(Updates with comments from Thales Australia)
The Mogami frigate has been selected for SEA 3000 – despite being more expensive – because of a combination of technical excellence and strong support from the Japanese government. The ship is more heavily armed than the rival MEKO 200 having 32 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells compared with 16 for the German ship. Other attractive features included a low number of crew due to automation, and a design life of 40 years compared with 30 for a conventional warship.
However, probably the most persuasive factor was the commitment of the Japanese government to the project and promises that the three Australian frigates will be delivered on time by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). Tokyo has also been lobbying very hard, using the project as a mechanism for increased strategic cooperation with Australia.
In a joint media statement, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said:
“Following a rigorous and competitive tender process, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ Mogami-class frigate was assessed as best able to quickly meet the capability requirements and strategic needs of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
“The upgraded Mogami-class frigate boasts a range of up to 10,000 nautical miles, a 32 Cell Vertical Launch System, and is fitted with surface-to-air missiles and anti-ship missiles.
“The decision comes months ahead of schedule – reflecting the Albanese Government’s commitment to transforming the ADF into a more integrated, focussed force.
“The Government acknowledges the competitive, high-quality proposal submitted by Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems, and thank them for their commitment and professionalism throughout this procurement process.”
The next step is for the Australian DoD to negotiate a contract with MHI, which might also involve Japan’s procurement agency ATLA. Typically, Australian contract negotiations are painful because the DoD is wedded to the Anglo-Saxon approach of insisting on a huge amount of detail with penalties for non-performance and an attitude of suspicion towards the contractor.
It will be an interesting clash of cultures to see how negotiations play out. The Australians hope that the contract can be signed after only two months of negotiations, which seems optimistic.
The biggest loser in all of this is Australian combat management system (CMS) supplier Saab because the Japanese ship comes with its own hardware and software. This will make the first three Japanese ships technical orphans, though they are said to be fully interoperable with the RAN surface fleet. Senior officers have been indifferent to the issue of introducing a new CMS into the inventory, saying its adoption is simply a matter of retraining operators to push some different buttons.
There is already speculation that MHI will build more than three ships in Japan. The redevelopment of the Henderson shipbuilding precinct in WA – a necessary first step for local construction – has stalled and given the urgency of the project it might make more sense to keep buying the frigates from overseas. This might also have consequences for the Hunter frigate project, with Japan able to build ships much faster and cheaper than Australia.
UPDATE
Thales Australia has welcomed the news that the General Purpose Frigate program has been awarded to Thales Australia’s strategic partner Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) for the Mogami-class frigate. As part of the Royal Australian Navy’s next-generation surface combatant fleet, 11 of the frigates will be built in total – three overseas and the remaining in Australia.
Thales has a longstanding strategic partnership with MHI, working together to deliver unique and innovative solutions, particularly in the development of advanced mine-countermeasure sonar systems. This decision represents strengthened cooperation between Japan and Australia and is a step forward in delivering a modern and flexible maritime force for regional deterrence.
Jeff Connolly, CEO, Thales Australia and New Zealand: “Thales Australia congratulates the Government and MHI on this significant announcement. The Mogami-class frigate is a formidable addition to Australia’s naval capability. With a long-standing, sustainable partnership with MHI, Thales Australia reaffirms our commitment to deepening bilateral ties between our two countries. Our innovation through partnership approach has delivered a potent mix of cutting-edge capabilities that deliver advanced maritime security, while leveraging and building manufacturing capabilities and supply chains.”
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
No real surprise here but at least a decision has been made. Now let’s get on with it. I agree that we will probably see more than 3 built in Japan because like everything else Defence and the Government do here in Australia we seen indifferent to the urgency of developing the Henderson site.
A nail in SAAB’s coffin? OR. Sorry we didn’t buy your subs like we (our PM) promised!
Luckily, Saab still has a fair bit of work – Hunters, AWD upgrade – but nevertheless it’s very bad news for them.
Very sensible outcome, congratulations MMI / Japan! and congratulations to the Dept of Defence team responsible for the program for their efficiency, let this be the norm in future. It now begs the question on the future of the Hunter Class, for the price of 1 Hunter we can get another 8-9 Mogami, I know what I would be doing… Better still build the Maya Class with 96 VLS Cells, or the under development ASEV Destroyer with 128 VLS cells, in Adelaide instead of the Hunter. Food for thought!
Yes very true David S
The Mogami decision is a condemnation of the much earlier BAE Hunter frigate decision.
9 Hunters ordered 2018 were reduced to 6, in part, because they would come so:
– late (first one commissioned 2032/34?)
– expensive (much more than the Mogamis) and
– below requirements (too few Mk41 VLS?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-class_frigate#2024_review
from the familiar Osborne political money soak.
It is again from Britain’s BAE that we’ll be getting 8 x SSN-AUKUS (assuming no US Virginias) coming way overbudget.
If 8 x SSN-AUKUS are built in Osborne some may well be commissioned as late as the 2050s.
Build 6 in Japan and review what 7-11 are for given the RAN will never be able to crew them
Sanity prevails at last, Australia is now in a far better position to access weapons it REALLY needs like Japan’s Taigei-class submarine (with 20yr old Soryus as Collins fill ins) and Japan’s Stealthy land or ship launched Type 12 SSM with a credible range of 1,000km, dwarfing the NSM’s pathetic 185-250km.
Except Japan is also buying NSM, possibly because it’s about half the mass of the Type 12 (400kg v 700kg). Also the NSM has passive IR homing, making it stealthier than the radar seeker on the Type 12. There might be a case for Australia also acquiring both.
So Japan’s Type 12 trucks with payload ranges set to increase to 1,500km don’t constitute more effective island chain ‘deterrents’ than NSM armed Hawkeyes ?
I concur with Japan, having BOTH makes sense.
So Japan’s Type 12 trucks armed with 6-8 SSMs with ranges set to increase to 1,500km don’t constitute more effective island chain ‘deterrents’ than Bushmasters armed with twin NSMs ?
I concur with Japan, having BOTH makes sense.
No surprises there, I think even TKMS was aware that MHI would win (unless they practically gave them away) . My concern is the archaic practice of going through the selection process and then commencing contract negotiations. Surely Contract details would/should have been part of the RFT and if so, accessed as part of the selection process. The way the DoD Does business is bizarre and frankly I’m surprised anyone does business with them at all. Well hopefully they don’t dither around Sea3000 has taken far too long ( considering the urgency) . Now Let’s hope that the AUKUS review provides an escape route that allows us out of the “Optimal Path” (aka sell the suckers old 2nd Hand Virginias )
As suggested in a previous comment. Replace the Collins with Taigei ( or KSS III).
So the Japanese ship is a good choice?
Link below provides great insight re Japan’s submarine industrial strategy, fingers crossed thjs approach proves contagious for Australia WHEN not if AUKUS falls over…but I doubt it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQi6R7CIZ4