Australian general purpose frigate program

Last edited:
I really have to wonder about the language barrier. Australia has had problems with Spanish and German contracts recently - will we see it again?

Or were stringent secrecy clauses a thing in those prior bids?
 
GTX said:
www.abc.net.au

Japan and Germany shortlisted for Australia's next warship program

Australia will begin building its next warships in either Germany or Japan after the government narrowed the field of designs for a contract worth $11 billion over the next decade.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

I'm pretty surprised,, I honestly thought it would be Japan and South Korea, due to proximity
and Spain a distant third due to past purchases.

I assume these are a category smaller than the Type 26 they are buying?
 
helmutkohl said:
I'm pretty surprised,, I honestly thought it would be Japan and South Korea, due to proximity
and Spain a distant third due to past purchases.

I assume these are a category smaller than the Type 26 they are buying?
Click to expand...
I think the selection of Germany has at least something to do with links between the Australian Labor party and Germany's SPD. However, given the political crisis that has just overtaken Germany, this may end up being a liability in the near future.
 
helmutkohl said:
I'm pretty surprised,, I honestly thought it would be Japan and South Korea, due to proximity
Click to expand...
But why should proximity matter? The Goal is to get 11 ships as quickly as possible while 8 will be produced in australia anyway.
helmutkohl said:
and Spain a distant third due to past purchases.
Click to expand...
Navantia doesn't have the best rep with its problem with the hobart class and they also bought the Anzac class which is in fact an older version of the Meko design a Meko 200. Also as far as i know there were never any big problems with the ANZAC which does give an advantage for the new ship.
helmutkohl said:
I assume these are a category smaller than the Type 26 they are buying?
Click to expand...
Yes its probaly smaller / both offer smaller designs.

Edit: its 6 overseas and 6 in Australia
 
Last edited:
kqcke for you said:
But why should proximity matter? The Goal is to get 11 ships as quickly as possible while 8 will be produced in australia anyway.

Navantia doesn't have the best rep with its problem with the hobart class and they also bought the Anzac class which is in fact an older version of the Meko design a Meko 200. Also as far as i know there were never any big problems with the ANZAC which does give an advantage for the new ship.

Yes its probaly smaller / both offer smaller designs.

Edit: its 6 overseas and 6 in Australia
Click to expand...

I mention proximity due to having a shipyard within the region for both delivery, support, and maintenance needs taking less time
 
helmutkohl said:
I mention proximity due to having a shipyard within the region for both delivery,
Click to expand...
Delivery is influenced on by the scedule of the shipyard and as far as i know is that South Korea really got a full schedule.
helmutkohl said:
support, and maintenance needs taking less time
Click to expand...
maintenance and sustainment is supposed to be done in Australia anyway but i get your point.
 
Grey Havoc said:
I think the selection of Germany has at least something to do with links between the Australian Labor party and Germany's SPD. However, given the political crisis that has just overtaken Germany, this may end up being a liability in the near future.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. If anything the selection of the German option is more due to the existing linkages formed on the ANZACs
 
helmutkohl said:
I mention proximity due to having a shipyard within the region for both delivery, support, and maintenance needs taking less time
Click to expand...
Proximity wouldn’t factor at all. Re Maintenance, that will be done in Australia just as it is for other existing ships
 
on other sites, I've heard Australians not being happy with Navantia, anyone here can clarify why?
 
According to some sources seems that Navantia products are mostly satisfactory. It's more about geostrategical redirecting from Australian authorities.
 
helmutkohl said:
on other sites, I've heard Australians not being happy with Navantia, anyone here can clarify why?
Click to expand...

There was a lot of trouble with the Australian construction of the Hobart class, which probably didn't create confidence in Navantias ability to transition the new frigate build back to Australian. And the very recent issues with the Navantia-built AORs (Both out of service for extended periods in their first few years of service) might be another factor. Just from a PR perspective, hiring them again right now would raise a LOT of eyebrows.

www.abc.net.au

Australia's newest warship breaks down, undergoing emergency mechanical repairs after just 3 years of service

Australia's newest warship is undergoing emergency mechanical repairs to address "engine defects", at the same time the navy's only other supply class vessel remains out of service.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
helmutkohl said:
on other sites, I've heard Australians not being happy with Navantia, anyone here can clarify why?
Click to expand...
I have heard about dissatisfaction with the berthing. The enlisted berths are stacked very tight which for longer deployments in the Pacific hurt over time.

helmutkohl said:
I'm pretty surprised,, I honestly thought it would be Japan and South Korea, due to proximity
and Spain a distant third due to past purchases.

I assume these are a category smaller than the Type 26 they are buying?
Click to expand...
I'm also surprised. I know the MEKO have been good ships but felt that there are better options. If it is just these two options now then I think the MEKO is the more likely selection.
 
One also has to remember that those doing the shortlisting can only really base decisions on the data provided to them. Also, it is often not just about technical performance but rather things such as program management confidence, AIC offers. total cost of ownership etc etc.
 
GTX said:
One also has to remember that those doing the shortlisting can only really base decisions on the data provided to them. Also, it is often not just about technical performance but rather things such as program management confidence, AIC offers. total cost of ownership etc etc.
Click to expand...
Also TKMS probaly has it mutch easier to integrate things like CEAFAR and co. later on as they had already done IT once in one of there ships with an similiar design. While the first ships should more or less Off the shelf later ones can have modifications.
 
He speaks shortly about some problems of SEA 3000. The Naval News article will probaly have more but his Points are mostly right. But then again TKMS should have the expertise to achieve the requierments with little work given ANZAC and the German ships F-123 and F-124 have it. Reusing the SAAB 9VL stuff which is also being used for the F-123B (MLU for F-123) give some capabilitys however that would make it a little not off the shelf.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1855919035168493637
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855919035168493637
https://twitter.com/x/status/1855919951200080364
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855919951200080364

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855920858281210274
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855920858281210274

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855923852129538312
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855923852129538312
 
kqcke for you said:
He speaks shortly about some problems of SEA 3000. The Naval News article will probaly have more but his Points are mostly right. But then again TKMS should have the expertise to achieve the requierments with little work given ANZAC and the German ships F-123 and F-124 have it. Reusing the SAAB 9VL stuff which is also being used for the F-123B (MLU for F-123) give some capabilitys however that would make it a little not off the shelf.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1855919035168493637
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855919035168493637
https://twitter.com/x/status/1855919951200080364
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855919951200080364

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855920858281210274
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855920858281210274

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855923852129538312
View: https://x.com/AlexLuck9/status/1855923852129538312
Click to expand...
www.navalnews.com

Germany And Japan Left Standing in Australian SEA 3000

Naval builders from Germany and Japan remain preferred candidates in Australian SEA 3000 requirement for up to eleven new frigates.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
GTX said:
www.abc.net.au

Faster and stealthier: Japan's pitch to clinch $10bn Australian warship prize

Japanese officials claim their Mogami frigate is faster, stealthier and better suited to operate alongside the United States than a rival warship offering from Germany.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Lots of claims without backing. The age for the ship is a question of how long do want to run it and can run it. With enough budget they can go as long as needed without accidents for example. Also wasn't the normal Mogami class in the run and not the FFM? One could also argue that Meko could be equipted with an familiar but more modern suite of the ANZAC Class with more armament integreated but its (primarly) a question of cost which is the same for the FFM.
 
Japanese naval construction is the best around right now. They have the shortest design times and the quickest build times, a product of having one of the three major shipbuilding industries on the one hand and the JMSDF keeping to a consistent yearly build schedule for the past 60+years. If Australia had gone with Soryu rather than the French design they would already have new submarines in service. If MHI says they can build 12 FFMs at once, I believe them.

Japanese surface warships have been built with and have served for a 35 year lifespan for decades. It looks like the Kongos will be the first to exceed that, so they may have been built for a 40 year lifespan.

FFM is replacing the Mogamis, FFM is the current design. The first two are due to be laid down next year. The first Mogami commissioned in 2022. Shortcomings were found in the design, more so due to a decision to increase firepower given the changed security situation than anything else, so the order was cut from 22 to 12, and they were redesigned into FFM, with the first pair (of 12 total) supposed to commission in 2028. Note that means three years from commissioning of one ship to deciding to go with a modified design to designing a follow on ship to cutting steel. Japanese naval construction doesn't mess around.

The DDG(X) design for the USN was first shown in 2022. Japan started looking at sea based BMD in 2020, ASEV for JMSDF was first talked about in 2022, the design fixed in 2023. DDG(X) isn't anywhere near starting construction; the two ASEVs are scheduled to begin building soon, with commissioning scheduled for 2027 and 2028. That's three years from concept to design, and 4-5 more to commissioning, or 7-8 years to commissioning vs. DDG(X) which is at 10 years and probably slipping for even beginning construction.
 
apparition13 said:
Japanese naval construction is the best around right now. They have the shortest design times and the quickest build times, a product of having one of the three major shipbuilding industries on the one hand and the JMSDF keeping to a consistent yearly build schedule for the past 60+years. If Australia had gone with Soryu rather than the French design they would already have new submarines in service. If MHI says they can build 12 FFMs at once, I believe them.

Japanese surface warships have been built with and have served for a 35 year lifespan for decades. It looks like the Kongos will be the first to exceed that, so they may have been built for a 40 year lifespan.

FFM is replacing the Mogamis, FFM is the current design. The first two are due to be laid down next year. The first Mogami commissioned in 2022. Shortcomings were found in the design, more so due to a decision to increase firepower given the changed security situation than anything else, so the order was cut from 22 to 12, and they were redesigned into FFM, with the first pair (of 12 total) supposed to commission in 2028. Note that means three years from commissioning of one ship to deciding to go with a modified design to designing a follow on ship to cutting steel. Japanese naval construction doesn't mess around.

The DDG(X) design for the USN was first shown in 2022. Japan started looking at sea based BMD in 2020, ASEV for JMSDF was first talked about in 2022, the design fixed in 2023. DDG(X) isn't anywhere near starting construction; the two ASEVs are scheduled to begin building soon, with commissioning scheduled for 2027 and 2028. That's three years from concept to design, and 4-5 more to commissioning, or 7-8 years to commissioning vs. DDG(X) which is at 10 years and probably slipping for even beginning construction.
Click to expand...

A consequence of both support for indegenous industries, and a lack of desire on the government to mess with procurement when projects have started. Also, companies knowing that the govt. is not going to dick around.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom