The SEA 3000 General Purpose Frigate shortlist has been confirmed and unsurprisingly the leaked information is correct – it’s Germany and Japan. But obviously it couldn’t be that simple, so two designs from Thyssenkrupp will be evaluated and one from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. However, the MHI ship the Mogami FFM has not yet been built, with the first to be delivered in 2027. This would seem to indicate it is already in breach of Defence guidelines, which are for an existing design. But it’s even worse, with Chief of Navy telling Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy that the RAN is happy to take any combat system, throwing 30 years of work standardising around the Saab 9LV CMS into the bin.
Then another sad story of an exceptional Australian company DroneShield selling its leading edge counter drone technology all around the world – just not in Australia. Instead, for a perimeter security requirement the RAAF recently awarded a $30 million contract to Anduril, the US company funded by tech billionaires. It’s enough to make one scream, along with a few other topics.
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at [email protected]
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at [email protected]
I have been of the opinion for some time now that the Mogami Frigate will selected irrespective of the configuration offered as an olive branch to the Japanese government for not proceeding with the submarine procurement. At least the MEKO 200 offering has some merit but logic does not seem to come into play in any defence procurement decision of late.
The reluctance so support and develop Australian industry offerings is astounding – in many respects Australian industry has the capacity to become world leading in many fields but the government simply chooses to ignore or discourage it.
Still at a loss to understand the build-up of amphibious assets. The only practical use I can see would be disaster relief as I don’t get that we would be initiating offensive amphibious operations any time soon against anyone. Should we not be concentrating on continental defence assets?
No matter what platforms or systems we procure they are of little or no use without crews and I believe that recruitment should be something that should be made a higher priority than it is.
I saw a recent article stating (again) that Australia needs a dedicated professional Coast Guard. Perfect opportunity to utilise the Arafura class as it is probably more suited to a CG role rather than a combatant role. But. Who will crew them?
Another good listen and agree with the frustrations around current Defence management.
Thanks Rod – I agree that there seems to be something of a political push for the Mogami. And by that I mean some of the senior leadership of the RAN acting in a way they think will impress their political masters rather than doing what’s in the best interests of the RAN. I’m genuinely staggered to see that 9LV could well be thrown under the bus because I don’t think MHI have any intention of offering it. I’m also unsure how effectively MHI could transition the build to Henderson – if that goes ahead. There are a lot of ifs: Henderson has to be reorganised; Austal has to successfully build both the LCMs and LSTs. There needs to be a large, skilled workforce in place.
As I mentioned, the level of government/Defence incompetence is staggering. If they are trying to pave the way for the upgraded Mogami FFM, they are off to a very bad start with their graphic showing the current 133m Mogami, not the version they presumably want which is 145m long.
“Still at a loss to understand the build-up of amphibious assets. The only practical use I can see would be disaster relief as I don’t get that we would be initiating offensive amphibious operations any time soon against anyone. Should we not be concentrating on continental defence assets?”
Did you read the DSR? It was clear that littoral manoeuvre was necessary within the vast archipelago’s to our north to protect our vital SLoC and strike targets at long range. Centralising our amphibious capability on two large and one medium ships is too many eggs in too few baskets. These platforms will remain for their C4, hospital and air assault and air insertion/extraction capabilities but the majority of our sea lift will be provided by these smaller more independent vessels. Focusing on continental defence ignores the vastness of our geography and puts us at a permanent disadvantage.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the LMV-M and LMV-H are both non complex ships. lacking advanced sensors and combat systems they can be produced far more quickly. Also remember that Austal’s partnership with Civmec means they will be assisting with the construction as well and they will have free capacity after the Arafura build. Most of our historical ship building woes have been a result of poor design and management processes not the actual welding and wiring so to speak.
I simply don’t think we have the capacity to be attempting to build multiple platforms in any reasonable timeframe. Unless some magical massive increase in our shipbuilding infrastructure and required workforce happens (as is apparently going to happen in the US with respect to lifting production rates of Virginia Class subs) I just don’t see it.
On a lighter note I see that 2 of the decommissioned Huon class mine warfare vessels were sold to a private buyer who intends to convert them into superyachts. At least someone has a plausible plan for decommissioned Australian Military equipment rather than cutting them up and burying them.
Good point about decommissioning.
Maybe you can write an article about how Defence won’t make any money from the sale of the Huon class ships, once all relevant costs have been considered.
I’d like to do that in the unlikely event that the RAN ever release any information about the cost of the disposal process. Or reveal why they are happy to retire a strategically vital capability with no replacement in sight.