels and how they will be used. The Hunters job will primarily be ASW as part of a task force with a local air defence capability.
@ my point is that without sufficient missiles it becomes a very big target . Survivability should not be a blatantly obvious issue when the vessel is pitted against Chinese ships of similar size with triple the missile volume or multiple vessels of less than half the size with equivalent missile loadout. The Hunters cost an eye watering amount each but are extremely modestly armed for their size. We have a Lilliputian size navy. We sir - need bang for our buck!
I would have thought the meko was a no brainer especially around utilising existing combat systems and integrating cefar. Japan has no record for delivering any military export program.
The optional crewed vessels should just scrap it and build 6 more on top of the 11 ships bringing a total of 17 or even 16 ships. Or even buy a squadron of B21 stealth bombers instead. Just a foolish idea 6 optional crewed vessels. The optional crewed vessels will only be vulnerable to subs anyway and probably a reliability to other surface combating vessels i believe RAN making a mistake on this.
@@Nathan-yy2xs a typical noob military observer, doesn't know actual military shtt. Doesn't understand project life cycle, MLU, supply and logistics, tooth to tail ratio, crew ratio, sustainment. Running an actual warship isn't as easy as video game, kid
Personally given al the noise in the Indo Pacific, I do not think the timeframes for builds are quick enough its not the 1940s whacking out a ship every few weeks but more should be able to be accomplished! There is more than likely a need for further VLS in my mind to keep units in the fight longer/ give more options for load out/protect itself further. Further to that, resource/repair it would be very very sensible for Australia to have at least 1x large floating dry dock and probably 2x graving docks (1 West coast and 1 East coast) large enough to support a single US carrier or (multiple smaller ships) that way if a captial ship is damaged it would be much faster than towing back to the US and being on the southern coast much safer from land based Chinese missles. Coupled with cross training in engineering and support for AUKUS it strikes me as more than reasonable and a pragmatic risk based approach to ensuring servicability. These repair/refit options give an element of flexibility but i cannot see that these have even been considered, and should probably be talked about to get the govt attention..... but the Greens would probably hold it up from digging a couple of holes due to environmental studies despite being of national security importance. Presently I believe our only graving dock is at garden island in sydney, has ALMOST the length for carriers but i think tops out with the Canberrra LHD tonnage.
So why don't we just build more hunters but without the extra crap that makes them 10000t instead of the 7,000t these were supposed to be. We keep making the same mistake and that is stop building things when we are actually building them and wasting more money on the next project that will go over budget.
If we say no to Mogami, would the Japanese ever want to sell any military equipment to Australia considering the last drama with PM Abbot and the submarines?
Why not order 3 Sejong the great class destroyers they could be in the water in 3 to 4 years to help with the short fall in vls cells and why not just build the frigates in Japan you could get them built in half the time and for cheaper when the Australian government say that they need ships quickly they choose to build them in Henderson mad
I thought the Aussies were going with the type 26 frigate from Great Britain. Why is this a discussion. This Tyre 1 Tyre 2 shit is nonsense . Get the best f**king ships and don't worry about it.
Type 26 is the Hunter class, but like the Canadian version it has been bloated with an extra 3000 ton of gear over the base design as the requirements have grown. So now the RAN wants something that the Type 26 base design was intended for in the first place, but are looking for a smaller design.
@@TONSBERG100 That is going to be the biggest problem, especially considering the very ambitious submarine fleet expansion. To be honest, I am doubtful that it is all going to work out.
German warships have a perfect war losing reputation. Think SMS Blücher and then the Drøbak Sound Blücher, perhaps time for a new class. Why not go for French? ask the Russians how hot they were.
Australia just can't afford to build these kind of ships in sufficient numbers for them to be meaningful. In any sort of serious confrontation our entire tier 1 navy would get knocked out almost immediately. We just have to few ships. We probably need to look at unmanned drones. These ships just ain't worth the money.
I don't think Mogami is also fit for purpose because it's only use X and C band. If CEAFAR integration only happens 15 years later, it's too far away. MEKO can inegrate CEAFAR from get go.
@ fit for purpose means it’s good at performing specific functions. I didn’t say it could better capable than the Meko hence why I said the Meko has better capabilities
@laskymcguy1158 yea yea I understand, but ANZAC is already using S, C, and X band radar. If RAN wants to replace it with a ship with a similar purpose, it needs the S band or even a CEAFAR mast upgrade.
Japanese Defence officials are offering an upgraded and larger version of Japan's Mogami 30 FFM to satisfy Australia’s General Purpose Frigate program, according to an ABC report of 17 December. This is the version I discuss in this briefing.
I always thought these two were the most likely options. I personally see the RAN leaning towards the Mogami class, it's a more modern design, has a very low crewing requirement and it would forge deeper ties with Japan which is something Australia has been pushing for. In my view the Meko represents a back up, a safe and familiar option should the Mogami class fall through for whatever reason.
Pros and Cons for both options as you say. We'll know sometime next year.
@@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u I'll re-check but IIRC all that was said was late 2025. Governments don't like to be to specific.
We do need better intergration with japanese system they are our area ally
I agree with your opinion from a political point of view. Germany has been so addicted to short term profits from Russia, far more so from China. It is not the most reliable ally, at least for the moment. And building stronger ties with Japan strategically makes a lot more sense for the latest geopolitical reality for Australia. Technically it is a more modern design too.
@@Strategy_AnalysisThe Meko A210 still a paper design. The upgunned Mogami class would be better than the Meko A200.
I have a question is the hunter.class frigate getting upgunned at all? I understand 96 cell MK41 VLS system would take away the ASW capability but wouldn't 64 or 48 cell leave room for a multimission bay and ASW capability for the Hunter class? Such a big ship would be strange to be used as majority ASW when we building 11 smaller frigates for that purpose that will have the same armament of 32 cell VLS and less crew. If they going to use the hunter class as in tier 1 along with the Hobart class. I assume the armament of both ships would be the same if not more. And if not why not?
And another question. Why 6 optional crewed vessels? Wouldn't a squadron of B21 be better?
Thank you. Good overview and no mucking around with trivia. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
Thank you, much appreciated.
The Mogami design would be an excellent idea as we could likely get a few from Japan faster if built in Japan while our type 26 get built.
Yes but they haven’t really been combat proven or have the ability of o compete with larger cruisers from china or Russia
@Dogegeneral-m5s The Hobart class are to much ship for not enough missiles. The Type 26 is huge with not enough missiles. The Mogami class look fairly good. The cure for not enough missiles is optionally manned vessels ideally with a tail and hull sonar alongside a 32 or 48 cell VLS and an anti drone gun.
@Dogegeneral-m5s Australia won't be sending ships to fight Chinese ships head on. These are mostly ASW warships. Australia won't be fighting rusty Russian corvettes either.
@@soulsphere9242 well it depends on if we go into conflict, if so we might be called in by the USA or Britain to fight, and though the Mogadishu class is great we have a small fleet and it needs to be more versatile, in a bigger navy such as Japan they can have ships designed for each role working together our budget don’t allow that.
@Dogegeneral-m5s The days when surface warships go head-to-head are long gone. If Australia was to get involved in a Pacific conflict it will be the subs hunting Chinese ships. You take ships out with subs and aircraft, not with other ships. The surface fleet will either be involved in protecting trade routes from Chinese subs, enforcing a trade blockade against China or supporting some amphibious landings on some undefended South Pacific islands. Likely this will be done all as part of a coalition. As for Russia and the UK, we simply won't be involved.
Personally, I’d go for Japan’s offering. They build great things, deliver on time and on contract and they are allies and partners in our region.
@@robweaver1075 I think the Mogami is a serious chance of winning.
I would agree. I got to see a couple of Mogami last time I was in Yokosuka, nice ships to look at.
@joelgoetze They do look impressive.
Partners in our region is huge benefit.
I wish second batch of Hobart were built to be replace by improved Hunter class so 12 warships fleet is maintain. Japanese would be better option as Japanese can build thtese frigates quickly, much lighter then Meko.
Thank you, very good video on the subject. It stays objective and fact oriented without the jingoism and snarky comments I have seen in so many other videos.
Thank you, greatly appreciated. That is my goal.
I think a future video you could make is the Hobart class Destroyer replacement options. Current designs that be considered could be the USN DDGX, a modified Type 83 from the UK and the Navantia Flight three Destroyer designs.
Yes, that's a possibility, although that is some time off. Currently the Hobarts are due to be replaced in 2043. Obviously the decision on its replacement will (should) be made way before then.
@ I would guess the process to begin design selection would have to start around 2030 so construction to begin 2036/37 for a 2043 introduction into service?
@@lindsaybaker9480 The up-armed Hunter class variant would be a likely option in my view, BAE have shown the design can be adapted to host 96 VLS and by that point all 6 Hunters will be in service so it would be a low risk option based on a proven design at that point. I've heard talk that the UK could also take the same route when it comes to the Type 83.
@ when they showed that upgunned Hunter class Frigate I thought maybe they were either adding three ships to the nine ship program or make all nine like that instead.
@@lindsaybaker9480 Not to my knowledge, the Hunter class remains at 6 ships. There was a lot of speculation that the Hunter class was going to be scrapped in favour of something more heavily armed so I think BAE was simply showing the design is flexible enough to add more VLS should that have been required.
As a non naval person, the Japanese frigate appears to be more suited to our needs and I am more certain that the Japanese will be able to deliver all three units on time and to an extremely high standard whereas I suspect the German yards might have tighter manufacturing ability. This could be important if there was a need to get more than the first three units built outside of Australia.
German shipyard in germany is almost always on time if there's not so much meddling to the design. There are some spaces there.
except the smaller crew quarters in japanese ships, they have been described by western soldiers as spartan (bare minimum inside)
Not to mention German navy ship have problem to the point German navy have to acquire Damen ( Dutch ) ship for they newest 10000t frigate
@jerryle379 that's a Dutch-German project with possibilities to export it to the netherlands. MEKO A400 AMD is still on schedule.
TKMS is also a subcontractor in that project. It's being built in their yards.
@jerryle379 also, Damen didn't build it by themselves, but partnering with Blohm and Voss, A Lurssen subsidiary company who also built MEKO 200. MEKO is developed by Blohm and Voss. They're being built in german yards. Dutch and Belgian frigates from the same design, however, have to be built in Romania and fitting out in the netherlands
I've been a Mogami class fan since the start. ❤
My main concern with the Mogami is the supply chain. If it is selected off the shelf none of its munitions are common with the rest of the RAN fleet and its Command and Control system is incompatible with the rest of the RAN fleet. It would mean a ship that can't be integrated into the current RAN fleet to work as a team and it need its own special ammunition. It would have been the same for the Korean ships. Only the Meko and Navantia Tasman could provide off the shelf commonality as thoughs companies had already built warfighting ships for Australia. The idear of choosing an off the shelf zero change ship for the RAN is the most stupid decision a Government could make. We need ships that can have the same combat systems for a streamline supply chain and the same CnC system for intergrates teamwork.
Australia needs to pivot to NATO standard munitions and systems. And stop wasting money on bespoke systems
It’s just ironic that the two selected designs are German and Japanese, if you had told that to the leadership of the Australian Navy in 1946 they would have locked you up as a loony.
Hardly. They knew by personal experience, how good the ship designs were.
They would have also known that alliances change all the time. 100 years before WWI, the big threat in Europe was France and Britain and Germany (Prussia) formed an alliance against them. 100 years later and Britain and France have an alliance against Germany. Thats simply geopolitics. Also, in WWI Japan was a British ally and in WWII it was an Axis ally. See how that works?
Bro should get way more views i mean look at the effort in his videos
Thank you, much appreciated.
Very informative love the animation of Hobart.
Understandable though tbh, given the o/a cost of the existing T26 Hunter Class variant programme, it seems unlikely that unless the entire 11 proposed new GPFs now intended to replace the final 3 Hunters, are indeed built, there'll be much seen in the way of real savings, in any case.
I'm yet to hear anyone seriously saying the A210 is on the table. Lots of speculation, but that's it. The government says A200, but admittedly seem to constantly misuse names and use dodgy graphics, which suggests they may just be mistaken, but I doubt it.
Well informed reporting rhough says it's NewFFM (Evolved Mogami) vs Al Aziz (Frenchified A200) vs Australianised A200.
210 looks like a great platform, but too immature for this competition.
There are 3 designs on the table, actually. 2 from Germany and 1 from Japan. It's a mature design because MEKO series is already in use in the german navy and other navy with similar needs as the Oz. Strike length VLS? It's already done in MEKO 200 for Turkey and Greece. MCM capability? MEKO 300, AEGIS? MEKO 400 AMD.
we know its the mogami and the A200. There is an unspecified 3rd submission, could either be the A210 or FFM. Not knowing what the 3rd design is makes it much hard to guess whats going
Has the A210 even been built yet? The A200 is in service with several countries although none of them have been fitted out with ESSM and SM2 as armament. Could be a issue with the current hull size without been tested for weight
@Nathan-yy2xs so does the improved mogami
More looking at evolved mogami vs a210 ..
Since the Mogami is a far better suited frigate for Australia the government will definitely opt for the Meko.
Which government? selection is not until late 2025.
Why is the Mogami better? That's an honest question, from a first looks it seems Meko has more missiles and more close in weapons, but I'm always curious to learn more.
Did the UK T31e get put forward ? I feels as it may of been competitive in the tender.
Tender was for an ASW focussed frigate. Type 31 is almost completely incapable of ASW, which is the Type 26's job in the RN.
Mogami core crew is 90 without the air crews. MEKO crews are 100-120 with air crews for 2 helicpters.
MEKO A210 is a no brainer. Because if OZ have to buy Mogami, Oz also have to change or integrate its SOP and JMSDF culture besides the CMS amd other hardwares. Simple example is the JMSDF galley layout in Mogami. 2 helicopters space are also a major point for ASW.
MEKO is also cheaper compared to the Imrpoved Mogami. $500-600 Million for MEKO compared to $600-700 million for improved Mogami and its inclduing CEAFAR.
Reading through these comments, a lot of you seem to be misunderstanding what the RAN actually plans to do with these new general purpose frigates and why the Mogamis are a bad choice here. Let me elaborate further.
As you probably know, the RAN is planning to operate a 2 tier surface combatant system. Tier 1 being comprised of a total of 9 vessels (3x Hobarts & 6 Hunters), tier 2 being comprised of a total of 11 vessels (either 11x Mogamis or 11x Meko A200 (not the A210s btw, never been stated that they are)).
Now to the part that a lot of you seem to be confused about. In a wartime scenario, the tier 1 combatants will operate alongside the amphibious force (Canberra, Adelaide and Choules) as well as the submarine force. The tier 2 combatants meanwhile are tasked with protecting the Australian mainland and (more importantly) securing the sealines of communications with western asia and ensuring the steady supply of materials, tech, fuel. These ships are ESCORTS, not frontline combatants (for the most part).
Now what kind of threats are these 2nd tier vessels going to encounter in their operational region? The shear distance to the Chinese mainland (cuz hands down, China is the most likely scenario here) means that the air threat is relatively minimal, so is the threat of surface groups getting through australias A2AD complex. Or in other words, these 2nd tier combatants will need to be potent ASW platforms.
But why are the Mogamis a bad choice here while the A200s aren’t? I’m gonna try to summarize the main points here:
1. Airborne capabilities:
Easily the most important aspect of modern ASW is helicopter operations. And simply put, the A200 in all is SAN, AN and EN variants has a double hangar able to house 2x MH60 and MH90 sized helicopters as well as available space for 2 medium sized UAVs. The Mogamis meanwhile only have a single hangar, limiting operations to a single helicopter (couldn’t find anything on space for UAVs).
2. Sensor Suite and Combat Management System:
The current A200s versions are a generational replacement to the original A200s (or Anzacs on this case), meaning in terms of system architecture it’s relatively similar. It uses the same Saab 9LV Combat Management System as on the current Anzac class and the same optronic and sonar infrastructure as the future Hunter class, meaning interoperability and relatively little conversion training. The Mogamis meanwhile utilize an almost 100% domestic system infrastructure, none of which are currently in service with the RAN. It’s combat manage,ent systems are endemic to the Japanese navy, meaning the RAN would have to operate 3 SEPERATE CMS, spread of the Hobarts, Hunters and Mogamis. Not to mention that in a potential war with China, the supply chain of spare parts for these endemic Japanese systems may very well be cut by the chinese navy, potentially rendering ships completely inoperable.
3. Future Upgrades:
May often be overlooked but warships undergo periodic refits to stay competitive against an evolving threat. This is another field where the A200 takes the cake, simply down to it design. From day one, the current A200 series was supposed to be an export platform, one which can accommodate the individual wishes and needs of multiple customers across the world. It’s system architecture and layout allows for relatively easy conversions and refits of existing parts. An upgraded CEAFAR mast f.e. may very well be integrated in the future, simply by installing a different mast on the open and easy to reach architecture. The Mogamis meanwhile are purpose built vessels for the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Forces. They were never envisioned to be sold as exports and such are specifically designed around Japanese requirements and systems. The stealthy design may be an advantage in intelligence gathering but refitting any of the used components in this closed architecture is pretty much impossible. What you see is what you get so to say. And the heavy use of automation will also become on issue here, hence every new system installed will require tweaks in order to work with this automation in the first place.
4. Weaponry:
Adding to my 3rd point, the A200s are capable of carrying a variate of weapon systems such as the Mk41 VLS, Harpoon and NSM ASCM as well as the MU90 and Mk46 torpedoe in service with the Anzacs, Hunters and Hobarts. The Mogamis meanwhile underlay the same drawback as stated in my 2nd and 3rd point, employing largely domestic weapon systems. While they are capable of carrying the Mk41 VLS, they’re not capable of carrying the Harpoon, NSM or the MU90/Mk46. Instead, they feature the Type 17 ASCM and the Type 12 torpedoes, none of which are in service with any other RAN vessel, complicating the supply chain. And as stated in 3. integrating the Mogamis with these weapon systems will most likely not be possible.
5. Cost:
While exact numbers on the most recent A200 design are not public, these frigates are expected to cost between 250-300mio$ per vessel. The Mogamis rn have a per unit cost of 450-500mio$. While I think that cost shouldn’t be the main determining factor in this program, it is a metric that is relevant if the full set of 11 vessels are to be acquired. Australia has a relatively limited budget that will also fund the Hunter, Aukus and Virginia programs. 2.75-3.30bio$ for the A200s as opposed to 4.95-5.50bio$ for the Mogamis speaks for itself.
6. Availability:
A smaller point but no less important. The Mogami class is currently in service with the Japanese navy which is currently building 4 and plans on an additional 4 vessels to start construction between now and 2027. And this is only regarding the current Mogami class as an improved version has already been drafted after 10 vessels of the original class were canceled. While there are currently no dates on when this improved Mogami class is gonna start construction, it’s likely that these 10 remaining vessels will start construction between the late 2020s and early 2030s. Naturally, a country will prioritize its own navies requirements before granting the construction of exports, so we’re looking at the mid 2030s before the first Mogamis for RAN begin construction. The last A200s meanwhile, ENS Al-Jabbar of the Egyptian navy, was launched in 2023 and is fitting out. Currently, there are no further orders for the A200 class, meaning construction of potential australian vessels can commence within the next year (if so desired by the RAN).
7. Yard infrastructure:
A smaller point again but the Anzacs and A200s are built by the same company, Blohm + Voss of germany, and are generational variants of the same design class. Only the first 3 vessels are supposed to be built abroad, the remaining 8 will be constructed in Australia. Which given that the shipyard infrastructure for the Anzacs already exists will be much easier and cost effective. Buildings, maschinery and staff can be adjusted and retrained to accommodate the new generation of vessel relatively easily, know how and experience is still there. For the Mogamis, you’d essentially have to start from scratch.
The only areas I see the Mogami class excel over the A200s are these: crew size and political relations. However, given all the prior stated aspects, these 2 don’t justify purchasing the Mogami class imo. Operating a ship that is a worse ASW combatant, less adaptable and suited for australias weaponry, systems and requirements and costs much more than to potential option would be extremely ill advised, especially in regards to the RANs other lengthy, massive and cost consuming projects.
Ik that there’s a little bit of a stigma surrounding the Anzac class so naturally, considering the generational replacement to these vessels is gonna get ppl salty. However, you have to realize that the Anzacs biggest flaw is that they weren’t replaced earlier. These were capable ships for the context they were built in, but they’ve been around for far too long. Don’t let that prejudice run to the opposite.
@@dopepopeurban6129 when the Collins replacement program was close to having the winner announced everything I was reading was pointing to the German type 216 submarine being chosen because there was so much anti French feeling, in regards to defence purchases, that the German boat was obviously going to win but than bam, the French won that, until ScoMao interfered with it because things weren’t going fast enough even though they’re basically redesigning the interior of the entire back half.
Also that price tag on Mogami is for the Mogami class, the proposal to RAN is the Improved Mogami class, and that is far more expensive because it has more cells, larger dimensions, improved radar, and so on.
The crew size in Mogami is also not so far different with MEKO. Mogami core crew is 90 without the aircrews, whilst Meko can range from 100 to 120 with aircrews for 2 helicopter.
I have read that the Hunter class will be built in two sets. The first 3 as previously announced and the second 3 with a different missile capacity (double?). It seems that Morgami is the preferred frigate by Govt, but I fully agree with the long comments as to why it should not be ordered.
Seeming most of the systems and all the weaponry will be changed over to Australian/US systems, remove most of your concerns on the Mogami, and the RAN request on small crew (the A200s current crew are what 210 from wiki) tilts to the Mogami add to the fact they tack "stealthy design", as for parts you missed the 1st 3 built overseas the rest here...
The number of platforms sounds impressive, but I suspect the workforce planners will be very busy trying to crew them while maintaining a sustainable sea time / shore posting rotation plan.
Thank you! 😀
Cheers.
Australia has really f’d up their naval procurement. The fleet will be at reduced strength (with anzacs retiring and hunters not yet in service) at a time when the risk is rising.
But the MEKO A210 doesn't exist yet (wasn't that a key component of the GPF program: basically MOTS?), and every Australian Government media release I've seen says MEKO A200.
@@68arclight yes, I mentioned this in the briefing. The first 3 are built to an existing design, so if the MEKO is selected these will be A-200s. The follow on ships would be A-210s, which as I say means increased risk.
@@Strategy_Analysis Is there any sources for this?
Improved Mogami also doesn't exist yet. In fact, no current Mogami has VLS yet as we speak.
@Strategy_Analysis no, it will be a single design. TKMS proposed 2 designs for oz to choose.
Mogami thank you
The whole premise for tier 2 is to obtain effective vessels that can be introduced into service quickly. Although "Upgraded Mogami" appears attractive and Japan is a rapidly developing strategic partner, it is also the riskier option. MHI has never exported a warship to an external country before nor setup offshore partner manufacturing. They even sought assistance from BAE Systems Australia to respond to the RFP. In comparison, TKMS is a familiar operator in country with close relationships with the RAN, established supply chains and engineering support services. They are the ones with runs on the board re offshore builds and that is with the A200 design itself. IMO there is a clear choice here.
We were in a similar position with the Hunter Class where we should have chosen Navantia for an evolved Hobart leveraging all that was already established. Instead we pivoted to BAE which has resulted in the most expensive frigates in the world at $9B each with no deliveries planned for 10 years.
Thanks for the comment. As I say in the briefing, both options have their Pros and Cons. As you say, the main driver for this process is to get capable frigates in service ASAP.
There is no evidence that the A210 is on offer. There is confirmation of the upgraded Mogami from Japanese documents. The A200 is all we know for sure.
TKMS proposed 2 designs and A200 design is very modular, unlike Mogami.
The 10 year gap before there is any reasonable numbers of new ships is a huge concern.
There has been way too much dithering since the Hobart destroyers were commenced.
And our insistence on bespoke options instead of using existing designs still baffles me when there is so much urgency.
@@Angus775n Can't disagree with any of that. The timelines are concerning.
You've been run down deliberately by wef owned governments just like Britain. Surprise surprise it's at the same time as China is getting ready to assault Taiwan. Your new ships won't arrive until it's all passed. But wef don't yet control Japan and South Korea who are both arming fast. The US military is struggling greatly with the woke crap trying to cripple it.
10 years wasted under the libs
Never get between a politician and their ability to completely stuff up good ideas.
@@rhysb1004 I'm a firm Labor partisan, but I can admit where my side has stuffed up (Gillard government in particular dithering on submarines, failing to keep the AWD programme on track, and failure to go hard on the OCV), but you're right: the current mess is absolutely the Coalition's mess. They were the ones who downgraded the OCV to the Arafura, and had they either made a serious effort at the OCV or ordered second block of three AWDs in 2018 or 2019, we probably wouldn't need the GPF programme right now; the surface navy would be lean, but it would be in okay shape.
We haven't had a really great defence minister since Beazley, though if he pulls the current plan off, Marles might count in 5 years or so.
Interesting that you say the Saab CMS and CEA PAR will be in the MEKO... but no mention of the this on the Mogami. It's my understanding that the RAN has not mandated either of these in the design of the GPF - unless you know something we don't? Also, I believe that neither of the remaining two options could be modified to accept Saab's CMS or CEA's PAR. Please feel free to elaborate...
Thanks for the comment. 1. Correct - the Government has not mandated a radar or combat system. 2. The government has directed that (at least the initial 3) vessels are unmodified from existing in-service vessels. 3. I mention that the MEKO can be fitted with these as this may help its case. 4. The Mogami has other factors in its favour.
@@Strategy_Analysis clearly the first 3 ships would cone off an existing production line, so it would be the new 06FFM from 2025 and not the current 30FFM. The only way we are getting 30FFM is if they lease or sell some of the 12 from batch 1.
@@lancebond2338 Yes there are some subtleties here in the project. The first 3 will be existing vessels, but the subsequent ones are to be determined.
@@lancebond2338 Yes, the new name for the latest Mogami is "Mogami Upgraded", at least in some Japanese releases I've seen, but whatever its export name is, as you say that is the version Australia would be building, if the Japanese offer is selected.
I believe Japan and Australia can also cooperate in the space field.
Does the RAN need to replace the Hobart? With the addition of the USV and its 32 cell vls, 2 x USV’s sailing with a Hunter, utilising collaborative combat, gives you an Arleigh Burke with a better sonar.
If Marles had half a clue, he would have kept the order for nine Hunters and taken up BAE's offer of hulls 4-6 being modified to include an additional 64 VLS cells and further 8 NSMs at the expense of the multimission bay, and further to this, actually increasing the order to 12, with hulls 10-12 again being the air defence variant, which would come online as the Hobarts retire, and result in the Navy having 12 'tier 1' vessels with exceptionally high commonality.
With respect to the 'tier 2' vessels, the LOCVs would be redundant if the above 'tier 1' ships were in inventory, given the entire purpose of the LOCVs is to try to make up for the low number of VLS cells on the ASW version of the Hunter. The GP frigate order should also be 12, and of the two down-selected designs, surely the upgraded Mogami has the inside running, given Japan is an ally in the region, with a track record of making high-quality military equipment, and it ticks all the stated boxes for capability.
The wise move would be to buy from both Nations, Australia getting this technology is priceless for the future of Australia's ship and weapons manufacturing. Every class of new vessels including Submarines should be purchased from several nations with future home production in mind.
It's too complicated to use two different types of ships for the same role. You need to train crews for two ships, maintain two ships, and stock more spare parts. It's bad enough that our destroyers don't share any common parts with our frigates, let alone dividing the same class of ship into two different vessels.
you get twice the knowledge with two systems including weapons, missiles and torpedos, you get the ships twice as fast with two supply lines so if there is a war with China you can still get what you need from Germany to run half your ships nothing would be coming from Japan. you are training the same amount of crews who in the future many of them will be the guys building Australia's future fleet.
They should order 12 of the German Frigates and 12 of the Japanese Frigates. And as both proposals will build 3 vessels in the shipyard of origin and deliver by 2030, this means that the RAN would put into service 6 new frigates by 2030 and they can phase out the ANZAC class early. And by having two differnt suppliers, if there are problems with one type the other will still be available. This would give the RAN 24 new vessles coming into service by the 2030-2040, instead of just 12. This would mean that the RAN would have a fleet of 3 Hobart Class destroyers, 6 Hunter Class ASW Frigates, and 24 General Pupose Frigates plus the 6 OC Frigates = a 39 frigate / destroyer fleet.
Manning will always be the issue for the RAN, not many want to serve, adn its even more less attractive with possibility of conflict. The number sof boats mentined above would be great...IF we could man them!
First thing first, how do you integrate the Japanese CMS and weapons?
I think Germany has the best chance, since it's a similar platform to the current Anzac class.
Yes, this could certainly play a part. Perhaps less risk with its design, but don't under-estimate the broader national security dynamic.
@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u south Africa Meko A200 use Umkhonto-IR Block 2 range 15 km to 20 km flight altitude 8 km (5.0 mi) speed Approx. Mach 2 missiles as main armament.
Egypt varent eqwiped with Umkhonto and some ESSM. But theirs no current hull overseas fitted with ESSM and SM2 . The VLS system they use isn't the MK41 VLS Egypt varent having issues firing of its ESSM with software issues with VLS launcher as it is European system not American MK41 VLS system
Because RAN armament requirements, they will not use short-range sams such as Umkhonto. The RAN would want an armament package atleast ESSM and SM2. Most likely, they would require an MK41 VLS system that is compatible. Since theirs no built Meko A200 or Meko A210 class overseas fitted with that exact armament, the ship hull size count for weight for range and speed woukd need a re valuation For the price and offering the ship has I prefer the Japanese Mogami class frigates that is slightly larger, come with the same engine as the hunter class frigates rolls royce has a greater armament package to suport American missiles the RAN use. as well as a newer phased aray radar system.
The only Hick up is that Japan Mogami-class frigate uses a French design integrated computer system developed by Mimitsubishi that Japan will need to share data for future upgrades. But, since the ship weaponry and launch system, including adaptable radar systems already configured with the design of the ship. Australia can also fit our own Saab system and computer interface instead without the need to change anything.
Like and kind training and maintenance requirements going with the MEKO's again. And if built locally as well as in Germany, you could get more hulls in the water faster. All of the relationships for this to move forward should be well established and assumedly on solid ground. And despite my user name, I'm not German or from Germany, so I have no bias being an American. I would have loved to have seen the MEKO design have been purchased for our FFG requirements instead the FREMM fiasco we've ended up with.
@@DerHossMeister USN is opening procurement options or collaboration from and with SK. Like getting frigate modules from SK and ship it to US shipyard.
Is the future laser system a U.S. Navy system now under development? Missile defence? Is the no room for it on the Mogami vessel, or no adequate power supply?
Good question. We should absolutely expect the RAN to have lasers at sea during the life of these ships. Don't know if the Mogami is "plumbed" for DEWs as the A-210 is.
@ Still trying to get the concept. Attack terminal explosives or electronics in incoming missiles? Damage aircraft that are within line of sight? Cannon shells? Assume you charge and discharge some massive capacitor, and recharge very quickly.
Can't see into the future, BUT I feel full ship profile will be 10 years later. Won't affect me , I'll be gone, my kids will be the ones effected.😮🇦🇺
I thought the zero change requirement was there to eliminate the Japanese option… lack of volume search radar was a major problem
@@Vanguardcreed this is an interesting process. I'd suggest looking at this project as having 2 separate yet linked aspects.
They need 32 Vls cells and 8 anti ship nsm launchers
I can foresee the hunters being greatly delayed or even scrapped because of time and money
And see this could be a fed gov bait and switch for mogami for hunters even
@MrBlackACT They might be able to turn 6 of them as the new AWDs upgunned them to the 96 cel thatl BAE systems offered might be best bet. Get rid of the optional crewed ships and build more general purposes for frigates instead of 11 build 16
These two frigates seem a bit a the light side in terms of weight. Especially when compared to new frigates being developed by other nations.
I’m surprised at the small size of Australia’s navy. You would think an island nation with a massive coastline would have a much bigger navy.
Why not the Type 26? from my understanding the shipyards are stemming along in their production. Would Australia not get a better product from the Brits, or has their Naval technical know how plummeted?
@@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u Its the "Hunter Class" that is the Type 26 lol...
Why buy some T2 crap? wont BAE systems that is rapidly expanding their manufacturing share IP?
@@Unknown-gi1uj They're still building the Hunter class, which is the Australian version of the Type 26, that hasn't Gona away, they just lowered the number from 9 to 6.
The ships in this video are for a separate requirement, a cheaper and slightly lower end option to build in larger numbers.
@@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u They're 8200 tons according to BAE's website, I'm not sure where the 10k figure came from?
@@Cravendale98 10000 fully loaded
@@Cravendale98 The unmanned systems look interesting, but i would think for the role they want them to operate in, they would be more likened to a historical battleship then a modern vessel. Which really begs the question, do these policy makers actually know what it is they are after, as you have no carriers, they have no F35Bs, i mean what are for, a couple LHD with some chinooks. Sort of reminds me of the autonomous military trucks they want to acquire, to me that's just a free cache to capture.
Maybe the Australian government of the day should make s decision favouring a supplier with demonstrated ability to provide on time on budget,then pay up front.That way they can't cancel.
Putting all your money up front is a bad idea.
Australia is already building new frigates! The next generation has to be designed & built here in Australia!
I could never understand why the Anzacs were never in a continuous build. When first commissioned, they were acceptable, just. Over the years they have been built up to an acceptable standard, but still lacking. These ships should have been used as a starting point to create the next class. Additional VLS tubes, larger engines to provide more electrical energy, better point defence systems, etc. Why does Australia continually reinvent the wheel? We know how to build Anzacs, or we did. With a continuous build phase, these skills would not be lost, and we could keep our fleet in a much better state of readiness.
I have seen so many people say there will be 11 frigates, the fleet review says from 7 to 11 frigates. My guess is maybe up to 11 meko or maybe 7 mogami, personally i would hope for the mogami
@@paulmathews4335 The review said 7-11. The government's response to that was 11. Current policy is 11.
@@MattWeberWA and budget restrictions probably knock it down to 6 by the time we get around to building them haha
call me shallow but i just cant do the superstructure on the mogami.
A clean superstructure also seems to work well in heavy and sometimes very cold seas. I would argue that Canada started this particular style because of their subArctic patrol areas BUT I would also point out that one class of WWII Japanese destroyers was ahead of Allied ships in regard to clean superstructure design.
Agreed, A210 the better looking ship, not that it counts for anything.
Congrats, a review that actually acknowledges the upgraded versions TKMS & MHI officially tendered SEA 3000 for over a year. On its own, Meko packs a better punch (+ provision for energy weapons) than Mogami BUT...TKMS couldn't sell Australia quality used conventional subs (Soryu) off the shelf, like a well developed Japanese strategic, production & technology transfer driven alliance could WHEN not if AUKUS Pillar 1 collapses. Nor could TKMS get Australia's foot in the door should Japan, UK & Italy's 6th Gen Fighter turn out to be a winner. Am all for the potential of AUKUS but the need for a massive escalation of combined strategic/production alliances with Japan & South Korea passed URGENT a decade ago. Great vid, keep up the good work sir.
@@mickeyjuiced Thank you, much appreciated. Agree that there will be considerations beyond strict capability considerations
Soryu won't be able to patch up Oz needs of operational op tempo in the south china sea if there's a delay in SSN Aukus. Also, it's not like buying a car, you have to use or integrate the Japanese CMS and weaponry that Oz has no experience of.
@@saltymonke3682 Soryus are better than the zero Virginia's destined for Australian service
@mickeyjuiced huh? Virginia class is still on schedule. If Oz got Soryu, RAN would have a hard time to be on station in SCS for more than 2 weeks. Japan doesn't need Nuke submarine because their frontyard is already in the hot zone. Not to mention the battery lifespan problem with lithium on submarine service.
@mickeyjuiced oh, also fun fact, it was the German who has integrated the non magnetic steel alloy earlier in their submarine than the Japanese. But Oz was also rejected it (Type 216) for a nonexistent French sub
11:25 New Zealand may find Australian choice a suitable replacement for NZ ANZAC Class frigates
Anzac class (also identified as the ANZAC class and the MEKO 200 ANZ type) is a ship class of ten frigates; eight operated by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and two operated by the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN).
mid-capability patrol frigate by modifying a proven German design for Australian conditions. A souring of relations between New Zealand and the United States in relation to New Zealand's nuclear-free zone and the ANZUS security treaty prompted New Zealand to seek improved ties with other nations, particularly Australia. As both nations were seeking warships of similar capabilities, the decision was made in 1987 to collaborate on their acquisition.
By 1989, the project had selected a proposal by Germany's Blohm + Voss, based on their MEKO 200 design, to be built in Australia by AMECON at Williamstown, Victoria. The modular design of the frigates allowed sections to be constructed at Whangārei, New Zealand and Newcastle, New South Wales in addition to Williamstown. The RAN ordered eight ships, while the RNZN ordered two and had the option to add two more. The frigate acquisition was controversial and widely opposed in New Zealand, and as a result, the additional ships were not ordered. ....most is from wikipedia
@@kj1483 Yes, I remember it well. I think this time the cost might be the big issue for NZ.
@@Strategy_Analysis. I dare say NZ needs to step up and contribute more financially to maritime security in our region. Two frigates doesn’t cut it. You need a minimum of three vessels to have at least one available for rapid deployment at any one time.
@johngodden4363 I agree 3 is the number, and mentioned this in my briefing on the RNZN.
@ There seems to be some dispute in comments here that the government had shortlisted the MEKO A200 - not the A210 listed here! ( personally I like the A210 variant simply because it has Laser defence fore and aft & 16 NSMs)
What say you ? I think the Mogami will be chosen for political reasons as the AUKUS members seem to want Japanese inclusion into Tier 2.
- that would indeed draw them in I’m sure.
@johngodden4363 Yes John, there are actually 2 separate elements to this project. The initial 3 ships will be of an existing design, so in the case of the MEKO that would be the 200. However, the subsequent ships would be the A-210 variant, if the MEKO was chosen. As I have said elsewhere, don't understand the broader geo-strategic drivers.
how about considering China’s 054b? ? cheaper but deadly
Should have gone with the Korean model.
A VERY smart move would be to get the Japanese ship. Germany is collapsing and there's going to be all sorts of supply problems and cost blowouts due to almost no industry surviving in the near future.
The whole timeline is a joke. China is building a ship a week almost, and we are stuffing around with a MAYBE number of ships built WHENEVER. Don't get me started on the submarines which we will NEVER get.
Germany collapsing? By what? TKMS Meko A210 is cheaper than Improved Mogami.
Why does it take 10 years to build a Hunter, is this normal? We could have had ~20 Mogami’s in a similar timeframe…..and at 30% the cost….and they can also perform MCM.
Both would be good boats, but why are we so short on missiles. You only have to look at the expected opposition and see that we will run out and be sunk.
Yes it’s a frigate not a destroyer but you still gotta be able to throw a punch.
Either boat will be a disaster because Australia will do what Australia does and make design changes, screw up the project cost and timeframes
The LOCV's are stupid for Australia. If the had 96 VLS for the US maybe. The hunters are WAY over priced and miserably under gunned. WE should have continued the Hobart program (updated of course) and not gone to the Hunters. If the Hobart program had continued, we would now have a mature, large war ship building capacity active in Australia NOW and not be looking to another "restart'. The Mogami is too fat and has too few guns.
@@MrTallpoppy58 The LOCVs are the solution to the Hunters being undergunned though? Between it's CEA radar and Aegis, Hunter will probably have some of the best air warfare sensors in the world. Pair that up with a couple of 32 cell LOCVs and you have Arleigh Burke numbers of VLS, better sensors and better ASW. As a system, it will be world leading.
@@MattWeberWA So you are suggesting a Hunter & LOCV at $10billion for 64 VLS is the end game ... the solution ? Give me 2 x updated Hobarts at $7billion for 96 VLS EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. The ADF could not be more incompetent. Oh btw the Arleigh Burke's have 96 VLS at A$4 billion (I think they get a bulk discount).
@@MrTallpoppy58 I'm not going to defend the Coalition's failure to order the fourth AWD (or ideally a second block of three) If they had, the surface fleet would be in much better shape right now. Nor am I going to defend the cost overruns on the Type 26 conversion to Hunter. But restarting AWD production at this point would require us to either give up on continuous naval shipbuilding and build the in Spain, or push back the delivery of our next tier 1 by years.
The LOCVs are a band-aid on a bad situation. Fortunately, that ultimate band-aid solution is going to be a good one, but it's going to be enormously expensive. The cost of poor decision making? Probably. But we're in a box right now, and it's the best option we have.
@@MattWeberWA Matt, agree mostly. The LOCV' are a bad Idea, unless you run them as a companion to an aircraft carrier. Useable for the US but a complete waste for Australia. Ideally we need to get as few Hunters as we can. We have gone from 8-9 to 6 and I hope that drops to 4 (I have hear whispers). I admit to being a great fan of the Hobarts and the Spanish are still willing to build them for us in Australia (a 1 year delay is actually a saving against the Hunter schedule).
@@MrTallpoppy58 I don't quite agree. I think we're on the cusp of some pretty big changes to surface warfare. Most major surface combatants can and I think will benefit enormously from unmanned escorts. It allows sensors, particularly towed array sonars, to be distributed over a wide area very efficiently, it allows exquisite sensors like CEAFAR/Aegis to support an enormous number of VLS cells without the centralised risk of an arsenal ship or the crew and logistical requirements of a massive cruiser or battlecruiser. They can either be super cheap with barely any sensors or with fairly cheap and rudimentary air search radars they can serve as radar pickets to extend the motherships sight over the radar horizon. They can do a lot as part of a SAG, I truly don't think they need a carrier.
And as for the Hunter's, I do think a world-leading ASW capability is valuable for Australia, especially with the regional proliferation of AIP subs, the upcoming UUV revolution and China's ever growing undersea competence. Undersea swarms are going to be a thing eventually, but we're not quite there yet. And rather than further decreasing the numbers and going into the cost death spiral, I have hope that what we have lost financially on the current generation we can make up (only in part I'm sure) by using upgunned versions of them to replace the Hobarts. With that option having close to zero development cost and logistical efficiencies associated with having essentially a two-class fleet of major surface combatants, we can potentially see some serious cost and time savings over the life of the programme.
Your displacement figure for Hunter is incorrect, it’s 10,000 tonnes per senate estimates, with a lightship of 8,200. It displaces more than a flight III Arleigh Burke ….
Were kidding ourselves if we think we can crew these things plus subs
To reasons I wouldn't go for the Japanese offering is the range that I have scene is only 4000 nm, and the cree numbers seem just a bit to few for a warship of its size. Repair and rescue parties eat into your war staff very quickly.
Australia needs 4 to 6 Arsenal ships as well as our existing surface fleet, we are in direct competition with China,we need to present some sort of deterence ffs
The US is in direct competition with China. We are a small regional player.
to be honest i think iur defence department in Australia has no clue what they are doing they seem to be after the latest shiny new technology no matter how expensive or effective/ineffective it might be. i still see no good reason why we need a nuclear submarine when we could easily get equal capacity in conventional submarines especially from the siuth koreans who even have conventional missile submarines.
Australia has the most inefficient shipbuilding in the world. If they keep insisted to build the warship on their own soil, future RAN would be bleak.
They should consider to build half of them in their respective countries who propose to build with greater efficiency, just not to put their long term planning on the line.
The Mako class frigates are pretty good warships. However, I don't feel they would be much good in the RAN.
However, the Mogami class Frigates are a bit more modern and, in my opinion, are better suited for the type of ships 🚢 the RAN needs. So if I were the RAN. I'd go with the Mogami vessel's.
The obvious problem with all this is that for the next 10 years, minimum, we have stuff all. There's only 2 of the Hobart Class because they are so poorly done, that over the next 15 years, there will always be one in upgrade. The ANZACS are a joke, one bank of a low-altitude air defence system, an engine left out, inadequate crewing to operate them all. Then we are doing away with the patrol boats and disarming them while still in service. We have the disgusting Arufa Class, which Defence spent money on ensure they have no war-fighting ability. Then, we are meant to be at war China within 5 years. No problem here, Australia.
just get type 31’s
what is a 5.5 inch gun for? pointless
"What is a 5.5 inch gun for?"
The answer the RAN would need to write down on the Permit To Acquire with the Police is "Sport and recreational use".
There's lots of potential in cheap anti-drone air defence from deck guns, also in countering small surface targets like the unmanned sea baby drones or the Iranian swarming suicide boat tactics. But also things like warning shots in the constabulary mission - there's plenty of value in a deck gun beyond tradition.
@@MattWeberWA respectfully. zou mises the point, a 5.5 inch is for ship to ship or ship to land only, a 40mm or 57 mm rapid fire is anti drone, this is old tech for a new tech battlefield
its not the size of the cannon, it is what it shoots
@@astiparlane5627the 127mm main gun is quite capable of firing airburst rounds and can be used against drones too. It is after all just the modernised version of the gun used in WW2, which could also shoot down planes and did regularly.
Plus we want it for naval gunfire support.
Well, all this told me is that Australia needs a high volume indigenous LRASM manufacturing capability, and that the RAAF needs more platforms to deliver them. RAN will be shattered in weeks of a HI conflict.
How do you conduct damage control with a crew that small on a ship that big and still remain combat effective? Lunacy!
Short answer is that you don't.
Sir Nick Hine, ex UK second sea lord, is now working at Babcock, and was talking about the crew size of the Arrowhead 140, which is similarly small on a podcast.
Summarised, his argument was that damage in modern naval combat is either catastrophic or non-existent - i.e. if you get struck by a decent sized missile (he was talking hypersonic, but I would imagine that for a frigate or equally small ship, it probably applies to a large ASCM like a YJ-12 or YJ-18 as well) damage control isn't going to save the ship: the priorities need to be preventing the hit, then getting the crew out safely if that fails.
Whether that philosophy is still correct in today's world, post red sea and black sea combat (the conversation was in September 2023) is an open question, but when they were designing the arrowhead a few years back, that was the philosophy. I'd imagine very similar conversations were happening when the Mogami was being designed.
Honestly, when you think about a ship over its lifetime, it might be a tradeoff worth making. We can't crew a fleet of eleven GPFs with crews large enough to functionally DC them, and they've been trying to fix retention and recruitment for years, without major success so far. So we either have to choose a smaller fleet of ships with larger crews, or accept the risk that in combat, a ship might take a hit that wouldn't have been catastrophic with a bigger crew, but sinks the ship we have.
Neither option is great, but I think I'd rather have the additional hulls, as long as suitable provisions have been made for the safety of the crew. Probabilistically, the risk seems acceptable.
Given that Australia has so few warships in the water ( currently 10 made up of 3 AWDs and 7 light frigates) with a very modest combined total of 200 VLS, I simply cannot understand why Australia chose to continue building the Hunter Class with just 32 VLS!
Bae systems has offered the Australian government a modified variant of the Hunter Class with the multimission bay removed and replaced with another large bank of 64 VLS ( totalling 96 per vessel ). Granted the first three are already being constructed as per original order, it is incredulous to me why they haven’t decided on the up gunned variant.
Given that China is building the equivalent of the British navy every eighteen months we need whatever vessels we have to be heavily armed in order to provide a modicum of deterrence.
I personally would have the contract of nine vessels to remain but with the last six configured as missile Destroyers.
I hope future decisions are made based on the dire strategic environment not a political unwillingness to annoy Beijing.
And another thing.
I’m predicting that the Japanese upgraded Mogami Class ship will be chosen for our tier 2 vessels, the first to be delivered in 2030.
That is all well and good.
But given the fact that we will continue to have around nine or ten ships for the next ten years, we clearly need to mitigate construction of our navy ( which China is doing en Masse. I submit that after the first three vessels have been built in Japan that they continue building them - concurrently with the Australian shipyard to accelerate construction.
War will visit this region folks - sooner than we would like it to happen.
It’s time to stop messing around.
Australia is never going to deter China with a VLS count. People focus on VLS count whilst not understanding the purpose of the vessels and how they will be used. The Hunters job will primarily be ASW as part of a task force with a local air defence capability.
@ my point is that without sufficient missiles it becomes a very big target . Survivability should not be a blatantly obvious issue when the vessel is pitted against Chinese ships of similar size with triple the missile volume or multiple vessels of less than half the size with equivalent missile loadout. The Hunters cost an eye watering amount each but are extremely modestly armed for their size.
We have a Lilliputian size navy. We sir - need bang for our buck!
The first 6 are focused on ASW, the awd replacement follows the Hunter build. Probably 96-128 cells
@ don’t bet on it. Politicians are a shifty lot! - especially when it comes to Defence acquisitions.
I would have thought the meko was a no brainer especially around utilising existing combat systems and integrating cefar. Japan has no record for delivering any military export program.
Best go for Japan. Germany wont be around long enough for the after sales servicing.
The optional crewed vessels should just scrap it and build 6 more on top of the 11 ships bringing a total of 17 or even 16 ships. Or even buy a squadron of B21 stealth bombers instead. Just a foolish idea 6 optional crewed vessels. The optional crewed vessels will only be vulnerable to subs anyway and probably a reliability to other surface combating vessels i believe RAN making a mistake on this.
@@Nathan-yy2xs who's going to man it?
@@saltymonke3682 who knows maybe join you might actually learn the difference between a A200 and F124
@@Nathan-yy2xs a typical noob military observer, doesn't know actual military shtt. Doesn't understand project life cycle, MLU, supply and logistics, tooth to tail ratio, crew ratio, sustainment.
Running an actual warship isn't as easy as video game, kid
@@Nathan-yy2xs you don't even know tooth to tail ratio, kid
@@saltymonke3682 sure mate. Keep telling yourself a F124 is a A200. Maybe a Hobart class is an Alright Burk? You haven't got a clue. Gen Z little man
Unfortunately, Japan is next to China and presents serious supply chain risk
how ironic
Good Ideas for our NAVY, but did NOT cancel anything from it ! Red Chinese and Russian Navies are still big danger for us !
Personally given al the noise in the Indo Pacific, I do not think the timeframes for builds are quick enough its not the 1940s whacking out a ship every few weeks but more should be able to be accomplished! There is more than likely a need for further VLS in my mind to keep units in the fight longer/ give more options for load out/protect itself further.
Further to that, resource/repair it would be very very sensible for Australia to have at least 1x large floating dry dock and probably 2x graving docks (1 West coast and 1 East coast) large enough to support a single US carrier or (multiple smaller ships) that way if a captial ship is damaged it would be much faster than towing back to the US and being on the southern coast much safer from land based Chinese missles. Coupled with cross training in engineering and support for AUKUS it strikes me as more than reasonable and a pragmatic risk based approach to ensuring servicability. These repair/refit options give an element of flexibility but i cannot see that these have even been considered, and should probably be talked about to get the govt attention..... but the Greens would probably hold it up from digging a couple of holes due to environmental studies despite being of national security importance. Presently I believe our only graving dock is at garden island in sydney, has ALMOST the length for carriers but i think tops out with the Canberrra LHD tonnage.
Make in EU always over price, their industry has problem recently, example of Submarines Deal with France.
Can you do us a favour mate? Over here in England can you do it in feet and yards as well regarding the measurements? Thank you all the best….
So why don't we just build more hunters but without the extra crap that makes them 10000t instead of the 7,000t these were supposed to be. We keep making the same mistake and that is stop building things when we are actually building them and wasting more money on the next project that will go over budget.
Ditch the mast you say?
@@lancebond2338 It's more then the mast I understand. But if the mast is that extra 2000t then yeah get rid of it.
If we say no to Mogami, would the Japanese ever want to sell any military equipment to Australia considering the last drama with PM Abbot and the submarines?
Why not order 3 Sejong the great class destroyers they could be in the water in 3 to 4 years to help with the short fall in vls cells and why not just build the frigates in Japan you could get them built in half the time and for cheaper when the Australian government say that they need ships quickly they choose to build them in Henderson mad
@@timderbidge5444 The Australian government is prepared to pay a premium for domestic production. The Sejong the Great are impressive ships.
The 300+ crew is an issue.
I thought the Aussies were going with the type 26 frigate from Great Britain. Why is this a discussion. This Tyre 1 Tyre 2 shit is nonsense . Get the best f**king ships and don't worry about it.
Type 26 is the Hunter class, but like the Canadian version it has been bloated with an extra 3000 ton of gear over the base design as the requirements have grown. So now the RAN wants something that the Type 26 base design was intended for in the first place, but are looking for a smaller design.
@soulsphere9242 I hope they are not compromising on that policy.
@@TONSBERG100 The change of plan means 3 fewer high-end ASW frigates, but they gain 8 to 11 lower end ones.
@@soulsphere9242 OK. Then I guess that works out for the better. However I hope Australia is able to crew all of these new ships.
@@TONSBERG100 That is going to be the biggest problem, especially considering the very ambitious submarine fleet expansion. To be honest, I am doubtful that it is all going to work out.
German warships have a perfect war losing reputation. Think SMS Blücher and then the Drøbak Sound Blücher, perhaps time for a new class. Why not go for French? ask the Russians how hot they were.
Australia just can't afford to build these kind of ships in sufficient numbers for them to be meaningful. In any sort of serious confrontation our entire tier 1 navy would get knocked out almost immediately. We just have to few ships. We probably need to look at unmanned drones. These ships just ain't worth the money.
They are as well. See the Ghost Shark.
I feel like if you’re going for fit for purpose it’s the Mogami. But I think the Meko has better capabilities and is better overall but not by a lot
I don't think Mogami is also fit for purpose because it's only use X and C band. If CEAFAR integration only happens 15 years later, it's too far away. MEKO can inegrate CEAFAR from get go.
@ fit for purpose means it’s good at performing specific functions. I didn’t say it could better capable than the Meko hence why I said the Meko has better capabilities
@laskymcguy1158 yea yea I understand, but ANZAC is already using S, C, and X band radar. If RAN wants to replace it with a ship with a similar purpose, it needs the S band or even a CEAFAR mast upgrade.