This frigate being displayed is the one on order for the Korean Navy yes? Now BAE has come in for criticism over the lack of VLS capacity in the Hunter/Type 26 frigates (really destroyers but..), but last year they proposed the Hunter GMF design which boosted those cells from 32 to 96 (same as Burke class). Too late by the time the Surface Combatant Review was released but...HD can surely offer something similar that allows for future growth and additional electrical power to export customers like Australia?
@@corvanphoenix Well, Japan had an opportunity to provide their latest subs to Australia before the ill-fated French Barracuda design was chosen. The issue then, still is now, was that Japan hasn't really ever been a major exporter of subs or frigates. There is no track record of what type of IP they are prepared to share, the level of post-production support that can be based in-country and whether mid-life service upgrades need to be done in Japan rather than here? Having said that, i don't for a minute doubt the technical and build quality of either design. But the above remains a barrier for Japan to match, say, South Korea when it coems to being a defence exporter.
If HD Hyundai decided to offer the Chungnam-class/HDF-4000 frigate to the Philippine Navy 🇵🇭 Id recommend a few suggestions: - Increased the draft to 4+ meters and try consider enclosed the bow to improve endurance at sea. - Add space for 32-cells Vertical launched system (VLS) either K-VLS or Mk.41 type. - Retain the CODLOG propulsion though offer a conventional configuration CODOG, CODAG & CODAD. - Allow option for subsystem like radar, weapons and other sensors! - Provision to build some of the HDF-4000 in-country through technology transfer!
enclosing the bow doesn't increase endurance at sea, but yea covered bow is a must (tho there's a case and config where uncovered bow is still ok). Most likely PhN will stick to 25kn MCS and that's an apt choice since (except for scout ships) PhN have no use for added speed, so any gas turbine is excluded, leaving only CODAD and the reduced noise diesel-electric hybrids CODLAD, CODOE, CODLOD, if not diesel FEP. In any case, hdf4000 is unfit for the ultra-asymmetric Spratlys. But their HDC2000 is an apt design, Hyundai will just have to enlarge it accordingly, and cover the bow and raise the helideck
They will probably offer similar designs with options for sensors and weapons. Hanwha also has some promising new ship design the Ocean 4300 which they are showcasing in Australia. There's also Alpha 5000 from Navantia which is better equipped. But the deciding factor will be convenient, commonality for weapons and systems and availability of spare parts with options for building locally.
Those VLS are VL-MICA which is cheaper and only load single MICA missile in each cell. It's not flexible like Mk41 VLS which can load quad-packed ESSM or single celled long ranged missiles like Standard Missile and Tomahawk.
The armaments are cheap that's why they won the bid. Flexibility of the weapons systems choice. Hopefully they use the mk. 41 in their next frigate program. They require 32 cells.
In Aussie competition, it's outmatched by FFM in all specs, except maybe price but since Japan already bulk ordered 12 + 12 upcoming bulk orders, likely price difference is already negligible
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍......good luck PH-SOKOR....philippines needs that's kind of ship to boost......PH NAVY FUTURES FLEET.......god bless us all .....thank u so much south korea......🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀
The Koreans and Japanese should hire some local English speaking sales people who can better articulate the features and benefits of the ships on offer.
Wish the philippines select this for the 6 Air warfare frigates. Although I wish HHD supports to build ships in philippines. Philippines should really grab the opportunity to build or just assemble the ships in philippines, it will create more jobs plus strengthening the navy
It's obvious right now that they are planning to build and maintain the future PH Navy assets in Subic because of the partnership between HHI and Cerberus to revive the Agila Shipyard in Subic. It's less costly also for the PH Navy to maintain and build the ships there than in S.Korea.
Nope. Too small for air warfare. 4 fixed panel radars too costly. Structure not optimized to fit more equipment. RCS is bigger than contemporary designs...
They could offer similar designs that will fit the requirements of the PH Navy or find a better offer like the Alpha 5000, Fremm Lorient, New FFM Mogami and Arrowhead 140. All of these ships are better equipped with sensors and armaments. Just the price tho.
Arrowhead 140 Frigate is what Australia should be buying vs the other offerings. Far out performs everything Australia is looking at and has already been in operation for many years and currently being built by 3 other Navies. Arrowhead 140 has more range, more missiles and weapons etc and less crew. Can be built very quickly.
The 140 is too large (which is why you think it rates so well), but is not what the RAN needs. They need direct replacements for the Anzac Class and what better than the newest version of the Anzacs themselves....the MEKO A200! Training and maintenance requirements remain nearly the same, so no added costs on the back-end, unlike when you switch to an entirely new class of ship from a different manufacturer
모가미의 가장큰 적은 엔화 입니다. 대들 모가미급의 가격때문에 머리 아파 했는데.. 사업 추진 당시 (2016/17) 에 비해 너무 변한 엔화 환률의 착시현상으로 일반적으로 도는 $350m은 말도 안되고 대략 $500-650m 사이 일걸로 예상 됩니다. 특히, Mk41통합 문제 (레이더 및 전투 시스템은 일본 발사와 무장은 수입 이라는 함정) 와 AA 능력 향상을 위해 Mk41 32 Cell로 가면서 규모가 커진게 치명적 이었습니다. 특히 미국의 공급망 붕괴로 이지스 및 관련 시스템 (Mk41) 가격 폭주와 공급 지연이 걸리면서 난리난 상황 입니다.
A 4-plane fixed AESA radar mounted at such a high position would be useless on a ship with a 14m width due to the shaking. Australia has experienced the same thing during the modernization of the Anzac class and understands it. The Korean ship is the size of a coastal frigate. In the MSDF's opinion, it will be difficult to operate in the open sea unless the ship is at least 140m long and 17m wide.
mounting the radar like that is never a problem, the problem Anzac experience aren't relevant at all, it's an old hull design firstly. No other navies with same and similar instalation, doesn't have that problem, it's unique to Anzac class
@@heuhen The problem with installing a land-based radar on a ship is the ship's rocking motion depending on the sea conditions. In addition to electronic cancellation, effectiveness can be ensured by widening the ship's width like European ships and lowering the radar installation position. South Korean warships prioritize the product lineup of companies, which reduces their effectiveness.
@@主水-p5b Your assessment underestimates both Australian naval expertise and Korean shipbuilding capabilities. Modern AESA radars and advanced stabilization systems effectively mitigate motion issues, even on smaller vessels. Ship performance isn't solely determined by size; design sophistication matters more. Korean frigates are built for both littoral and blue-water operations, not just coastal use. Each navy has unique requirements - assuming one-size-fits-all is naive. Perhaps it's not Australia's judgment that's lacking, but rather your understanding of current naval technologies and diverse operational needs.
HD's new frigate gives high performance with lower price than other company's，tjat can help countries that need new warships but don't have enough naval budgets to fight evil enemies
Because they knew australia won't choose them. Because navantia already have grips in australia unlike HHI, which targets navies who wants affordable but close to high specs ships. Meanwhile australia is looking for the more expensive weapons and sensors for ship but doesn't care about the ships design itself
For the kind of money Australia is spending on current ship proj going Koreans will give them 2-3x more hull in the water 2-3x faster damn they can buy 30 units of those smaller frigates for price of 4 hunter class frigates 😂
The program requires 11 multi-role light frigates. The Mogami is a very good frigate. But too large and expensive for the RAN’s future force structure plan.
No doubt a capable and cost effective conventional frigate design. But not nearly as capable and inherently flexible, multirole and adaptable as the Type 26 baseline with its larger hull volume and mission space. Conventional designs like the above are a step backwards to the turn of the century. Developments in IFEP, remotely operated weapons and sensor platforms, integrated CIC, etc. are going to be hard to retrofit unless you designed that capacity into the hull (harder still when you intentionally buy a smaller hull in the mistaken belief that size = cost).
@@CK-ur2ev the over-specced Hunter is 2 billion. Take ofd all the expensive local Gucci gear and use the same production line to build a simplified version of the same Type 26 hull, then use a strategy of spiral development/capability insertion over the course of the program to upgrade as budgets and politics allow. But buy this small thing now, and you cut off that upgrade path.
@@rhoelg incorrect. The 6 Hunters are still being purchased. It's not Hunters or this. It's Hunters plus whatever cheap deal they can get for the next 9 hulls. And nothing could be cheaper to buy, build and run than just getting 9 downgraded Hunters. The cost is never in the platform. The cost is in the components.
You're spot on. To be frank, I'm puzzled why Korean companies were even invited to this tender. The model they're putting forward just doesn't cut it for the kind of combat scenarios Australia's likely to face down the road
I don't believe this Frigate represents the best that Korea can offer. If Korea had approached this project with greater seriousness, it should have considered proposing a different variant instead of the FFX Batch III. Simply meeting Australia's minimum requirements isn't enough. The Australian Navy prefers a higher hull design, and the FFX Batch III lacks the necessary scalability. While it is undoubtedly a good warship, it is unlikely to be welcomed by the Australian Navy.
I hope Korean frigrate win as Aussy future frigrate program so it will become more less treats for our Navy 😂, I hope our navy build new mogami so our navy step a head of Aussy navy
Thank you south korea you support my country 🇵🇭💕🇰🇷
This is tight race, but not only ship numbers in short build time but crew size n extra equipment offering without extended build time will win.
This frigate being displayed is the one on order for the Korean Navy yes? Now BAE has come in for criticism over the lack of VLS capacity in the Hunter/Type 26 frigates (really destroyers but..), but last year they proposed the Hunter GMF design which boosted those cells from 32 to 96 (same as Burke class). Too late by the time the Surface Combatant Review was released but...HD can surely offer something similar that allows for future growth and additional electrical power to export customers like Australia?
Magazine depth is with the LOSV, that way you keep the mission bay.
@@lancebond2338 Yes, the towed array sonar & mission bay is sacrificed to allow the installation of the additional VLS cells.
We're reviewing a 🇰🇷 frigate for our new general purpose frigate. It's early days. My initial preference is for the Mogami from 🇯🇵.
@@corvanphoenix Well, Japan had an opportunity to provide their latest subs to Australia before the ill-fated French Barracuda design was chosen. The issue then, still is now, was that Japan hasn't really ever been a major exporter of subs or frigates. There is no track record of what type of IP they are prepared to share, the level of post-production support that can be based in-country and whether mid-life service upgrades need to be done in Japan rather than here?
Having said that, i don't for a minute doubt the technical and build quality of either design. But the above remains a barrier for Japan to match, say, South Korea when it coems to being a defence exporter.
Fligth III de Navantia Australia 128 VLS
If HD Hyundai decided to offer the Chungnam-class/HDF-4000 frigate to the Philippine Navy 🇵🇭 Id recommend a few suggestions:
- Increased the draft to 4+ meters and try consider enclosed the bow to improve endurance at sea.
- Add space for 32-cells Vertical launched system (VLS) either K-VLS or Mk.41 type.
- Retain the CODLOG propulsion though offer a conventional configuration CODOG, CODAG & CODAD.
- Allow option for subsystem like radar, weapons and other sensors!
- Provision to build some of the HDF-4000 in-country through technology transfer!
enclosing the bow doesn't increase endurance at sea, but yea covered bow is a must (tho there's a case and config where uncovered bow is still ok). Most likely PhN will stick to 25kn MCS and that's an apt choice since (except for scout ships) PhN have no use for added speed, so any gas turbine is excluded, leaving only CODAD and the reduced noise diesel-electric hybrids CODLAD, CODOE, CODLOD, if not diesel FEP.
In any case, hdf4000 is unfit for the ultra-asymmetric Spratlys. But their HDC2000 is an apt design, Hyundai will just have to enlarge it accordingly, and cover the bow and raise the helideck
They will probably offer similar designs with options for sensors and weapons. Hanwha also has some promising new ship design the Ocean 4300 which they are showcasing in Australia. There's also Alpha 5000 from Navantia which is better equipped. But the deciding factor will be convenient, commonality for weapons and systems and availability of spare parts with options for building locally.
The HDC3100s currently in build for the Philippine Navy look pretty good as a tier 2 option. @USD250m a pop with VLS built in...
Because no tass, no rws guns
Those VLS are VL-MICA which is cheaper and only load single MICA missile in each cell. It's not flexible like Mk41 VLS which can load quad-packed ESSM or single celled long ranged missiles like Standard Missile and Tomahawk.
HDC 3200
HDC-3200 🤔 ¿ Corvette con armament of OPV ?
The armaments are cheap that's why they won the bid. Flexibility of the weapons systems choice. Hopefully they use the mk. 41 in their next frigate program. They require 32 cells.
In Aussie competition, it's outmatched by FFM in all specs, except maybe price but since Japan already bulk ordered 12 + 12 upcoming bulk orders, likely price difference is already negligible
💯
Specs is subjective, Koreans can deliver any required Aussie specs at faster time!
@@rhoelg nope, you missed the point
@@rhoelg yeh in a japanese brain.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍......good luck PH-SOKOR....philippines needs that's kind of ship to boost......PH NAVY FUTURES FLEET.......god bless us all .....thank u so much south korea......🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀
The Koreans and Japanese should hire some local English speaking sales people who can better articulate the features and benefits of the ships on offer.
A great little video.
Wish the philippines select this for the 6 Air warfare frigates. Although I wish HHD supports to build ships in philippines. Philippines should really grab the opportunity to build or just assemble the ships in philippines, it will create more jobs plus strengthening the navy
It's obvious right now that they are planning to build and maintain the future PH Navy assets in Subic because of the partnership between HHI and Cerberus to revive the Agila Shipyard in Subic. It's less costly also for the PH Navy to maintain and build the ships there than in S.Korea.
Nope. Too small for air warfare. 4 fixed panel radars too costly. Structure not optimized to fit more equipment. RCS is bigger than contemporary designs...
I prefer their high freeboard hulled HDF-3800 frigate design.
They could offer similar designs that will fit the requirements of the PH Navy or find a better offer like the Alpha 5000, Fremm Lorient, New FFM Mogami and Arrowhead 140. All of these ships are better equipped with sensors and armaments. Just the price tho.
Perú 🇵🇪 🤝 Korea del Sur🇰🇷 socios militares estratégicos.
Arrowhead 140 Frigate is what Australia should be buying vs the other offerings. Far out performs everything Australia is looking at and has already been in operation for many years and currently being built by 3 other Navies. Arrowhead 140 has more range, more missiles and weapons etc and less crew. Can be built very quickly.
The 140 is too large (which is why you think it rates so well), but is not what the RAN needs. They need direct replacements for the Anzac Class and what better than the newest version of the Anzacs themselves....the MEKO A200! Training and maintenance requirements remain nearly the same, so no added costs on the back-end, unlike when you switch to an entirely new class of ship from a different manufacturer
Arrowhead cannot be delivered in the time frame Austrlia is looking for and they're essentially looking for a ship on the lighter end of armament etc
@@DerHossMeisterPerhaps, though they didn't show up to this event
@@admiralmallard7500 Why would they? they are not short listed.
@@Harldin I thought some version of the Meko was short listed
This looks like a bigger version of the Jose Rizal Class ships of the Philippine Navy.
모가미의 가장큰 적은 엔화 입니다.
대들 모가미급의 가격때문에 머리 아파 했는데.. 사업 추진 당시 (2016/17) 에 비해 너무 변한 엔화 환률의 착시현상으로 일반적으로 도는 $350m은 말도 안되고 대략 $500-650m 사이 일걸로 예상 됩니다. 특히, Mk41통합 문제 (레이더 및 전투 시스템은 일본 발사와 무장은 수입 이라는 함정) 와 AA 능력 향상을 위해 Mk41 32 Cell로 가면서 규모가 커진게 치명적 이었습니다. 특히 미국의 공급망 붕괴로 이지스 및 관련 시스템 (Mk41) 가격 폭주와 공급 지연이 걸리면서 난리난 상황 입니다.
A 4-plane fixed AESA radar mounted at such a high position would be useless on a ship with a 14m width due to the shaking.
Australia has experienced the same thing during the modernization of the Anzac class and understands it.
The Korean ship is the size of a coastal frigate.
In the MSDF's opinion, it will be difficult to operate in the open sea unless the ship is at least 140m long and 17m wide.
mounting the radar like that is never a problem, the problem Anzac experience aren't relevant at all, it's an old hull design firstly.
No other navies with same and similar instalation, doesn't have that problem, it's unique to Anzac class
@@heuhen
The problem with installing a land-based radar on a ship is the ship's rocking motion depending on the sea conditions.
In addition to electronic cancellation,
effectiveness can be ensured by widening the ship's width like European ships and lowering the radar installation position.
South Korean warships prioritize the product lineup of companies, which reduces their effectiveness.
@@主水-p5b Your assessment underestimates both Australian naval expertise and Korean shipbuilding capabilities. Modern AESA radars and advanced stabilization systems effectively mitigate motion issues, even on smaller vessels. Ship performance isn't solely determined by size; design sophistication matters more. Korean frigates are built for both littoral and blue-water operations, not just coastal use. Each navy has unique requirements - assuming one-size-fits-all is naive. Perhaps it's not Australia's judgment that's lacking, but rather your understanding of current naval technologies and diverse operational needs.
@@user-rd4uh6rh7j
It is important to use common sense.
HD's new frigate gives high performance with lower price than other company's，tjat can help countries that need new warships but don't have enough naval budgets to fight evil enemies
40 meters wide?
14
Think he meant 14 metres
🤣🤣🤣
not much of information for Australian frigate, but mostly HHI's ambition for its enterprise expansion.
Because they knew australia won't choose them. Because navantia already have grips in australia unlike HHI, which targets navies who wants affordable but close to high specs ships. Meanwhile australia is looking for the more expensive weapons and sensors for ship but doesn't care about the ships design itself
Sa horizon 3 mukhang mananalo nanaman tong korean😂
More shipping business and maritime protection from South Korea 🇵🇭❤️🇰🇷 Thank you
Philippines 🇵🇭❤🇰🇷 Korea
For the kind of money Australia is spending on current ship proj going Koreans will give them 2-3x more hull in the water 2-3x faster damn they can buy 30 units of those smaller frigates for price of 4 hunter class frigates 😂
@@rhoelg Aussie staffing issues
¿ FRIGATES ? 🤔 mmmh type 26 HUNTER = DESTROYER 😎
Bilhin na yan agad 6 pang laban sa coastguard
40m wide? I think not.
New Mogami more fit with Aussy navy
NO.
Yes
Yes but it's a larger ship and might be too expensive to win the tender.
@@geoffh784 aussy navy : money doesn’t matter
The program requires 11 multi-role light frigates. The Mogami is a very good frigate. But too large and expensive for the RAN’s future force structure plan.
No doubt a capable and cost effective conventional frigate design. But not nearly as capable and inherently flexible, multirole and adaptable as the Type 26 baseline with its larger hull volume and mission space. Conventional designs like the above are a step backwards to the turn of the century. Developments in IFEP, remotely operated weapons and sensor platforms, integrated CIC, etc. are going to be hard to retrofit unless you designed that capacity into the hull (harder still when you intentionally buy a smaller hull in the mistaken belief that size = cost).
One is 2 billion dollars and the other is 330 million. Of course, you have different capabilities. You are comparing a mini bus to a passenger car.
@@CK-ur2ev the over-specced Hunter is 2 billion. Take ofd all the expensive local Gucci gear and use the same production line to build a simplified version of the same Type 26 hull, then use a strategy of spiral development/capability insertion over the course of the program to upgrade as budgets and politics allow. But buy this small thing now, and you cut off that upgrade path.
Well Aus can have 30 of these and be everywhere vs what 6 hunter class for same price 😂
@@rhoelg incorrect. The 6 Hunters are still being purchased. It's not Hunters or this. It's Hunters plus whatever cheap deal they can get for the next 9 hulls. And nothing could be cheaper to buy, build and run than just getting 9 downgraded Hunters. The cost is never in the platform. The cost is in the components.
You're spot on. To be frank, I'm puzzled why Korean companies were even invited to this tender. The model they're putting forward just doesn't cut it for the kind of combat scenarios Australia's likely to face down the road
Not very convincing promotion. Mogami is hard to beat or ships we are familiar with already like Meko or Navantia
I don't believe this Frigate represents the best that Korea can offer. If Korea had approached this project with greater seriousness, it should have considered proposing a different variant instead of the FFX Batch III. Simply meeting Australia's minimum requirements isn't enough. The Australian Navy prefers a higher hull design, and the FFX Batch III lacks the necessary scalability. While it is undoubtedly a good warship, it is unlikely to be welcomed by the Australian Navy.
Hindi na contractor ang korea ngaun 😂 tama na tapos na buti naman give chance to other who is much credible.
I hope Korean frigrate win as Aussy future frigrate program so it will become more less treats for our Navy 😂, I hope our navy build new mogami so our navy step a head of Aussy navy
One of the incompetent Indonesian netizens.
40 meters wide ?