Australian media in the past week has reported on the government’s decision to narrow down selection for the SEA 3000 requirement from five bidders to just two. SEA 3000 aims to procure up to 11 general purpose frigates for the Australian Navy (RAN) with an emphasis on “zero change” at least for an initial batch consisting of three hulls built overseas. The original five bidders implied for SEA 3000 in the Australian governments decision in February were Navantia from Spain, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japan, TKMS from Germany and Hyundai Heavy Industries and Hanwha Ocean, both from South Korea.
Naval News has previously reported on the various offers tied to the requirement and basic challenges for the program. This article will instead focus on the two selected candidates and various aspects and issues associated with their notional offers. A formal announcement of this next phase and details on requirements by government has not yet occurred and is expected “over the coming weeks” as per Australian reporting.
SEA 3000 – “Out Of The Box” With “Zero Change”
Australian Defence officials repeatedly stressed the “zero change” or “no change”-aspect of the effort, suggesting the Australian Navy would receive a design fully specified to existing foreign criteria. None of the four exemplar designs, five realistically with the two Korean offers being separate modifications of the same base hull, feature a configuration as used by the Australian Navy. Australia wants the first ship to be in service before the end of 2029, with construction underway overseas by 2026.
Time to service presents the highest priority, followed by an effective maintenance and sustainment system to be established in Australia. The third priority is maximum compliance with regulatory systems. This aspect may bear importance in particular for the Japanese offer. MHI has not so far exported any naval combatant and undertaken the related certification to foreign standards. The final and lowest ranked priority is interoperability with Australian and allied systems. The various priorities will have bearing on the selected bids, as outlined below. In both cases known specifications will put a “zero/no change”-approach in question, implying consequences for the desired timeframe.
Naval News notes that none of the bidders will comment on SEA 3000 due to tight media restrictions imposed by Australia. The Australian Department of Defence in response to enquiries highlighted probity as rationale to offer no further comment.
TKMS Exemplar – MEKO A-200
The MEKO A-200 represents TKMS’ export offer for a 3,700 ton displacement multirole frigate. South Africa was the original launch customer for the design in 1999, with the four ships usually referred to as MEKO A-200SAN or Valour-class. Algeria became the second customer for two A-200AN in 2012 dubbed Erradii-class. Egypt so far is the final buyer, with four A-200EN frigates as Al-Aziz-class purchased in 2018.
Australian media often draws a connection between the Anzac-class frigates (MEKO 200) and the A-200 now discussed. It is worth noting these are two separate designs only sharing a similar designation and builder. The three existing A-200-designs offer a wide variety of subsystems and weapons. Somewhat like with the Japanese product none of these are currently in service with the Australian Navy. One exception is the GE LM2500 gas turbine, although the plant on A-200 is integrated into the unique CODAG-WARP-arrangement including waterjet propulsion.
The South African variant uses Thales Tavitac as combat management system (CMS). Algerian ships integrate the Atlas ANCS CMS. Egypt meanwhile appears to use Tacticos by Thales, although no public confirmation exists, and one informed source suggests the ships use Atlas ANCS. The South African and Algerian ships carry the Umkhonto SAM for air defence. The Egyptian ships feature the French MICA VL. Neither weapon uses the Mk 41 VLS desired by Australia. South Africa and Egypt use French Exocet MM40 as antiship missile, while the Algerian ships carry Swedish Saab RBS 15 Mk 3. Electronic fit such as radar systems continues the theme of diversity, with a variety of radar sets by Saab or Thales. The specifications as outlined illustrate how an “Out of the box” MEKO A-200 does not exist as such. Notionally the TKMS bid for SEA 3000 would have to focus on the most recent configuration, represented by the Egyptian ships.
MEKO A-210 as optional evolution
In this context TKMS has also shown their MEKO A-210 concept at Indopacific in Sydney back in 2023. This configuration represents a significant evolution of the original A-200 design featuring integration of the Australian CEAFAR-radar and a full weapons suite including MK 41 matching the current Australian inventory. As such this would not be the initial configuration for a quick overseas-build. Instead the design plausibly represents a solution an Australian builder can produce domestically, should TKMS receive the contract.
MHI Exemplar – Mogami Or Upgraded Mogami
Selection is equally complex with the Japanese candidate. Australian government declarations following the Independent Review had identified the Mogami-class frigate as the relevant “exemplar”. The Mogami-class is currently in production for the Japanese Navy (JMSDF). Japan has reduced the original requirement for up to 22 Mogami FFG to now 12, followed by a significant evolution of the design initially referred to as “New FFM”.
Mogami as currently in service with JMSDF is a 5,250 ton combatant at full load. The original 30FFM-requirement specified a frigate focusing on ASW, mine-warfare and patrol, with a robust self defence-capability. Mogami is notable for its significant signature reduction (“stealth”) and automation to enable reduced crewing. The design carries an American main gun, the 127 mm Mk 45, and short range missile air defence, via SeaRAM. The primary weapon system however is fully Japanese. This includes the Type 17 antiship missile and the Type 97 lightweight torpedoes carried in triple launchers. The sensor fit and combat management system also are bespoke Japanese developments. Propulsion is CODAG, including the Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine also selected by Australia for the Hunter-class frigates.
Some discussion has focused on Mogami’s Mk 41 VLS. The ships are designed to receive a 16 cell VLS. Integrated weapons originally included Japanese Type 07 rocket-assisted torpedoes and the Type 23 SAM for medium range-air defence. Mogami as currently in service with JMSDF does not have Mk 41 fitted. A funded program to equip the seventh and eighth frigate currently fitting out with the VLS is now underway. Japan has started this effort in FY21, with arrival of the equipment from FY24, so since April this year. The remaining fleet is scheduled to receive Mk 41 at a later, yet to be determined date. In this context Naval News understands that the Type 23 SAM was dropped from integration. Mogami will only use the Type 07 ASW-weapon, with Type 23 moving to “New FFM”.
Upgraded Mogami as the real contender
MHI at Australian defence exhibitions in Sydney and Perth put a noted emphasis on the already mentioned “New FFM”. The builder now refers to this new design succeeding Mogami in procurement for JMSDF as “Upgraded Mogami”. Whether this means the original Mogami is no longer considered or still part of the overall proposal remains to be confirmed. ABC-reporting on the down-select mentions a “latest version” of Mogami, although a formal announcement will have to clarify the matter.
As Naval News has reported before, “Upgraded Mogami” displays expanded capabilities across the board. A further increase in size including a displacement of 6,200 tons reflects these changes. The targeted crew size intends to match Mogami. Notably, MHI has displayed the “Upgraded Mogami” with a range of sensor masts also capable of adapting foreign radar configurations. Similar to TKMS with MEKO A-210 such an option likely represents the builders effort promoting an Australian-built evolution for the later stages of SEA 3000.
Conclusion
As outlined here, both remaining bids do not match “out of the box”-offers, which would satisfy the SEA 3000-requirement, unless time to service was the only criterion. When maintenance, sustainment and compliance with regulatory frameworks factor into a procurement, “minimum change” appears bound to assume rather fluid interpretations. Even if the shortest possible timeframe to service was to be the sole focus of the effort, further challenges are looming.
Recent reporting suggests a final decision on a SEA 3000-winner between Germany and Japan may not occur until after the next federal election. An election would be required to take place in the first half of 2025. Pending the outcome and usual parliamentary process combined with technical challenges as outlined above a start of construction by 2026 and entry into service before 2030 would then appear to be in jeopardy.
