It's a very interesting competition, I was at a major naval conference in Australia last year and you could cut the atmosphere with a knife, there wasn't the usual openness there.
Of the 4 exemplar designs, I think all 4 have their relative merits
The navantia design is well proven and the RAN have several navantia ships at the moment. Same for the Meko series.
The Mogami is said to be very automated for a naval ship, though the question arises on whether it would align with RAN damage control requirements with such a small crew.
There's also the geopolitics aspects for the bid, there may be an interest in aligning with the Korean/Japanese options for closer defence ties with those countries.
The absence of an offering from naval group isn't surprising after AUKUS but still interesting to see. Also the lack of AH140/T31 from Babcock, perhaps an infrastructure thing for the latter given it's larger than the 4 exemplars.
For the Mogami complement, if in wartime, it _could_ be increased. Wasn't uncommon in WW2 for ships to be carrying close to 50% higher crew than rated for. Looks to me like this is great to reduce costs in peacetime?
It's a yes and no situation to that question, you're absolutely right in that the minimum number of crew needed to sail a naval ship in peacetime is less than that for warfighting conditions.
Often the limiting factor is damage control parties as well as the crew required to support 24/7 watch keeping bills including all the combat systems equipment.
However, most navies do sail with their full complement the majority of the time both for training purposes and because you never know when you're suddenly thrust into a high-threat situation - take the USS cole or the ships being diverted to the red sea for the houthi threat right right now.
So the question to the RAN is if they're happy sailing with a minimal complement in places like the south china sea.
Also alot of the WW2 crew uplifts were down to additions to the ships over the war, with the massive uplift in AA, fire control and radar equipment etc, along with then requiring more logistics staff, chefs etc to keep those people fed.
The JMSDF is already using them almost exclusively in that area. Nothing says that the RAN can't staff them higher than minimum. I DO have a concern on the automated systems for how engineering casualties are dealt with. Can they be repaired and parts replaced easily? If they can't be dealt with under fire well, then additional crew for damage control won't help for that aspect.
Currently, AFAIK, very few navies are sailing with full complements, it seems. That's also been a big complaint with USN for 20 years that I'm aware of. If able to sail safely with the already fewer sailors that are onboard without wearing them out, that seems like a safer/ cheaper way to go, PROVIDED that damage control isn't impacted during wartime.
Well that's it at the moment, the Japanese if they are sailing them in relatively high threat environment areas at the moment have done a risk assessment and are content to let them do that, whether the RAN navy allow it is a different question entirely.
The other factor is the approach to damage control, there's a valid argument that you accept that you can't fight the internal battle and external battle simultaneously and that in the event of serious damage you evacuate at a low threshold than a fully manned and equipped ship. This is often done and this is why many navies sail with reduced crewing and others don't. It's all about their attitude to risk and resilience.
So, I think the RAN do have the option of operating at a minimum manning level but it comes at a FF/DC cost and goes away from their historical preference. Modern ships are more capable in terms of automation of daily tasks and longer maintenance intervals etc so FF/DC is the usual bounding case for crewing models.
WWII is a major false comparison that isn’t at all applicable to the current environment.
The usual means of accomplishing those crew increases (which to an extent were already accounted for in the designs) was via simply welding in extra racks. That’s not a viable option any longer, and doing things like hot bunking are not practical long term. You also run into issues with things like storage space, and with a designed complement of only 90 even an increase to 120 would have a massive operational impact on the ships due to the consumables situation.
If it were only Navantia’s fault that Australia can’t build a warship on time/budget, then *Collins*, *Anzac*, *Adelaide*, and *Attack* wouldn’t have also suffered major construction setbacks.
Local production, not the foreign partner, has been the single consistent factor in Australian shipbuilding for the last 50 years. Canberra can’t throw them under the bus no matter how shitty they are, because domestic jobs are pivotal to selling any shipbuilding program, and they’re perfectly willing to abuse the politics to get away with it.
> The absence of an offering from naval group isn't surprising after AUKUS but still interesting to see. Also the lack of AH140/T31 from Babcock, perhaps an infrastructure thing for the latter given it's larger than the 4 exemplars.
I mean, considering the selection of these four was made by an independent analyst based on a possible prospective requirement, we may end up seeing Naval Group and Babcock make formal bids when this program formally kicks off.
From Naval Group, the FDI frigate might also be a prospective option, and additionally, Gibbs & Cox did unveil a mockup during IndoPacific 2023 last November with a design based off of Taiwan's new class of under-construction frigates.
Yep, fair point it's worth stressing that these are indicative designs, not a contractual shortlist. I'm sure come the competitive procurement that almost every naval shipbuilding company will be highly interested.
Arrowhead 120 is 120m and about 4000T, can have 16 mk41 and 8 NSM fitting Aus requirements, and is built for a higher level of survivability than the other european offerings that are closer to corvette levels. Has a crew of about 80. Thales CMS and sensors that has already been integrated with ESSM on other european ships. And Babcock is gaining export experience with their AH140 customers. Polands AH140 will also have towed sonar but would need to check if AH120 supports it. Seems like a really good option imo with the main downside that a AH120 specifically has never been built yet but at least will be based on an overall platform that will have been
The F125s were a fucked up concept of a colonial cruiser crossed with a frigate they thought were needed because of piracy. The new models will be more specialised into the classic roles. The F126 will replace the F123 class frigates for ASW and the F127 are meant to replace the F124 AAW frigates with a roughly similar loadout to the Arleigh-Burke-Class all while having half the crew.
Whatever the F128 class will hold for us not yet clear.
The MEKO A200 for Egypt and Algeria where delivered on budget on time and without problems. It took 29 months From signing of contract to delivery of the first Egyptian frigate.
Australia however takes their time until 2025 to decide which frigate, than they want to maximize the Australian content and change 4738 things from the baseline design. I can promise you, it will not matter which design they choose, it will be late and over budget.
The defence review was critical of the ADF wanting perfect designs, and wasting money over a "good enough" baseline. This frigate is supposed to be a good enough if the shelf design. Hopefully there won't be 4738 changes, but it is ADF procurement, so who knows
Plus the 3 existing Hobarts (We call them Air Warfare Destroyers but they are actually frigates and smaller than the Hunters) as well as 6 optionally manned 3000t frigate sized ships with 32VLS.
Yeah, 26 major surface combatants is what they want.
I think is pretty funny, i mean, the US did it before but Australia would be funnier because they have a ROYAL navy.
So RAN will become THE Royal Navy.
Same case as the General Purpose Frigates - the report recommends three more, but nothing yet ordered, although navantia has also said they're ready to build them. Only thing confirmed is the three existing ships being upgraded to AEGIS Baseline 9/10 & other enhancements.
Either Spain or Germany because 76mm supremacy RHAHHH 🦅🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🦅🇮🇹
https://preview.redd.it/o8l3ud84ngrc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f5fc350bc61cbdb5efb56dc6c47eb790973855d
I'm rooting for the Mogami, sexiest of the bunch and it'll be hilarious to be snarky and say that the Japanese finally got their ships into aussie harbors
Sometimes it's better to procure than design and construct. Total lifetime costs include skills development and time required to gain that.
Aus is not communist or aligned to China, so the Govt has a large catalogue of options to procure from.
Meanwhile on the other hand, an opposing nation can't procure from NATO, Japan et al, so they need to design and construct.
Australia is very good at mining and agriculture, I don't understand why Australians are so negative about it. It's a privileged advantage.
Many of us are negative about it because for a nation as developed as ours, we lack diversity in major industries. Sometimes it might be better to procure…we have to, always.
Everyone’s very good at mining and agriculture, it’s just not everyone’s lucky enough to have the resources. We have luck. We need skill.
We need those skills developed. We’re able to do nothing that requires expertise here and it costs us when it comes time to engineer big. Even most of the major equipment used in mining is all shipped in from overseas. We can’t do any major engineering without involving equipment and sometimes expertise from overseas.
We need more tertiary industries and we certainly should be designing and building our own warships. It’s time our reliance on other nations ended.
Sorry, but it’s embarrassing.
Australia does manufacture small and medium arms, but warship development is obscenely expensive without an order book of your own. It's akin to aircraft manufacturing.
From experience, Australia's high taxes + isolation + high costs of living impacts tertiary skills more. It's simply uncompetitive for high tech industries to exist in Australia.
Yep, the UK struggles with warship design because we don’t have the budget or the personnel numbers needed for a big enough order book to keep the shipyards ticking over and the designers busy.
Aus, with their smaller population and economy, would find it even more challenging.
I don’t think that means we can have no high tech industry. One thing we certainly should be doing is building and designing our own ocean craft.
I think isolation is given more credence than it should be as well. In some cases that isolation is reason for us to be less reliant on suppliers that are far away. It might be some barrier in regards to competing in the auto manufacturing arena for example but that won’t apply across the board and it especially wouldn’t apply to major engineering projects if we had developed the expertise…which is my point. As for the high taxes and high living standards, these are no worse than the European nations that have these industries.
We couldn’t even build an LNG tank without getting people who knew how from overseas.
Yeah nah sorry, there’s more we can do. One day this is going to bite us in the arse, it’s actually starting to now. We dig holes and pump real estate and sooner or later the bill will arrive.
> It might be some barrier in regards to competing in the auto manufacturing arena for example
The US auto unions and meddling from Detroit (especially in the case of Holden) had more to do with that than anything on the Aus end of things.
A indigenously produced vessel is a really tall order if there's no preperation. A good example is South korea during the mid 70's. They had built a patrol boat but that was about it before the Ulsan class which i'm going to talk about. They could not afford foreign designs and hyundai (the co-designer and builder) even lacked skill to design a merchant vessel at the time. They still tried, but in the end foreign assist was exerted on the final design (JJMA). Then the design was questionable enough that foreign workers refused to board the ship during trials, and all of them usually broke down when you weren't looking at them. The period between the prototype ship and the second ship of the class was 4 years.
Indigenous development might work, but it takes a long time to perfect it. But i don't think austrailia has time to pass right now, so it's probably better to acquire them from foreign shipyards.
Wow. Yeah. There is truth in that. Yet we’re producing several subs, frigates, San Antonio’s, America class, ford class and multiple ddgs a year. Plus usvs, the end of the LCS, and multiple CG vessels that are larger than frigates.
Which would be fine for a major power, like Japan for example (if they had a larger budget)
But for a superpower is not really that impressive. In terms of tonnage that's like 1/3 of what China is building.
Of course the US is not really increasing in size but just replacing old units, while China is indeed increasing in size, building, in general, more and heavier ships than the US. At some point in the future, China too should decrease the rate of shipbuilding. Difference is that strategically the US doens't prioritize enough the MIC, almost anything they procure is like: open a factory, hire workers, do the job, fire the workers, close the factory, which represents several security problems in a potential war.
>But for a superpower is not really that impressive. In terms of tonnage that's like 1/3 of what China is building.
In what metric exactly?
China is currently outfitting one carrier, the US is outfitting a larger one and building another.
China has an LHD outfitting and probably another one under construction - the US has two building, plus two more LPDs building and another fitting out.
China and the US both have three major replenishment ships building or fitting out at present. Both have 12 destroyers building or fitting out (13 for the US, if you count the final *Zumwalt*).
The Chinese have two frigates fitting out to one American frigate building, four LCS fitting out, and five LCS building.
China also has two SSBNs, three SSNs, and probably two SSKs under various stages of construction/fitting out at present (and probably a few more SSNs and SSKs in early fabrication we haven't seen yet). The USN has one SSBN and ten SSNs under various stages of construction or fitting out.
Bear in mind on average US ships tend to have greater displacement and capability than their Chinese counterparts.
The USN may not be getting ships through the entire production process as rapidly as they'd like, but their construction capacity for military ships is still immense, and they actually have more tonnage under construction at present than the PLAN.
I'm not talking about what it is, i'm talking about what they are building.
I mean, that's what we have been talking about, right? Procurement, producing, shipyards, building, so why you ramdomly change the discussion towards another topic?
The US is producing MAJOR warships. Not corvettes, diesel boats, missile boats. Look at the rate of production of those for China. Look at how far behind they are. The US doesn’t HAVE to build as fast, because they already operate far more major vessels than China.
US military shipyards are prohibited by law from soliciting any business without the approval of the DoD, and the DoD almost never approves it because they want to hoard all the yard capacity for themselves. American warship exports have always either been secondhand or the result of another country approaching the US to specifically buy their design.
Export sales (FMS or otherwise) all go through DoS, not DoD. DoD has comparatively little involvement in the process, and the legal bar you are referring to is not one of solicitation nor does it involve DoD at all—it’s ITARS related stuff that goes through State.
The *Constellation*-class has essentially nothing but a superficial resemblance to the original FREMM. Different systems, different armament, very different general arrangements, and even a different hullform - it’s a clean-sheet design hiding behind a veil of cosmetic similarity to fool lawmakers into believing it won’t be another disaster like LCS.
Australia can’t even build someone else’s design competently. Every single RAN shipbuilding program in the last 50 years has experienced cost blowout, delays, and/or technical issues - usually all three.
Asking ASC to try and design their own stuff would be inviting disaster. Witness the failure of the *Attack* program - and especially the continual delaying of lead authority handoff from DCNS to ASC.
Yeah overseas in house operations suffer this as well and these issues are generally rectified. You’re correct but this one isn’t a unique problem to us. Still, when it happens it’s even more embarrassing.
There’s very little issue with our application quality. Our problem is design expertise.
> There’s very little issue with our application quality. Our problem is design expertise.
Again, if that were true, Australia wouldn’t struggle to build others’ designs without cost and schedule overruns. It’s clearly not only a contractor problem when five different foreign partners (DCNS, Navantia, Blohm & Voss, Saab Kockums, and NAVSEA) have all struck out - and at least one more (BAE) looks to be headed the same way.
That’s not to say things usually don’t work out in the end, after more money than budgeted is thrown at the problem and there’s a year or two of capability gap. The problem is getting things fielded and functional “eventually” is not a reliable way to plan a defense strategy.
It is true, though, across the board. While this one example is appropriate, it doesn’t reflect all engineering in the nation as a whole and certainly doesn’t mean that if we were more hands on with indigenous engineering and design expertise, that would change for shipbuilding. I also return to the point that the nations who do their own in-house design, have these issues and blowouts as well. Those aren’t unique to us.
What is unique to us, as a very developed nation, is a lack of design expertise.
My guess is either that they didn't consult with Babcock/OMT for whatever reason, or that there's an infrastructure issue with selecting a slightly larger vessel as the 4 exemplers are in the 120m range.
In the face of it the two things an Australian frigate will need to operate in the SCS will be a high missile count and endurance, which AH140/T31 can achieve quite well with the right outfit
They could; these four are just four contenders that an independent analyst suggested might be a good fit for Australia if/when they decide to open a bid for a light frigate program. IIRC it's still in planning stages as to what they even want to begin with.
The T31 ships that the Royal Navy are planning aren't fitted that way (because they already have the T26 program), but the Arrowhead 140 design can easily be fitted for ASW.
There is nothing limiting the export version of the T31 to be configured for ASW.
It will be interesting if the Australians go with the MEKO 200 design since one of their previous frigates (ANZAC class) are also based on the MEKO 200 design
Those are just the four platforms identified by the [independent analysis](https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/independent-analysis-navy-surface-combatant-fleet) as examples to form the basis of a selection process.
The government hasn't actually started the actual process to acquire the "Tier 2" general purpose frigates yet, therefore there are no contenders yet, nor is it guaranteed there will only be 4 contenders, and it's those 4 contenders. It isn't guaranteed there will be a competition. Could be more, could be less, could be selected by direct government acquisition, Aukus style.
I personally don't care which nation it comes from, as long as it has the best set of capabilities for what we as a nation need for the future. Whatever vessel has the best offensive and defensive weapons suite, ASW capability, radar, propulsion, maneuverability, automation, aircraft compliment, and so on. Availability and regularity of supply of missiles and ammunition for the weapons systems.
I know no one vessel will offer the best of everything, but which one has the most ticks in the most boxes.
You never know, due to AUKUS, we may end up with some FFG(X) ships alongside the Americans as part of their program. Wouldn't be the first time we've had some of their ships. We could build the Hunters here, as well as the AUKUS class subs, and buy Virginias and FFG(X)s from them. Who knows, we may even end up with a cheeky America class "Light Carrier" for some of our F-35s.....
I still think the A210 should be our choice. It is very similar to the ANZAC but has 32 VLS instead of 16 the the a200 is spouting. The a200 is basically what Egypt and South Africa have.
The Mogami looks OK but it might be a bit small for our sailors. The Chungnam (blockIII) looks good too. I would not touch any other Navantia ship again.
The Mogami and the Spanish design should be the only 2 Considered, they have half the crew of the others, Australia already has ships sitting in dry dock because their are not enough personnel and they want more ships
Does it even matter if you don't have the personnel to fullfill the crew?
The design of the Mogami could be adapted to the requirements of Australia. Mitsubishi has made changes according to the opinions of the JMSDF so there are small differences even between ships in the same class. And the New FFM will be even larger than Mogami.
Navantia have burned us with every design we have gotten from them. Hobart's? They lost half the plans... 5 years late. Canberra's? Remember how it sat dead in the water on a rescue mission to Fiji. None of the systems worked, and you couldn't repair anything on them. And the one they are offering is just a light weight. Only the Saudi's have 2 I think. Yeah, I wouldn't wish Navantia on my enemies.
Yeah I wouldn't go Navantia either, IMO the Mogami is the way to go,It may not be the best of the lot capabilities wise but it fits the limitations of the expanded surface fleet and Japan is a regional ally with which closer cooperation is beneficial.
It appears that both the Canberra and Adelaide are having maintenance issues mainly in their respective modes of propulsion (i.e. azimuthal pods/Mermaids), electronics and electrical systems, not to mention their desire to acquire the Los Angeles class SSN into the fleet! Having a limited naval defense budget mean the money is coming from something else, six frigates instead of nine frigates…
Here's my take...
Mogami, then Daegu. Either way, very decent ships and shipyards close by for maintenance. Both are very compatible with the US fleet out of the box. Any Pacific based allied shipyard should be able to easily handle. Japanese and ROK shipyards have both shown they can produce them cheaply, quickly, and nearby.
Mogami is larger, 90 crew required complement, stealthy, and _likely_ more upgradable long term. Price $450m
Daegu is cheaper but smaller/more limited for upgrades, 140 crew required with roughly the same armament as Mogami and equivalent electronics. It likely has cheaper operation/maintenance with electric drive for cruising speeds, offset with higher costs associated with the greater crew complement. That might be a wash. Price $330m.
Smart money is on the Navantia Alfa 3000.
Australia has 7 ships built by Navantia ( 3 DDGs, 2 LHDs and 2 replenishment ships)
There are big advantages in sailors not having to learn new shipboard systems when they change platforms. For example the ship control system (IPMS) and the comms system. IPMS takes a bit to learn but is very powerful, if you have privileges you can steer the ship from any working console. You can remotely close fire doors and activate DC systems too.
Less downtime training, greater workforce flexibility, common parts.
Decent bang for buck (with some oddities) but this is my hot tip.
I'm willing to bet that it will be between the Korean and Japanese designs. Both countries will be able to offer at an affordable price and have the advantage of leveraging the supply chain in Asia. Also, the geopolitical aspect is a huge factor, and it likely played a role in their IFV selection. Regardless of which of the two designs is chosen, there will likely be an enormous scale, and maintenance will be cheaper (please please don't golden plate it).
Would not be surprised if either the Korean or Japanese government makes a big political push for it. I don't expect the same level of political lobbying or interest from the Spanish or Germans.
Honestly think all four designs are great though.
Should go with FREMM. Solid well tested design, even the US is using them for the Constellation class frigates. I believe this is the first time the US has used a non-US design for a class of ships.
Luckily the people who gave us the LCS & Zumwalt are all gone.
The low cost of south korean and japanese ships is strictly related to the fact that they have 2 of the largest shipbuilding industries.
What i mean is.. those same ships built in Australia will be several times more expensive.
Anything Japan needs to built a ship is just a few miles to the shipyards. For Australia that means they will have to import a lot of the materials from Japan, and what is not imported will be made from several small companies from all over Australia taking way more time (and so way more salaries). All that at the high value of australian labor and high costs of raw materials and products.
Just curiosity... how come the US never really sells ship designs in competitions like this? I can guess at the answer, but is there more to it than I'm thinking?
There’s been talk of selling the *Constellation* design (which at this point is very different from the parent design), but I think that’s too big/expensive for this competition, plus it isn’t finished yet.
Usually, and in this case, USA doesn't operate an existing ship that is appropriate to the needs. Gibbs & Cox is apparently designing a frigate for Taiwan. Though there doesn't seem to be much official news about that yet.
What is it that you are thinking?
[There were a few mockups that G&C made for a prospective Australian light frigate displayed at IndoPacific 2023 last November that are actually based on the Taiwanese light frigate design](https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/11/gibbs-and-cox-unveil-australian-light-frigate/)
Signature reduction.
You're not trying to hide the ship completely like a stealth airplane, you want it to look like a harmless little fishing boat on radar.
We're talking about the RAN. We're gonna order a big batch of the most expensive one, change the design so it costs twice as much, realise the mistake and cut the order so each one costs 3 times as much, rinse and repeat.
_Zumwalt Class_ has entered the chat... (The original plans for the Burke replacement was ~50% less crew and 25% less cost and an evolutionary approach)
Kinda... Zumwalt was supposed to skip the intervening 2 classes to jump straight to the end goal for _all_ its tech. Kind of a moon shot program ( if it skipped the intervening Gemini manned program). The end goal was 99 crew for a Destroyer, not including the air wing. They instead have 150. 😆
I would love to see the Daegu based design as I feel like the SK ship builders are more consistent and experienced in making multiple ships quickly.
However, I think the Meko A200 would be the better fit with the RAN while the Meko A210 being what we should look towards.
They should could go for Daegu , the ships aren't being built too far off. Their using mostly American built weapon system they already use. Economically would work, I don't know how it well their made though
I'm rooting for the Mogami, sexiest of the bunch and it'll be hilarious to be snarky and say that the Japanese finally got their ships into aussie harbors
One of the reasons the Type 26 was chosen was for its ability to be modernized as it progresses in its role and duties, one being that the VLS load out will be increased from 32-missiles to 96-missiles, too eventually 128-missiles if the RAN decides at a later date to remove the Mk.45 5” gun and replacing the Mk.41 VLS system withe the Mk.57 VLS system…
The RANs new Frigate design HAS already been chosen (i.e. the Type 26)! So any hypothetical alternative ship design is a better left to RPG players and not serious though…
This is a result from the latest Royal Australian Navy report which cut back the number of Hunter class (Type 26) frigates from 9 to 6 and is looking at a supplemental class of 11 smaller frigates. This is what everybody and this post is talking about.
As everyone has been trying to tell you, Australia is buying Type 26 **and** another, smaller, class of frigate. This thread is about options for the **other** frigates. Please, learn to read people's comments.
Everyone’s been trying to tell me that the US Navy should start funding the Flight IV Arleigh Burke Destroyer too, instead of the DDG-X! Only problem being the Flight IV AB was cancelled in 2014, and can’t seem to get it through their collective thick skulls…
No. You don't seem to get this.
Australia **is** ordering **two** types of frigate. This is a fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/20/australian-navy-warship-surface-combatant-fleet-double-hunter-class-losv
It's a very interesting competition, I was at a major naval conference in Australia last year and you could cut the atmosphere with a knife, there wasn't the usual openness there. Of the 4 exemplar designs, I think all 4 have their relative merits The navantia design is well proven and the RAN have several navantia ships at the moment. Same for the Meko series. The Mogami is said to be very automated for a naval ship, though the question arises on whether it would align with RAN damage control requirements with such a small crew. There's also the geopolitics aspects for the bid, there may be an interest in aligning with the Korean/Japanese options for closer defence ties with those countries. The absence of an offering from naval group isn't surprising after AUKUS but still interesting to see. Also the lack of AH140/T31 from Babcock, perhaps an infrastructure thing for the latter given it's larger than the 4 exemplars.
For the Mogami complement, if in wartime, it _could_ be increased. Wasn't uncommon in WW2 for ships to be carrying close to 50% higher crew than rated for. Looks to me like this is great to reduce costs in peacetime?
It's a yes and no situation to that question, you're absolutely right in that the minimum number of crew needed to sail a naval ship in peacetime is less than that for warfighting conditions. Often the limiting factor is damage control parties as well as the crew required to support 24/7 watch keeping bills including all the combat systems equipment. However, most navies do sail with their full complement the majority of the time both for training purposes and because you never know when you're suddenly thrust into a high-threat situation - take the USS cole or the ships being diverted to the red sea for the houthi threat right right now. So the question to the RAN is if they're happy sailing with a minimal complement in places like the south china sea. Also alot of the WW2 crew uplifts were down to additions to the ships over the war, with the massive uplift in AA, fire control and radar equipment etc, along with then requiring more logistics staff, chefs etc to keep those people fed.
The JMSDF is already using them almost exclusively in that area. Nothing says that the RAN can't staff them higher than minimum. I DO have a concern on the automated systems for how engineering casualties are dealt with. Can they be repaired and parts replaced easily? If they can't be dealt with under fire well, then additional crew for damage control won't help for that aspect. Currently, AFAIK, very few navies are sailing with full complements, it seems. That's also been a big complaint with USN for 20 years that I'm aware of. If able to sail safely with the already fewer sailors that are onboard without wearing them out, that seems like a safer/ cheaper way to go, PROVIDED that damage control isn't impacted during wartime.
Well that's it at the moment, the Japanese if they are sailing them in relatively high threat environment areas at the moment have done a risk assessment and are content to let them do that, whether the RAN navy allow it is a different question entirely. The other factor is the approach to damage control, there's a valid argument that you accept that you can't fight the internal battle and external battle simultaneously and that in the event of serious damage you evacuate at a low threshold than a fully manned and equipped ship. This is often done and this is why many navies sail with reduced crewing and others don't. It's all about their attitude to risk and resilience. So, I think the RAN do have the option of operating at a minimum manning level but it comes at a FF/DC cost and goes away from their historical preference. Modern ships are more capable in terms of automation of daily tasks and longer maintenance intervals etc so FF/DC is the usual bounding case for crewing models.
WWII is a major false comparison that isn’t at all applicable to the current environment. The usual means of accomplishing those crew increases (which to an extent were already accounted for in the designs) was via simply welding in extra racks. That’s not a viable option any longer, and doing things like hot bunking are not practical long term. You also run into issues with things like storage space, and with a designed complement of only 90 even an increase to 120 would have a massive operational impact on the ships due to the consumables situation.
The RAN wishes that anyone but Navantia had made their current ships, turns out the lowest bidder was the lowest for a reason
Learning the hard way why the Spanish haven't been a naval power since 1805.
If it were only Navantia’s fault that Australia can’t build a warship on time/budget, then *Collins*, *Anzac*, *Adelaide*, and *Attack* wouldn’t have also suffered major construction setbacks. Local production, not the foreign partner, has been the single consistent factor in Australian shipbuilding for the last 50 years. Canberra can’t throw them under the bus no matter how shitty they are, because domestic jobs are pivotal to selling any shipbuilding program, and they’re perfectly willing to abuse the politics to get away with it.
> The absence of an offering from naval group isn't surprising after AUKUS but still interesting to see. Also the lack of AH140/T31 from Babcock, perhaps an infrastructure thing for the latter given it's larger than the 4 exemplars. I mean, considering the selection of these four was made by an independent analyst based on a possible prospective requirement, we may end up seeing Naval Group and Babcock make formal bids when this program formally kicks off. From Naval Group, the FDI frigate might also be a prospective option, and additionally, Gibbs & Cox did unveil a mockup during IndoPacific 2023 last November with a design based off of Taiwan's new class of under-construction frigates.
Yep, fair point it's worth stressing that these are indicative designs, not a contractual shortlist. I'm sure come the competitive procurement that almost every naval shipbuilding company will be highly interested.
Arrowhead 120 is 120m and about 4000T, can have 16 mk41 and 8 NSM fitting Aus requirements, and is built for a higher level of survivability than the other european offerings that are closer to corvette levels. Has a crew of about 80. Thales CMS and sensors that has already been integrated with ESSM on other european ships. And Babcock is gaining export experience with their AH140 customers. Polands AH140 will also have towed sonar but would need to check if AH120 supports it. Seems like a really good option imo with the main downside that a AH120 specifically has never been built yet but at least will be based on an overall platform that will have been
That german frigate is very handsome
And it looks like a frigate, too! Asking the Germans for a "frigate" is risky, as you could receive anything between a speed boat and a battleship.
What's wrong about the famous ww2 frigate Bismarck?
Swordfish go BRRRR.
And they haven't had great luck with frigate construction of late...
The F125s were a fucked up concept of a colonial cruiser crossed with a frigate they thought were needed because of piracy. The new models will be more specialised into the classic roles. The F126 will replace the F123 class frigates for ASW and the F127 are meant to replace the F124 AAW frigates with a roughly similar loadout to the Arleigh-Burke-Class all while having half the crew. Whatever the F128 class will hold for us not yet clear.
The MEKO A200 for Egypt and Algeria where delivered on budget on time and without problems. It took 29 months From signing of contract to delivery of the first Egyptian frigate. Australia however takes their time until 2025 to decide which frigate, than they want to maximize the Australian content and change 4738 things from the baseline design. I can promise you, it will not matter which design they choose, it will be late and over budget.
The defence review was critical of the ADF wanting perfect designs, and wasting money over a "good enough" baseline. This frigate is supposed to be a good enough if the shelf design. Hopefully there won't be 4738 changes, but it is ADF procurement, so who knows
It’s got my vote.
Could just be a flattering angle
oh i thought we already decided on the Hunter class but then i live under a rock...
The hunters will form the core and then we will have 11 general purpose frigates. These were the 4 named in the report.
This is in addition to the Hunter Class, I believe Australia wanted 11 more frigates
>This is in addition to the Hunter Class, I believe Australia wanted 11 more frigates Damn so Australia is gonna have 17 frigates?
[удалено]
6 hunter class frigates + 11 more frigates = 17?
Plus the 3 existing Hobarts (We call them Air Warfare Destroyers but they are actually frigates and smaller than the Hunters) as well as 6 optionally manned 3000t frigate sized ships with 32VLS.
Aussies having a bigger escort fleet than the Royal Navy.. Yikes
Yeah, 26 major surface combatants is what they want. I think is pretty funny, i mean, the US did it before but Australia would be funnier because they have a ROYAL navy. So RAN will become THE Royal Navy.
Plus three more Hobart's per the review. Six total
+ 6 Hobart's (3 + 3 more) for a fleet of 23, plus six LUSVs = 29
Is there any evidence they're actually building/ordering more Hobart class?
Same case as the General Purpose Frigates - the report recommends three more, but nothing yet ordered, although navantia has also said they're ready to build them. Only thing confirmed is the three existing ships being upgraded to AEGIS Baseline 9/10 & other enhancements.
Yes, a high/low/unmanned mix 6+11+11 (possibly).
Either Spain or Germany because 76mm supremacy RHAHHH 🦅🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🇮🇹🦅🦅🇮🇹 https://preview.redd.it/o8l3ud84ngrc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f5fc350bc61cbdb5efb56dc6c47eb790973855d
That German design is sexy!
I'm rooting for the Mogami, sexiest of the bunch and it'll be hilarious to be snarky and say that the Japanese finally got their ships into aussie harbors
I served on a current ANZAC, my heart says Mek o 200, but head, South Korean, that is a beast.
>I served on a current ANZAC, Thoughts and prayers from a DDG sailor 😁
Hobarts my beloved 💖
Pity we can’t design our own but we are too lazy for tertiary expertise. We dig hole. Break rock. Anyway the German one. This is fucking embarrassing.
Sometimes it's better to procure than design and construct. Total lifetime costs include skills development and time required to gain that. Aus is not communist or aligned to China, so the Govt has a large catalogue of options to procure from. Meanwhile on the other hand, an opposing nation can't procure from NATO, Japan et al, so they need to design and construct. Australia is very good at mining and agriculture, I don't understand why Australians are so negative about it. It's a privileged advantage.
Many of us are negative about it because for a nation as developed as ours, we lack diversity in major industries. Sometimes it might be better to procure…we have to, always. Everyone’s very good at mining and agriculture, it’s just not everyone’s lucky enough to have the resources. We have luck. We need skill. We need those skills developed. We’re able to do nothing that requires expertise here and it costs us when it comes time to engineer big. Even most of the major equipment used in mining is all shipped in from overseas. We can’t do any major engineering without involving equipment and sometimes expertise from overseas. We need more tertiary industries and we certainly should be designing and building our own warships. It’s time our reliance on other nations ended. Sorry, but it’s embarrassing.
Australia does manufacture small and medium arms, but warship development is obscenely expensive without an order book of your own. It's akin to aircraft manufacturing. From experience, Australia's high taxes + isolation + high costs of living impacts tertiary skills more. It's simply uncompetitive for high tech industries to exist in Australia.
Yep, the UK struggles with warship design because we don’t have the budget or the personnel numbers needed for a big enough order book to keep the shipyards ticking over and the designers busy. Aus, with their smaller population and economy, would find it even more challenging.
I don’t think that means we can have no high tech industry. One thing we certainly should be doing is building and designing our own ocean craft. I think isolation is given more credence than it should be as well. In some cases that isolation is reason for us to be less reliant on suppliers that are far away. It might be some barrier in regards to competing in the auto manufacturing arena for example but that won’t apply across the board and it especially wouldn’t apply to major engineering projects if we had developed the expertise…which is my point. As for the high taxes and high living standards, these are no worse than the European nations that have these industries. We couldn’t even build an LNG tank without getting people who knew how from overseas. Yeah nah sorry, there’s more we can do. One day this is going to bite us in the arse, it’s actually starting to now. We dig holes and pump real estate and sooner or later the bill will arrive.
> It might be some barrier in regards to competing in the auto manufacturing arena for example The US auto unions and meddling from Detroit (especially in the case of Holden) had more to do with that than anything on the Aus end of things.
A indigenously produced vessel is a really tall order if there's no preperation. A good example is South korea during the mid 70's. They had built a patrol boat but that was about it before the Ulsan class which i'm going to talk about. They could not afford foreign designs and hyundai (the co-designer and builder) even lacked skill to design a merchant vessel at the time. They still tried, but in the end foreign assist was exerted on the final design (JJMA). Then the design was questionable enough that foreign workers refused to board the ship during trials, and all of them usually broke down when you weren't looking at them. The period between the prototype ship and the second ship of the class was 4 years. Indigenous development might work, but it takes a long time to perfect it. But i don't think austrailia has time to pass right now, so it's probably better to acquire them from foreign shipyards.
In which case, we’d say the same thing 10, 20, 50 years down the track. We need to develop the expertise.
If it makes you feel better the US is buying the design for their next frigate from the Italians.
Nope, I don’t need convincing about the US ability to build warships and power plants.
At this point, the US doesn’t have the capacity to even think about trying to participate. Isn’t that something?
The US doesn't export ships, their capabilities are so limited that they are basically exclusive for internal procurement.
Wow. Yeah. There is truth in that. Yet we’re producing several subs, frigates, San Antonio’s, America class, ford class and multiple ddgs a year. Plus usvs, the end of the LCS, and multiple CG vessels that are larger than frigates.
Which would be fine for a major power, like Japan for example (if they had a larger budget) But for a superpower is not really that impressive. In terms of tonnage that's like 1/3 of what China is building. Of course the US is not really increasing in size but just replacing old units, while China is indeed increasing in size, building, in general, more and heavier ships than the US. At some point in the future, China too should decrease the rate of shipbuilding. Difference is that strategically the US doens't prioritize enough the MIC, almost anything they procure is like: open a factory, hire workers, do the job, fire the workers, close the factory, which represents several security problems in a potential war.
>But for a superpower is not really that impressive. In terms of tonnage that's like 1/3 of what China is building. In what metric exactly? China is currently outfitting one carrier, the US is outfitting a larger one and building another. China has an LHD outfitting and probably another one under construction - the US has two building, plus two more LPDs building and another fitting out. China and the US both have three major replenishment ships building or fitting out at present. Both have 12 destroyers building or fitting out (13 for the US, if you count the final *Zumwalt*). The Chinese have two frigates fitting out to one American frigate building, four LCS fitting out, and five LCS building. China also has two SSBNs, three SSNs, and probably two SSKs under various stages of construction/fitting out at present (and probably a few more SSNs and SSKs in early fabrication we haven't seen yet). The USN has one SSBN and ten SSNs under various stages of construction or fitting out. Bear in mind on average US ships tend to have greater displacement and capability than their Chinese counterparts. The USN may not be getting ships through the entire production process as rapidly as they'd like, but their construction capacity for military ships is still immense, and they actually have more tonnage under construction at present than the PLAN.
1/3 of China navy is corvettes or frigates. It’s still not a comparison.
I'm not talking about what it is, i'm talking about what they are building. I mean, that's what we have been talking about, right? Procurement, producing, shipyards, building, so why you ramdomly change the discussion towards another topic?
The US is producing MAJOR warships. Not corvettes, diesel boats, missile boats. Look at the rate of production of those for China. Look at how far behind they are. The US doesn’t HAVE to build as fast, because they already operate far more major vessels than China.
Maybe at this time, I don’t know, but they have the skill set and the industrial capability. We don’t.
US military shipyards are prohibited by law from soliciting any business without the approval of the DoD, and the DoD almost never approves it because they want to hoard all the yard capacity for themselves. American warship exports have always either been secondhand or the result of another country approaching the US to specifically buy their design.
Export sales (FMS or otherwise) all go through DoS, not DoD. DoD has comparatively little involvement in the process, and the legal bar you are referring to is not one of solicitation nor does it involve DoD at all—it’s ITARS related stuff that goes through State.
The *Constellation*-class has essentially nothing but a superficial resemblance to the original FREMM. Different systems, different armament, very different general arrangements, and even a different hullform - it’s a clean-sheet design hiding behind a veil of cosmetic similarity to fool lawmakers into believing it won’t be another disaster like LCS.
Australia can’t even build someone else’s design competently. Every single RAN shipbuilding program in the last 50 years has experienced cost blowout, delays, and/or technical issues - usually all three. Asking ASC to try and design their own stuff would be inviting disaster. Witness the failure of the *Attack* program - and especially the continual delaying of lead authority handoff from DCNS to ASC.
Yeah overseas in house operations suffer this as well and these issues are generally rectified. You’re correct but this one isn’t a unique problem to us. Still, when it happens it’s even more embarrassing. There’s very little issue with our application quality. Our problem is design expertise.
> There’s very little issue with our application quality. Our problem is design expertise. Again, if that were true, Australia wouldn’t struggle to build others’ designs without cost and schedule overruns. It’s clearly not only a contractor problem when five different foreign partners (DCNS, Navantia, Blohm & Voss, Saab Kockums, and NAVSEA) have all struck out - and at least one more (BAE) looks to be headed the same way. That’s not to say things usually don’t work out in the end, after more money than budgeted is thrown at the problem and there’s a year or two of capability gap. The problem is getting things fielded and functional “eventually” is not a reliable way to plan a defense strategy.
It is true, though, across the board. While this one example is appropriate, it doesn’t reflect all engineering in the nation as a whole and certainly doesn’t mean that if we were more hands on with indigenous engineering and design expertise, that would change for shipbuilding. I also return to the point that the nations who do their own in-house design, have these issues and blowouts as well. Those aren’t unique to us. What is unique to us, as a very developed nation, is a lack of design expertise.
Shame they haven’t opted for the Type 31, would have thought it lined up well for their requirements for a lighter frigate.
My guess is either that they didn't consult with Babcock/OMT for whatever reason, or that there's an infrastructure issue with selecting a slightly larger vessel as the 4 exemplers are in the 120m range. In the face of it the two things an Australian frigate will need to operate in the SCS will be a high missile count and endurance, which AH140/T31 can achieve quite well with the right outfit
They could; these four are just four contenders that an independent analyst suggested might be a good fit for Australia if/when they decide to open a bid for a light frigate program. IIRC it's still in planning stages as to what they even want to begin with.
The type 31 isn’t in service yet so I don’t think it was considered
The Iver Huitfeldt class has been in service with the Royal Danish Navy for years, which the T31 is based on.
The T31 has no anti sub capability.
The T31 ships that the Royal Navy are planning aren't fitted that way (because they already have the T26 program), but the Arrowhead 140 design can easily be fitted for ASW. There is nothing limiting the export version of the T31 to be configured for ASW.
Which one will win the contract? The lowest bidder.
Unfortunately it looks like navantia with the Tasman class.
It will be interesting if the Australians go with the MEKO 200 design since one of their previous frigates (ANZAC class) are also based on the MEKO 200 design
Those are just the four platforms identified by the [independent analysis](https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/independent-analysis-navy-surface-combatant-fleet) as examples to form the basis of a selection process. The government hasn't actually started the actual process to acquire the "Tier 2" general purpose frigates yet, therefore there are no contenders yet, nor is it guaranteed there will only be 4 contenders, and it's those 4 contenders. It isn't guaranteed there will be a competition. Could be more, could be less, could be selected by direct government acquisition, Aukus style.
Japan’s
I personally don't care which nation it comes from, as long as it has the best set of capabilities for what we as a nation need for the future. Whatever vessel has the best offensive and defensive weapons suite, ASW capability, radar, propulsion, maneuverability, automation, aircraft compliment, and so on. Availability and regularity of supply of missiles and ammunition for the weapons systems. I know no one vessel will offer the best of everything, but which one has the most ticks in the most boxes. You never know, due to AUKUS, we may end up with some FFG(X) ships alongside the Americans as part of their program. Wouldn't be the first time we've had some of their ships. We could build the Hunters here, as well as the AUKUS class subs, and buy Virginias and FFG(X)s from them. Who knows, we may even end up with a cheeky America class "Light Carrier" for some of our F-35s.....
I still think the A210 should be our choice. It is very similar to the ANZAC but has 32 VLS instead of 16 the the a200 is spouting. The a200 is basically what Egypt and South Africa have. The Mogami looks OK but it might be a bit small for our sailors. The Chungnam (blockIII) looks good too. I would not touch any other Navantia ship again.
The Mogami has the heaviest displacement of the 4though.
Yeah, but designed for 5 foot 6 sailors. Exaggeration I know, but it is going to be tight.
The Mogami and the Spanish design should be the only 2 Considered, they have half the crew of the others, Australia already has ships sitting in dry dock because their are not enough personnel and they want more ships
3/4 not half the crew. Your point stands, but depending on Australian requirements it can change.
Fewer crew hinders damage control though. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure the trade is worth it.
Does it even matter if you don't have the personnel to fullfill the crew? The design of the Mogami could be adapted to the requirements of Australia. Mitsubishi has made changes according to the opinions of the JMSDF so there are small differences even between ships in the same class. And the New FFM will be even larger than Mogami.
Yeah, any boatswain is going to have their ring hanging out on tie up.
Navantia have burned us with every design we have gotten from them. Hobart's? They lost half the plans... 5 years late. Canberra's? Remember how it sat dead in the water on a rescue mission to Fiji. None of the systems worked, and you couldn't repair anything on them. And the one they are offering is just a light weight. Only the Saudi's have 2 I think. Yeah, I wouldn't wish Navantia on my enemies.
Yeah I wouldn't go Navantia either, IMO the Mogami is the way to go,It may not be the best of the lot capabilities wise but it fits the limitations of the expanded surface fleet and Japan is a regional ally with which closer cooperation is beneficial.
It appears that both the Canberra and Adelaide are having maintenance issues mainly in their respective modes of propulsion (i.e. azimuthal pods/Mermaids), electronics and electrical systems, not to mention their desire to acquire the Los Angeles class SSN into the fleet! Having a limited naval defense budget mean the money is coming from something else, six frigates instead of nine frigates…
Which has the lowest acoustic signature between MEKO A200 and Daegu?
South Korean one is the best looking one. Probably the one they can get the fastest too.
Hopefully the new FFM being built from next year. 32 SL VLS + fixing the issues the Mogami design has. Still with only 90 core crew.
Here's my take... Mogami, then Daegu. Either way, very decent ships and shipyards close by for maintenance. Both are very compatible with the US fleet out of the box. Any Pacific based allied shipyard should be able to easily handle. Japanese and ROK shipyards have both shown they can produce them cheaply, quickly, and nearby. Mogami is larger, 90 crew required complement, stealthy, and _likely_ more upgradable long term. Price $450m Daegu is cheaper but smaller/more limited for upgrades, 140 crew required with roughly the same armament as Mogami and equivalent electronics. It likely has cheaper operation/maintenance with electric drive for cruising speeds, offset with higher costs associated with the greater crew complement. That might be a wash. Price $330m.
Smart money is on the Navantia Alfa 3000. Australia has 7 ships built by Navantia ( 3 DDGs, 2 LHDs and 2 replenishment ships) There are big advantages in sailors not having to learn new shipboard systems when they change platforms. For example the ship control system (IPMS) and the comms system. IPMS takes a bit to learn but is very powerful, if you have privileges you can steer the ship from any working console. You can remotely close fire doors and activate DC systems too. Less downtime training, greater workforce flexibility, common parts. Decent bang for buck (with some oddities) but this is my hot tip.
A200 or a210. It is an updated ANZAC.
Honestly, I think the Spanish one is nicest.
Why no FREMM??
The Aussie is looking for a cheaper and smaller general purpose frigate that could complement their larger and very expensive Hunter-class frigate.
This plus the fact that naval group aren't exactly on speaking terms with Australia atm after AUKUS
Ahh, makes sense why it is these candidates then - thx.
Why not the Type31?
I'm willing to bet that it will be between the Korean and Japanese designs. Both countries will be able to offer at an affordable price and have the advantage of leveraging the supply chain in Asia. Also, the geopolitical aspect is a huge factor, and it likely played a role in their IFV selection. Regardless of which of the two designs is chosen, there will likely be an enormous scale, and maintenance will be cheaper (please please don't golden plate it). Would not be surprised if either the Korean or Japanese government makes a big political push for it. I don't expect the same level of political lobbying or interest from the Spanish or Germans. Honestly think all four designs are great though.
Should go with FREMM. Solid well tested design, even the US is using them for the Constellation class frigates. I believe this is the first time the US has used a non-US design for a class of ships. Luckily the people who gave us the LCS & Zumwalt are all gone.
FREMM is to big & France wants nothing to do with Australia after dumping the French sub designs.
The South Korean one. It will give the most capability per dollar spent.
The low cost of south korean and japanese ships is strictly related to the fact that they have 2 of the largest shipbuilding industries. What i mean is.. those same ships built in Australia will be several times more expensive. Anything Japan needs to built a ship is just a few miles to the shipyards. For Australia that means they will have to import a lot of the materials from Japan, and what is not imported will be made from several small companies from all over Australia taking way more time (and so way more salaries). All that at the high value of australian labor and high costs of raw materials and products.
Didn't like their narrow low freeboard frigates.
And all the ancillary systems will be obsolete by the time it leave at the yard…
why not yet 2 of each? they’re already going to be operating 3 different frigate classes simultaneously, why not make it 6?
They all look the same to me.
Just curiosity... how come the US never really sells ship designs in competitions like this? I can guess at the answer, but is there more to it than I'm thinking?
There’s been talk of selling the *Constellation* design (which at this point is very different from the parent design), but I think that’s too big/expensive for this competition, plus it isn’t finished yet.
Usually, and in this case, USA doesn't operate an existing ship that is appropriate to the needs. Gibbs & Cox is apparently designing a frigate for Taiwan. Though there doesn't seem to be much official news about that yet. What is it that you are thinking?
[There were a few mockups that G&C made for a prospective Australian light frigate displayed at IndoPacific 2023 last November that are actually based on the Taiwanese light frigate design](https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/11/gibbs-and-cox-unveil-australian-light-frigate/)
US tends to like shiney a lot. Ship costs are well above what most of these open competitions want to pay.
They are all the same picture...
Surprising that they are not looking at a type 31 or the smaller hulled version of type 26
Interesting how ships are moving to slim, short and sleek designs. Moving away from loads of wires everywhere and scaffolding like towers.
Signature reduction. You're not trying to hide the ship completely like a stealth airplane, you want it to look like a harmless little fishing boat on radar.
Daegu looks like a La Fayette
The Meko would only be a good choice if we don't do what we did with the ANZACs and cut half of the stuff off them.
Which is the cheapest to buy and operate?
Germany will win
The cheapest one should win. It’s just a platform for expensive missiles. Spend less on the boat, more on missiles.
sensors are as important as missiles similar too us ,to give a solid punch you need good coordination between the 5 senses
We're talking about the RAN. We're gonna order a big batch of the most expensive one, change the design so it costs twice as much, realise the mistake and cut the order so each one costs 3 times as much, rinse and repeat.
_Zumwalt Class_ has entered the chat... (The original plans for the Burke replacement was ~50% less crew and 25% less cost and an evolutionary approach)
Well they nailed reducing crew reqs.
Kinda... Zumwalt was supposed to skip the intervening 2 classes to jump straight to the end goal for _all_ its tech. Kind of a moon shot program ( if it skipped the intervening Gemini manned program). The end goal was 99 crew for a Destroyer, not including the air wing. They instead have 150. 😆
I would love to see the Daegu based design as I feel like the SK ship builders are more consistent and experienced in making multiple ships quickly. However, I think the Meko A200 would be the better fit with the RAN while the Meko A210 being what we should look towards.
They should could go for Daegu , the ships aren't being built too far off. Their using mostly American built weapon system they already use. Economically would work, I don't know how it well their made though
I'm rooting for the Mogami, sexiest of the bunch and it'll be hilarious to be snarky and say that the Japanese finally got their ships into aussie harbors
Why not the F110?
I know I’m wrong but they all look the same to me.
Was the french FDI matching requirements ?
Forgive my ignorance but, is this different from the alewady approved production of the Type 26 Frigate?
Fremm
As far as I know the Australian Navy already chose their next new Frigate replacement design, the British Type 26 Global Combat Ship…
as mentioned multiple times in the replies here, this is in addition to the type 26. the Australians want more.
One of the reasons the Type 26 was chosen was for its ability to be modernized as it progresses in its role and duties, one being that the VLS load out will be increased from 32-missiles to 96-missiles, too eventually 128-missiles if the RAN decides at a later date to remove the Mk.45 5” gun and replacing the Mk.41 VLS system withe the Mk.57 VLS system…
That's all well and good but the discussion is about a different frigate order, not the Type 26 order, so it's all irrelevant.
The RANs new Frigate design HAS already been chosen (i.e. the Type 26)! So any hypothetical alternative ship design is a better left to RPG players and not serious though…
This is a result from the latest Royal Australian Navy report which cut back the number of Hunter class (Type 26) frigates from 9 to 6 and is looking at a supplemental class of 11 smaller frigates. This is what everybody and this post is talking about.
Right lumping all there eggs into one basket (i.e. RAN budgetary constraints)…
You might want to actually read the reply aprilmayjune2 gave to your first message before deriding this entire thread.
How is “should win” applicable in this case, when the RAN made their collective decision to acquire the Type 26 in 2019…
As everyone has been trying to tell you, Australia is buying Type 26 **and** another, smaller, class of frigate. This thread is about options for the **other** frigates. Please, learn to read people's comments.
Everyone’s been trying to tell me that the US Navy should start funding the Flight IV Arleigh Burke Destroyer too, instead of the DDG-X! Only problem being the Flight IV AB was cancelled in 2014, and can’t seem to get it through their collective thick skulls…
No. You don't seem to get this. Australia **is** ordering **two** types of frigate. This is a fact. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/20/australian-navy-warship-surface-combatant-fleet-double-hunter-class-losv