In a sign of just how seriously South Korea is about forming closer defence links with Australia, the government has committed to meeting the ambitious delivery schedule of the first RAN ship in the water by 2029. The offer was explained to APDR by Rear Admiral Hyun-Seung Shin, ROK Navy Director General, Naval Ship Program Department.
There are two Korean companies shortlisted for the SEA 3000 General Purpose Frigate program, Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hanwha Ocean (HO). The other bidders come from Germany, Japan and Spain. If either of the Korean companies are selected, the ROK government in the form of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration will guarantee that the first ship is in the water by 2029 and the next two by 2030.
Attending the IODS conference in Perth, RADM Shin said that if the RAN wants even faster delivery of the frigates, all three could potentially be in the water by 2029. This would be followed by full ROK support of the Australian build in Henderson of the remaining eight ships.
He said that ROKN frigates are constructed to world beating standards with an emphasis on survivability following the 2010 sinking of the corvette ROKN Cheonan by a North Korean submarine with 46 sailors tragically being killed. He also explained that the ROKN is extremely familiar with US weapons, having used them extensively, and would fully support their integration onto the Australian ships.
RADM Shin summarised the position of the ROKN: “The Australian General Purpose frigate has two key aspects. The first is to have the delivery of high performance frigates in the 2029-32 timeframe. The other aspect is to support the Australian shipyard in the local build of the remaining eight ships.
“I have suggested that by 2029 DAPA can guarantee that the lead ship – the first in the series – will be delivered to Australia. For ships number two and three, we can deliver those by 2030 at the latest.
“Also on the request of the Australian government, we have the capacity to speed up the process and deliver all three ships by 2029.”
This story will be updated.
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
Let’s hope that sanity prevails and the government takes note. Great article and looking forward to the update. If we don’t take up the offer which will allow for the ships being built with the necessary weapons and systems, compatible with existing RAN systems and requirements then we really need to question the motivation and credibility of those making the decisions. One thing is absolutely clear – if the South Koreans give you a guarantee then, failing any unforeseen disaster, you can bank on them meeting it.
Hopefully the government will take notice of this statement of commitment! If South Korea commits to something then you can believe that it will happen. If we can procure a high quality ship fitted with systems and equipment that is compatible with existing RAN requirements and systems, all within a guaranteed relative short time frame then I can’t see how we can turn it down.
I agree.
Both Korean designs have significantly less range than Anzac, at 4,500nm at only 15 knots vs Anzac’s 6,000nm at 18 knots.
That’s critical for independent operations and more days on station rather than transit.
Both Korean designs also have a low freeboard which isn’t suitable for broad range of environments our fleet operates in.
They’re also both fundamentally built around Korean systems and weapons, completely changing this adds a great deal of complexity, time and risk.
The two Korean designs are arguably the least suitable alongside Navantia’s equally poorly suited Alfa 3000.
I have no doubt that both HHI and HO have enough time to increase the range of their ships, if necessary. The ROKN is extremely familiar with US systems and weapons, for example KDX series are equipped with Aegis. RADM Shin made that particular point that the integration of US weapons is not at all a problem. The time between keel laying and launch of the first KDX Batch 2 destroyer of 11,000 tonnes and 128 VLS cells was nine months.
Both HHI and Hanwha will have not the slightest difficulty modifying their designs to increase range, if required. RADM Shin made a particular point of ROKN familiarity with US weapons and systems – for example the KDX Batch 2 destroyers are equipped with Aegis. These 11,000 tonne ships with 128 VLS cells take 9 months to go from keel laying to launch. Sea states in the north Pacific are just as vile as anything found in the waters around Australia.
Agreed.
I genuinely appreciate the effort from the RoK regarding defence cooperation at all levels but since the RAN wants a “0%” change from the parent design for ships 1-6 that would make the HHI and HO options the least compatible with the mostly indiginous weapons and systems. Now if the RAN abandoned it’s ridiculous “0%” change philosophy then I’d be more inclined to get onboard. Even then the Japanese plans to have it’s it’s first Mogami FFM derivative by 2028 which is more commonality with existing RAN systems.
The simple truth is that the RAN has no idea what it wants and consequentially this program is a mess. All of the bidders are hoping that after a shortlisting decision at the end of the year there will be a return to a form of sanity and at the very least the inclusion of 9LV will be mandated – but who knows?
The US are already in talks with the South Koreans and the Japanese to get US spec ships built in their shipyards.
If they can build ships that slot right into US requirements I’d guarantee they’d have zero difficulties in meeting our needs as long as our DoD and senior RAN officers kept their noses out once contracts were signed.
Probably better to get all 11 GP frigates built in South Korea and leave the likes of Austal to landing craft and patrol boats
You are absolutely correct about the US angle. Personally, I would like to see Austal building Luerssen corvettes starting now as a gap filler program ahead of the GP Frigates. We could have 6 x 2200 tonne corvettes in the water by 2030, each with 16 VLS cells. So that’s 96 VLS cells – three times as many as will be on a single Hunter class frigate.
Would definitely be a good option for the RNZN.
I’m not sure what Sth Korea has done to the Australian Government but it must verge on the worst insult imaginable. Sth Korea is virtually begging Australia to develop any kind of Defence Cooperation and they are being completely ignored. If this Government is serious about a Sovereign Defence Capability this opportunity can not be let slip away because it might upset someone. Sth Korea is also open to sharing the Technology that goes along with their Equipment, something that our primary supplier at the moment has never supplied or even offered ( I’m not counting AUKUS because I don’t believe it will happen) . Whoever is ever is making these decisions need to be replaced if they let this opportunity go.
My theory is they are so blinded by AUKUS that nothing else matters. The situation is beyond ridiculous.
In looking at Federal government agencies behaviour, not just Defence, I have come to think major purchase decisions increasingly come down to relationships, not the technical value of offers. Arguably Defence has less in house technical capability now than it did ten years ago. Most of the highly skilled DSTO people I know (engineer, physicists etc) are retired. They base decisions on who they know and trust, not what they can do, because they may no longer know the latter.
My friend who has spent decades engineering in most shipbuilding docks Spanish, German, Chinese etc in his view nothing matches the South Korean in quality and skill … and on time construction.
Maybe the government is focused on AUKUS but it also might be the usual incompetence?
I agree with your friend. I’ve been to a lot of shipyards and the Koreans have nailed it. As I’ve mentioned in a couple of previous comments, even the USN is taking notice of how efficient they are. According to RADM Shin, they can go faster – and I’ll have those details in the next article.
If New Zealand were smart (not sure they are) they would jump on this programme to purchase a couple of frigates. It would be so much cheaper joining this programme than buying 2 bespoke vessels.
Otherwise I fear that the capability will just not be replaced.
The RNZN already has a support ship built by Hyundai that outperforms everything the RAN operates.
That wouldn’t be hard given the two Supply class ships can’t leave port at the moment and probably won’t be able to until 2026.
The Japanese are pitching their new upgraded FFM frigate. It seems very competitive – a crew of only 90, 32 VLS, larger than all the others, stealthy design, modular and flexible design. The Japanese have stated a delivery time equivalent to the South Koreans. The Japanese seem to be trying extremely hard to sell this version and it has a lot going for it.
The Japanese government is very keen but the attitude of MHI seems rather less certain.
The Japanese bid for “Tier 2” received an implicit endorsement by Australian Navy Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond. In a podium discussion at IODS24 Hammond highlighted Japanese efforts to reduce crew figures on their surface combatants. Such measures result in a core crew complement on Mogami of 90 sailors. “Upgraded Mogami” will feature a similar crew size.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/upgraded-mogami-is-the-new-new-ffm-looking-at-australia/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/hanwha-ocean-ffx-batch-ii-ocean-4300-frigate-shown-in-perth/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/ffx-batch-3-shown-by-hhi-builder-touts-industrial-expertise/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/alfa-3000-frigate-is-navantia-proposal-for-tier-2-at-iods-2024/
Yes, we all noticed that. Anecdotally, the crews of the Mogami don’t particularly like the ship because the automation has gone too far and the fewer humans on board have to work twice as hard as a result.
Yet the the upgraded Mogami appears to be the better all rounder re multiple choice of Modular Integrated Masts & 32 MK 41 VLS to improve air warfare capacity, overall commonality with US weapon systems and dedicated launch/retrieval design for USV & UUAVs for mine countermeasures coupled with hangar space for UAV. No booth from TKMS for the Meko A-200 ?
I totally agree that the GPF program is a shambles and that the people running it couldn’t organise a fight in an Irish Pub but the problem ,as I see it, is that we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it is a TIER 2 vessel. Not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean but pretty sure it isn’t something akin to an Arleigh Burke. According to the Fleet Review (at least the one we were permitted to see) the required vessel should have integrated Air and Missile Defence , Land Strike And Undersea warfare capability with the range to act in the Escort Role. We also have to consider Crewing the Vessel, automation can only do so much , The decision makers need to avoid the Hunter Class Frigate trap of adding so much it is too big to do the job it was designed for.
The way Defence/RAN are going, the GP Frigates will be less capable than the ships they are replacing. The current combination of 9LV + CEAFAR + ESSM is about as good as it gets for self defence and we are in the process of throwing all of that away and instead are going for “minimum viable capability”.