Korea and Japan face off in the Australian frigate introduction project

Fierce competition between Korea’s Chungnam class and Japan’s Mogami class… Defense industry export know-how dominates Japan

Australia, known as the ‘strong union paradise’, is notorious for being one of the most expensive countries in the world for warships. Until now, Australia has procured warships by purchasing ready-made foreign models and building them domestically. Even considering the increased cost of the technology introduction process, the price of Australian warships is too expensive.

For example, Australia’s main frigate ‘Anzac’ class introduced in the mid-1990s was a model imported from Germany’s ‘Meko 200’ design. Even though it was introduced without major weapons and sensors to save costs, the cost was 1.5 times higher than other countries that purchased the same model.

The price of the ‘Collins’ class, a 3,000-ton conventional submarine introduced by Australia around the same time, reached $800 million (approximately KRW 1.068 trillion), which was more expensive than the US LA-class nuclear attack submarine at the time. The ‘Canberra’ class amphibious assault ship, which was built in Australia using a Spanish amphibious assault ship design, was delayed in service because 14,000 defects were discovered despite spending $1.2 billion (approximately 1.6 trillion won), twice the original cost. . However, compared to the Australian Navy’s recently controversial next-generation frigate project, the controversy surrounding existing warships is literally at the level of cuteness.

The Australian Ministry of Defense announced on February 20 (local time) that it would completely reorganize the force enhancement program ‘SEA 5000’. The number of ‘Hunter’ class frigates, the largest project in this project, was also reduced from 9 to 6. Australia announced that it would purchase 11 other frigates using the cost savings from canceling the purchase of three Hunter-class ships. At this point, a question may arise. It’s the same ‘Frigate’, but how can you buy 11 ships by reducing the price of 3 ships?

Initially, the Australian Navy pursued the introduction of the Hunter class to replace the eight Anzac class (3600t class) frigates currently in operation. The Hunter class is a derivative model taken from the Type 26 frigate design scheduled to be introduced by the Royal Navy and modified to suit Australian conditions. Although it was classified as a frigate, it is a destroyer-level warship with a displacement of 10,000 tons. The prototype Type 26 frigate is an 8,000-ton class, with a procurement price of approximately 1.3 billion pounds (approximately 2.2 trillion won) per ship. However, the price of one Hunter class ship amounts to 5 billion Australian dollars (about 4.35 trillion won). Even this value is only a ‘target price’. The total project cost for the introduction of the Hunter class recently announced by the Australian government is 65 billion Australian dollars (about 56.6 trillion won) for 9 ships. The price of one ship has soared to 7.2 billion Australian dollars (about 6.26 trillion won).

Performance has not improved significantly just because the price has skyrocketed. The size of the Hunter class is that of a large destroyer, but its combat power is poor. The vertical launch tube is 32 cells in size and can only mount short-range anti-aircraft missiles ESSM (range 50 km) and small anti-ship missiles NSM (range 185 km). Although it is similar in size to the Hunter class, the price of one Korean King Sejong class ship, which is heavily armed with the Aegis combat system and 128 vertical missile launch tube cells, is a little over 1 trillion won.

The main reason why Australian warship prices are skyrocketing is because of the labor union, which suffers from severe moral hazard. For over 10 years, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has been uncovering the interest cartel of powerful labor unions centered on the state-owned defense company Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC). According to the ANAO audit results reported by local media, unions at state-run defense companies divided work among themselves and increased work periods, causing a surge in costs. Additional costs, which increased by trillions for each shipbuilding project, were tolerated under the pretext of creating jobs and guaranteeing labor rights.

For example, in the case of the ‘Hobart’ class air defense destroyer currently operated by the Australian Navy, the shipbuilders who ‘shared’ the work did not even properly hold meetings during the construction process, so the hull specifications were different. This led to a skit in which all previously made warship blocks were dismantled and rebuilt from scratch. These shipbuilders and unions did not take any responsibility, and all additional costs were borne by the Australian government. David Johnston, Australia’s defense minister at the time, was enraged by this and appeared before the Federal Senate and said, “I wouldn’t believe ASC even if they made canoes. He went so far as to say, “If the inefficiency of the domestic shipbuilding industry is not improved, all new warships will be purchased directly from overseas.” However, Minister Johnston was kicked out of his position due to strong opposition from the union.

Because the union’s power is so strong, the Hunter-class project, which costs as much as an aircraft carrier, continues to be promoted despite criticism from the media and politicians, and the first ship is currently under construction. Normally, when building a warship of this size, it takes at most two years from construction to launch. However, the Hunter class, whose first hull module was completed last year, is not scheduled to be launched until 2030. Are they trying to maximize job creation by holding on to a warship that could have been built in two years for eight years? As the schedule stretched and costs exploded, calls for a reconsideration of the project grew louder from Australian government departments, including ANAO. In the end, the Australian government took the card of reducing business in the face of carpet bombing from audit agencies and politicians.

The Australian government announced that it would reduce the scale of Hunter class introduction from 9 to 6, and instead build and introduce 3 Hobart-class improved air defense destroyers, 11 new general-purpose frigates, and 6 manned and unmanned combat ships. Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Richard Marles said, “Australia will have the largest fleet since World War II,” emphasizing that this decision was a decision to strengthen military power and use the budget rationally. However, it is drawing attention that the Korean model is included among the 11 new general-purpose frigates that Australia plans to introduce.

According to data released by the Australian Department of Defense, the new general-purpose frigate will be procured by purchasing overseas models, and models from Korea, Japan, Spain, and Germany are candidates. Candidate models by country are Korea’s Daegu-class and Chungnam-class, Japan’s Mogami-class, Spain’s ‘ALFA 3000’, and Germany’s ‘MEKO A-200’. The budget allocated to purchase 11 warships is 11.1 billion Australian dollars (about 9.66 trillion won).

Although frigate models from four countries were nominated, Alpha 3000 and Meko A-200 appear to be ‘bridesmaids’ with little chance of winning unless the shipbuilder makes a hefty bid. According to the budget set by the Australian government, the price of one frigate should not exceed 1 billion Australian dollars (about 870 billion won). Last year, Alpha 3000 Shipbuilding Company proposed a price of $600 million (approximately 800 billion won) per ship to the Australian government, which was conditional on the ship being built and delivered in Spain. It is said that at least $800 million (approximately KRW 1 trillion) was proposed as a condition for local construction in Australia. The Meko A-200 costs 500 million euros (approximately 723 billion won) per ship based on German construction, and similarly, if built in Australia, it would exceed the Australian government’s budget.

Kumano, a Mogami-class frigate of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. [위키피디아]

On the other hand, Korea’s Chungnam class is worth 400 billion won per ship, and Japan’s Mogami class is worth 50 billion yen (about 440 billion won) per ship. Considering the precedent of the price doubling when an overseas model is built in Australia, the only ship types that meet the budget range estimated by the Australian Ministry of Defense are the Chungnam-class and Mogami-class. So which of the two models will Australia choose?

The Chungnam class is a 4,300-ton full load frigate and is the latest model to become the main air defense ship of the Korean Navy’s maritime fleet. It is equipped with a multi-functional four-sided fixed electronically scanned phased array (AESA) radar, a Korean-made ‘Mini Aegis radar’, and will be equipped with Haegung surface-to-air missiles, tactical surface-to-surface missiles, and Hongshark anti-submarine torpedoes on the Korean vertical launcher KVLS (16 cells). You can. It is equipped with both a gas turbine engine and a diesel engine, and adopts a hybrid propulsion method, ensuring high quietness in anti-submarine operations.

The Mogami class is a new model designed to be a 5,500-ton full load displacement frigate and a second-class combat ship for the Maritime Self-Defense Force. It is equipped with the OPY-2 AESA radar, a low-cost model of the FCS-3A, called the ‘Japanese version of Aegis radar’. Asrock anti-submarine missiles and ESSM surface-to-air missiles are mounted on the Mk.41 vertical launcher (16 cell scale). Because it was developed as an auxiliary force, its overall performance is lower than that of other first-class combat ships of the Maritime Self-Defense Force, but its expandability is excellent due to its large size. The performance of the various sensors currently installed is also good.

If Australia chooses a frigate based solely on warship expandability, Japan is expected to have a slight advantage. The Chungnam class had almost all of her sensors and armament locally produced. Therefore, considerable design changes are required to mount US-made weapons, such as the ESSM currently used by Australia. The Mogami class, which originally adopted American armament, does not need such work, and thanks to its large hull, it has high expandability, making it easy to install the armament required by Australia. When looking at the performance of the anti-submarine sensor that Australia values, the Mogami class, which introduced multi-static technology, has an advantage over the Chungnam class. However, in this Australian frigate introduction project, there is one weakness that the Mogami class can never surpass the Chungnam class. This is ‘export performance’.

Japan is a country that has no experience exporting weapons to foreign countries. In particular, there is literally no experience in cooperating with companies in export destination countries to transfer technology and manage local production projects. As mentioned earlier, the most important thing that Australia considers when introducing warships is collaboration with local companies. In Korea, both Hanwha Ocean and HD Hyundai Heavy Industries have excellent careers that cannot be compared with Japan in the export of warships, overseas technology transfer, and local production. The Korean shipbuilding industry’s export-type combat ships have already been exported to the Philippines (Jose Rizal class) and Thailand (Bumibol Adulyadej class). There is news that there is a high possibility that a Korean-made combat ship will win the order for the Philippines’ next patrol ship project, and it is also being mentioned as a strong candidate for Thailand’s next frigate project. In Indonesia, it was like creating something from nothing, turning Indonesia into a submarine building country in a very short period of time.

A view of the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) shipyard. [위키피디아]

Australia is looking for a naval ship partner to collaborate with its shipbuilding industry in this frigate introduction project. The outcome of the battle between Japan, which is a beginner in warship exports and overseas technological cooperation, and Korea, which already reigns as a market leader, can be said to be as clear as day. Of course, there may be unexpected variables. For example, we cannot rule out the possibility that Spain, which has already built a shipbuilding cooperation infrastructure in Australia, will enter the cutthroat competition with unconventional conditions, or that Japan will exert ‘political influence’. In order to win the ‘Korea-Japan War’ in the defense industry market, which is taking place for the first time in history, not only the domestic shipbuilding industry but also government-related organizations must provide active support.

〈This article
Weekly Donga

It was published in issue 1429〉

Shin In-gyun, CEO of Independent Defense Network

Source: Donga

Mark

Mark Jones is a world traveler and journalist for News Rebeat. With a curious mind and a love of adventure, Mark brings a unique perspective to the latest global events and provides in-depth and thought-provoking coverage of the world at large.