In an important milestone for the general purpose frigate program, two shipbuilders have been down-selected to progress their designs. Australia will work with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems to further develop their proposals for the Mogami and MEKO-A200 frigates.
The first three general purpose frigates will be built offshore and, successful and timely consolidation of the Henderson precinct will enable the remainder of the build to be constructed locally at Henderson. The construction of general purpose frigates at the Henderson Defence Precinct is part of the government’s plan to invest tens of billions of dollars in defence capabilities in Western Australia over the next two decades, supporting in the order of 10,000 well-paid, high-skilled local jobs.
Defence will engage closely with the down-selected shipbuilders to progress this program and ensure Australia’s first general purpose frigate is delivered this decade. This announcement includes three designs from the two shipbuilders – one from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and two from Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems. For commercial reasons given this procurement is ongoing, it is not appropriate to provide further details on these proposals.
This process was a highly competitive tender and the decision to progress the Mogami and MEKO-A200 designs was informed by rigorous evaluation by Defence that identified these designs as likely to best meet Australia’s capability requirements. The deputy prime minister was pleased to confirm the down-selection of Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries during the recent meeting with his counterpart, Minister Nakatani, in Darwin.
The government is investing up to $55 billion over the decade, including up to $10 billion for the general purpose frigates. Defence will engage closely with the down-selected shipbuilders to progress this program and ensure Australia’s first general purpose frigate is delivered this decade. These frigates are part of a plan that will more than double the size of Navy’s surface combatant fleet compared with the former government’s plan. – see ‘warship comparison graphic’
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said: “The Albanese Government is committed to ensuring our Navy is equipped with a larger and more lethal surface combatant fleet, and the general purpose frigate program is a key aspect of this. Navy’s future fleet will constitute the largest number of surface combatants since World War Two, and will be integral to ensuring the safety and security of our sea lines of communication and maritime trade. We extend our gratitude to Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Spain for their efforts in support of this activity. We view their commitment to this process as a reflection of the strong relationships between our nations. We acknowledge the extraordinary achievement of each of these companies in manufacturing platforms recognised by the Independent Analysis Team as the best of their kind.”
Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy said: “This program is moving at pace to ensure the Navy is equipped with the ships it needs to keep Australians safe. The rapid, accelerated work of the general purpose frigate program to date underpins the next stages of the acquisition to ensure this capability is delivered this decade, providing our Navy with enhanced anti-submarine and anti-air warfare capabilities.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
Sorry, what was the government rational for this program?
Are they not just repeating the mistakes of the past?
I thought thew reason the ANZACs were being replaced by the massive Hunter class we to NOT repeat the mistakes of the ANZAC programme. The ANZACs were found not to be fit for purpose as that didn’t size and the weight growth for the changes defence wanted to make by adding further sensors, weapons and equipment they were never designed to account for. (and even ones they were mean’t to be designed for such as anti-ship missiles)
And on top of that is this actually going to save any money? If they say it is, I’m highly sceptical of this as past experience tends to suggest otherwise.
The program is shrouded in mystery because Defence and the government don’t want any scrutiny of the huge mess they have collectively made of the entire RAN surface fleet. This will be the first time since 1976 that surface combatants have been built offshore. However, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of the Anzacs – they are excellent Tier 2 combatants and have been the absolute workhorse of the RAN for the past 25 years. They came with a huge growth margin, hence being able to add on the CEA radar suite for enhanced missile defence. However, there are limits to the cost-effectiveness of further upgrades to old platforms and having performed exceptionally well they are just running out of hull life.
I was understanding the opposite to be the case with regards to growth margins.
Whilst growth margins were allowed in the design of the vessel (whole fitted for but not with stuff) that proved insufficient when it was realised that extra sensors and armament were required. (which led to the ASMD program which was completed last decade)
One example of this was with the Harpoons, the original design for them was amidships (which is where they are in the case of every single other Meko 200 class in overseas service) however they ended up in front of the bridge instead which is normally equiped with CIWS and countermeasures. I haven’t been able to find out for sure but probably during the course of the WIP program in the 1990s (precursor to ASAD in the 2000s) it was discovered that this amidship space was need for the extra sensors required to add the necessary anti-ship missile defence capabilities defense were wanting.
When the ASAD program was being carried out extra ballast was required as the masts were too big for the design of the ship (as its plan to see in any picture of them) and so extra ballast was added to counter act. That extra ballast increased the ships originally full tonnage design weight from 3600 to 3810 tones full load. They pushed the design just over 5% it’s original design limit
Because the ship is now over full load weight the 2nd Mk41 8 cell farm that space was allocated for in the original design (which can be seen on Greek and Turkish Mekos) can no longer be fitted. This is course is offset by the fact that the ESSM can be quad packed, where as the original sea sparrow could not.
It was this issue here from my understanding which lead to the selection of Frigates for the ANAZC frigates replacement that were the more than double the size and really Destroyers in size, with the Type 26, Fremm, and Spanish design.
Thats not to take away from their excellent service, they have been amazing vessels and were extremely good value for money. But it was a case of defense choosing a Frigate in the 1980s for one purpose but then realising what they actually need was something else.
Again none of that takes away from their excellent service.
At least this new program gives New Zealand something that they can be apart of again, ala ANZAC class part 2.
Perhaps I should have written that when the ships were originally contracted one of the factors in favour of their selection was that they had a lot of growth margin. The competitors were the UK Type 23 – which didn’t make the shortlist – and the Karel Doorman (the Dutch M) frigate, which did. I think the MEKO was easily the best choice at the time – but with any ship, you can always place so much on it that you eventually use up all the design margin. That’s one of the things that really worries me about the Hunter frigates – even before they have been launched quite a bit of the weight margin has gone. Both the RAN and BAES say it doesn’t matter because there’s plenty left. I’m not so sure – if you have already used 50% of your weight margin during construction, that’s 50% less growth possible during the life of the ship.
You’re right, there was plenty of margin with the Anazcs for growth, but not the margin needed for what defence decided they wanted years after they started building. The space and weight reserves were for general purpose frigate equipment that was missing from the ANZACs when they were commissioned. The whole “Fitted for but not with thing”. You can see that difference between the Turkish, Greek, Portuguese MEKOs and the ANZACs when they were first commissioned just before the ANZACs. The space and weight reserves were for CIWS mounts both fore and aft, anti-ship missiles admid ships, 2nd Mk41 farm, and towed array sonar, with a very small growth margin for other equipment such as extra sensors. Basically inline with what the RNZN have done with Te Kaha and Te Mana. But they were never designed for the considerable sensor suite required by the ASMD programme which mean’t compromising had to be made.
I think the thing that pushed the Meko design over the line compared to the others was the price was right, but the modular construction (which was a new concept for warship building at the time) mean’t that construction could be shared between New Zealand and Australia significantly easier than with the other 2 designs that were not modular and as a result would not have been able to spilt up construction of modules between countries like what was done with the ANZACs.
Again, I personally think they were the right frigate at the time for replacement of the Type 12 Frigates of the RAN and RNZN. But what happened was Defense changed their mid after building started about what they actually needed in a platform which was beyond what the originally design intended. In the end they were able to make it work, but i’s a bit of a frankinstien solution.
I can see when they choose the Hunter class they did a better job and decided what they wanted from the vessel from the start and it’s undeniable they have done a better job at that. It’s the best thing to hunt subs that floats on water. There is no other design out there on the water or on paper that can’t match it’s capabilities for the purpose. The RAN have decided that unlike the RN that an area air defence capability is required so it is going to be armed with better missiles and better sensors that the RN type 26.
I know you have mentioned there is concerns around future growth potential of the Hunters. I don’t believe this a valid concern. The ANZACs took 20 years to get to where defence really wanted them and it took the platform over it’s design limit. The Hunters will basically be where defence wants them at commissioning. They are not going to be commissioned as under armed patrol frigates that can’t defend themselves from more than a couple cruise missiles thrown at them. When commissioned the ANZACs were only armed with 5 inch main gun, 8 Sea Sparrow short range SAMs (with only one fire control channel so only one target could be engaged at a time), and torpedo tube launchers. So effectively the same level of armament as the Type 12 Frigates they were replacing just modern versions. Where as the Hunters (Unlike RN Type 26) are going to be fully armed and equipped right from their commissioning.
Personally I think if I was King, I would have used the Hobart program as a vehicle to also replace the ANZACs. That would have mean’t building 4 Hobarts instead of 3, and then after the 4th building the newer batch Hobarts with downgraded sensor wise slightly to keep cost down. Basically similar to what the Spanish are doing. Would have been cheaper as the line would have never closed.
Also you get a vessel that has good growth margins and overall cheaper maintenance because you are only dealing with one hull type not three.
Thanks Tim – I appreciate all of that extra detail! You are correct about the MEKO having both a lower price and a considerably higher level of ANZ content. Another factor that gets very little recognition – I’ve touched on it in a podcast – is that it also had a far better combat system in the form of 9LV, initially from PEAB, then Celsiustech and now Saab. The Dutch M frigate came with a far more expensive sensor mix and far less ToT when it came to the Signaal (now Thales Netherlands) CMS.
I think the rationale behind this was that 9 uber expensive yet capable Hunter’s was not going to be enough going forward. By dropping 3 Hunter’s, and instead reallocating a portion of that projected overspend, you could get an additional 11, still reasonably capable, yet cheaper combatants as well.
From an ASW perspective, with a towed array and helo, that’s still going to be better than what we have now.
You’re moving from an original projected manned fleet size of 12 to 20.
The reason behind Hunter costing so much compared to a GPF is likely AEGIS, the expensive sound reduction measures and also the fact that at roughly 10k tonnes, they’re twice the size of the proposed GPFs. Even if the total cost is the same, you’ll end up with about 8 additional vessels. That’s a much better bang for buck proposition.
I’m very sceptical on the economics side of things.
Time and time again we see that dropping a few units from a program makes marginal difference to the overall cost of a project. We see it with the British all the time with almost everything. ie 5 E-7s and the programme gets cut 3, but the cost of the program is only slightly less, all save to few a couple hundred million quid when they should just have stuck with the original programme and ponied up for the extra few quid. We saw it was with Type 45s and even the Type 26s themselves.
I wouldn’t be surprised if when all is said and done the RAN will end of with up 6 Hunters and 6 GPFs.
I suppose in terms of hulls, they will be overall better off however.
The conversations doing the rounds say 3 designs across the two companies (two from TKMS and one from Mitsubishi. It will be interesting to see if Mitsubishi is putting up the Upgraded Mogami. A good play by Mitsubishi to change the name from New FFM to Upgraded Mogami, to highlight or claim a strong linkage which would help it be considered as an existing design.
With the last of the batch 1 Mogami’s already under construction, and the upgraded version likely already on long lead procurement, it would make more sense to go along with an upgraded version as opposed to pushing for additional batch 1’s. The sheer size and capability of Mitsubishi should surely see them being able to create and Australian export version i.e. regulatory requirements etc. rather easily (fingers crossed).
On the other side of the fence with TKMS, which 2 designs are they? Being so modular, will they be able to get away with mixing features of both batch 3 and batch 4 to create a more suitable package along side a stock standard offering?
The other curiosity that I have is what the local build batches may look like, and whether we use the time between now and GPF #4 to integrate RAN common systems. Batch 1’s then have the option to refit to upgrade , be sold off and replaced, or just remain a sub class.
At the end of the day, will it be cheaper for the RAN to adopt a whole bunch of new systems for the ease of an ‘off the shelf ‘ procurement, or will it be cheaper to attempt to integrate some of those central items (Saab 9LV, Mk41, ESSM etc. that will save us having to spend on new training, maintenance and supply?
Either way, with the build projects (less complex transport vessels) now locked in for Henderson before the GPFs come along, hopefully the workforce there will be able to ramp up in build complexity so that they’re ready for taking on GPF #4+.
Thanks – you make a number of valid points and ask questions that no one can answer because the RAN and Defence don’t appear to know what they are doing. Just in the material released overnight, the graphic of the Mogami shows it being 133 metres in length. This is the basic Mogami. The FFM version – the first will be delivered in 2027 – is 145 metres, but if Defence is to be taken literally, it isn’t part of the mix. Just a further example – if one is needed – of what a total mess this is. I think you are correct and that MEKOs come in such a variety of configuration that tkMS can offer the RAN whatever they want.
I think by just sticking with simply stating the Mogami class, they are not giving away which of the two options it could be. Batch 1 Mogami, or Upgraded Mogami class could still be considered part of the same class with the way Mitsubishi cleverly marketed it..?
Personally I think it would be a no brainer for the upgraded version, as it would likely still allow for some easier integration of various elements before everything is finalised moving towards production.
I wouldn’t pay much attention to the lengths given in the graphic as they didn’t even provide the correct length for Hunter (151.4m) ….
To me, this article is proof that the 2018 decision to go with the Type 26 based Hunter class was and remains a mistake. We need vessels of this size (Mogami/Meko) in large numbers and despite much crying from Navy about the ANZAC’s deficiencies, both real and imagined, they have provided stalwart service through their service lives. We had a navy with tier 1 and tier 2 vessels from the 1970’s, think DDG’s and DE’s.
The Hobarts were to be the Tier 1 and a ANZAC class replacement of approximately the same size and capability should have been Tier 2, but Navy wanted new toys to play with.
The Naval Surface fleet review showed that having a large fleet of moderately capable ships was essential for Australia’s naval security. So now we have 3 Hobarts, eventually 6 Hunter’s (supposedly) and up to 11 (never going to happen) GP frigates. Meanwhile our ANZAC’s are being retired, some are out of the water for maintenance or lack of crews, leaving us with too few active ships.
The decision in 2018 for a large ASW ship and not a GP frigate replacement was the first mistake, the second was choosing the Type 26 which was and still is, not an actually in service class and the third mistake taken after the Surface fleet review was not cancelling the Hunter’s altogether and taking up Navantia’s offer of three more Hobarts and adding whichever of the Mogami/Meko was preferred for tier 2 in good numbers
Years of wasted time and bureaucratic shuffling and our surface fleet is now a shadow of its former self.
My predictions:
1/ The Hunters will be years late and probably reduced to 3 at most.
2/ We have no hope of ever seeing anything like 11 GPF’s, my guess 6 at best. Talk is cheap but they will not spend the actual money, and crewing and cost conflictions will limit both purchases.
3/ The Arafura class will provide excellent service but will be starved of funds and ignored, much as the Mine counter measure vessels have been.
My two cents.
If the offer is between the “classic” Mogami class and not the New FFM and a variant of the Meko-A200 then it would seem the Meko-A200 would be the better option. My preference was for New FFM because of it’s significantly lower crew size and greater fire-power with 32 Strike Length Mk.41 VLS, potential NSM and SeaRAM. Frankly anything short of 32 VLS is suicidally short sighted in my opinion.
However if both platforms will only offer a maximum of 16 VLS then it would edge would go to the A-200 given TkMS proven ability to export it’s designs and future integration of Australian sensors and combat system. Yes it will be cheaper but also less capable and perhaps more could be built. Cost will also be important if this ends up becoming a combined program with the RNZN.
I’m fine with batch one being MotS with regards to sensors and combat systems in order to bring the capability to bear sooner. But batch two must include AusCMS, CEAFAR and adherence to Australian safety standards. Batch one can be retrofitted in the future as per the original ANZACS.
Another thing to consider is if we are just going to go with MotS then why not just buy some of the classic Mogami’s (built with the VLS inclusions) straight off the current production line to be in service much sooner. The Japanese are not facing hull shortages and would probably relish having the “lesser” Mogami’s taken off their hands.
So A200: 3-4 B1 built by TkMS MotS. 7-8 B2 “Australianised” A-200’s built in Henderson. Future option to sell or refit B1 to B2 standards and or build 2-3 B2 for RNZN.
An impressive program of work if the government doesn’t screw things up any further.