The Albanese Government has announced the selection of Japan’s upgraded Mogami-class frigate as the preferred platform for the Royal Australian Navy’s new general purpose frigates, according to a joint media release issued on 5 August 2025.
Following a competitive tender process, the Japanese design offered by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was judged to best meet the Australian Defence Force’s capability requirements and strategic priorities.
The selected variant features a range of up to 10,000 nautical miles, a 32-cell Vertical Launch System, and a mix of anti-ship and surface-to-air missile systems.
“This announcement is another example of the Albanese Government’s focus on investing in the capabilities we need now and into the future, to meet Australia’s strategic circumstances,” said Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles. “The upgraded Mogami-class frigate will help secure our maritime trade routes and our northern approaches as part of a larger and more lethal naval surface combatant fleet.”
The frigates will replace the ageing Anzac-class, providing enhanced undersea warfare and air defence capabilities. The first three ships will be built in Japan, with the first expected to arrive in 2029 and become operational in 2030. The remainder will be constructed at the consolidated Henderson shipbuilding precinct in Western Australia.
Defence Minister Pat Conroy highlighted the missile capacity of the new platform as a key advantage. “It will take our general purpose frigates from being able to fire 32 air defence missiles to 128 missiles, giving our sailors the cutting‑edge weapons and combat systems they need to prevail in an increasingly complex environment,” he said.
The decision comes months ahead of schedule and follows the Government’s earlier commitment to respond to the Independent Analysis of Navy’s Surface Combatant Fleet. Over the next decade, $55 billion will be invested in the naval surface fleet, with long-term plans to more than double the number of Navy surface combatants.
While the Government acknowledged the quality proposal from Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems, it will now move into contract negotiations with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the Japanese government, aiming to sign binding commercial agreements in 2026.
T26 order dead ?
These are in addition to the Hunter class
No, this is in addition to those six Hunter-class frigates. Overall, a twenty ship escort fleet of three Hobart-class destroyers, six HUnter-class frigates and eleven upgraded Mogami-class frigates. Currently, the RN is planning for a nineteen ship escort fleet, though it has been reported that this could climb significantly in the future.
Hi leh. I wondered where you had seen reports about possible increases to the Royal Navy fleet of Frigates. Do you have any information, would be appreciated.
Hey John,
Unfortunately, I can’t post links in this forum without having the message flagged to moderation, so I’ll only be able to give you the search terms for Google. Those should lead you to the relevant article.
Search for ‘UKDJ 25 escorts’ in Google, it should be the first search result.
I think you’ll find that was a Boris Johnson target back a while. Not a cat in hells chance now. We’ll be lucky to have a dozen, never mind 20/25.
That was a 2021 article, no sign of the T32 yet.
Heck, did you see all those posters ? Where are they all now, I don’t recognise 90% of those names.
Hi leh.. Thanks for the info: Will have a look. I know the RN is on for the figure of 19 Destroyers and Frigates by 2035. Hope there will be a few more on top of that figure.
He didn’t say Frigates he said escorts which is 100% correct there are 8 T26 and 5 T31 Frigates building or on order (13) plus the 6 T45 AAW Destroyers. Which as it stands was the 1 for 1 Frigate replacement programme for the 13 T23 which plus the T45 is the escort force.
No increase above that has been announced nor do I suspect anything will be (if at all) till after the DIP is released in the Autumn (Defence Investment Plan).
Just having 3 or 5 more frigates in the future would make quite a difference to the balance of the escort fleet. Will see, hoping/fingers crossed. Also curious to see what happens when the 3 older River class patrol vessels are retired.
I seriously doubt we will see any additional escorts, everything will be focused now on the jam tomorrow of project CABOT. Three MRSS will be ordered with that order being split between rosyth and Belfast with both yards being closed in the mid 2030’s again.
“Though it has been reported this could climb Significantly” Yeah right !
19 is the confirmed number, T31 was long described as “At least 5” but the “At least” bit got dropped (no feckin surprise there). T32 (was mentioned so long ago now, most folk have retired) was mentioned as “Up to 5”. T83 numbers are anyones guess and all the talk of T91 and everything else is still just talk (Apart from maybe FSS).
Then you can add other (Paper) Assets, Vixen, Ark Royal, Merlin replacement, MARS (I get confused by all the talk and no action so please make allowances), Marathon, Bounty ect.
Heck even a forth Phalanx and 30mm’s are still yet to be added to a single carrier !
Saw also that the defence minister in the House declined to confirm that T31 would receive Mk41; which I thought was a done deal. Mind you, I can see a case for just doubling up on Sea Ceptors to 24 and just transferring NSM.
Its an impressive commitment from the AUS government. I think there are also six or so large OPVs in the mix as well?
No, these are in addition I believe, although Australia did reduce their order from 9 to 6 (they call them the Hunter class).
The first Hunter class is already under construction.
Not dead—complementary. The Mogami-class frigates are for the RAN’s general purpose fleet (SEA 3000), while the Type 26-based Hunter-class frigates are still being built under SEA 5000 for anti-submarine warfare. Both programmes are proceeding in parallel to expand and modernise the surface fleet.
the . power of a modern navy generally gives preference to destroyer’s than frigates
Reduced from 9 to 6. Australia no longer feels ASW is such a big priority because it doesn’t fit in with the current narrative in the Murdoch media of hypersonic missiles and photon torpedos. What they really now want are five thousand missiles on blingy general purpose frigate from a country that has never fought a war since 1945 and has some serious hang ups about supplying weapons even to its closest Allie’s.
Two years from now this Frigate will follow the standard Australian play book where it is claimed to be too expensive and too under armed and they will say they should have really gone for the German one which would have been so much cheaper and better (it wouldn’t)
Japanese ship yards with zero export experience will have a hard time dealing with a customer like the RAN.
Once they try and build them in Australia costs will sky rocket just like every other naval program they embark on and the navy will continuously interfere in the design because they know best.
All this was the same for Saab from Sweden, Navantia from Spain, Naval Group from France and now BAE from the UK.
In their defence i think the Australian government here is very conscious of its past misjudgements and mismanagement and wants to get this Mogami purchase right and the AUKUS subs. Credibility and capabilities are on the line and big monies. See how they go. Its more than doubling of the fleet.
Stop being silly… And so ungodly UK centric. It’s a big world out there and it’s not 1916 anymore.
Jim Japan is changing they are now realising that exporting is a really good thing to do and are going full pelt to do it and do properly. Japans nature is they don’t do anything half cocked and when they do something they usually get it right.
As for the Japanese shipyards having zero experience in exports and how to handle an export customer like Australia, it’s irrelevant because they will just leverage their vast knowledge of doing so in other fields.
The Mogami Frigates are designed and built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries who are part of the “Mitsubishi keiretsu” group of companies which is the largest Industrial Conglomerate in Japan.
What I find interesting is that you are spouting the same negative “it’ll never work there” attitude to Japan successfully producing a product as folks did in the 80’s. Nissan, Toyota ring any bells.
As for costs increasing post Japanese build, well I’m damn sure they will but it will not be down to Japan and they will have a contract to mitigate their risks (zero change OTS spec). I actually think Australia may well benefit from a bit of Japanese, industrial management, just like Toyota down the Rd from me. They operate with a 100% closed shop, single union, empowered employees (anyone can stop the line), common open canteen & facilities and no suits just everyone in a white overalls and PPE. No one said it would work in UK but it has and that’s reflected in never had a single bit of industrial relations problems and high productivity / quality.
They under estimated Japanese industrial capability before WW2 also, assuming a newspaper racist stereotype of short sighted paper folders. Japan is a rare country that still values skills and traditions with attention to detail with integrity and respect. Those ships will be good.
JIM….You clearly have had no close dealings with Japanese industry. Will come in on time….on budget and to the desired specifications and standards.
I wonder whether the first of these or the first of the Hunters will enter service first. Probably a silly question.
As things stand, the first Hunter‑class frigate is expected to enter service in 2032, with construction underway in Adelaide. On the other hand, the first Mogami‑class frigate is expected to be in service by 2030, since it is being built in Japan first before local production ramps up. So unless timelines shift, the Mogami will almost certainly enter service earlier than the Hunter.
Suppose to be 2029, they are building the first three in Japan so they will probably go quick then hit raid blocks when they switch to domestic production. At least they will get three frigates delivered though before cancelling.
No doubt being modified to suit Australian conditions like the Hunter and Collins classes
No, the first Hunter Class (T26) is under construction although the order for the RAN has been reduced from 9 to 6.
Final RAN surface fleet combatants will include 3 Hobart (AWD), 6 Hunter (T26) and 11 Mogami – 20 in total.
The 32 cell VLS on the Mogami are ‘strike length’ which means they will be able to launch the full complement of RAN’s in-service missiles – SM2, SM3, SM6, Tomahawk and ESSM (quad packed) plus canister launched NSM.
BAE has designed a module to replace the Multi Mission Bay in the Hunter (T26) which will add an additional 64 MK41 VLS (taking total to 96 cells) plus double NSM canisters from 8 to 16.
There is also the possibility for the 6 Arafura class OPVs now entering service to act as ‘arsenal’ ships using off-board targeting from other ships sensors with containerised launch systems like the U.S. ‘Typon’ VLS system (SM6, Tomahawk) on the flight deck.
The RAN fleet review committed to developing autonomous uncrewed ‘arsenal’ ships with numbers and details of weapons systems yet to be determined.
All in all the RAN will have a potent surface fleet for a country of just 25 million.
And just to be lovingly Australian it will be 1 more escort than the RNs planned 19 escorts for a country of 70 million.
There is very little chance of that, especially when Australia wants to build 8 of the mogamis
Maybe they will finally see sense and just let Japan build all 11 for them.
At some point someone has to realise you can’t build warships in a country where people get paid $200k a year to dig holes in the ground and you can’t make any kind of advanced manufacturing product in a country that has no manufacturing base left and is thousands of miles away from supply chains.
Australia has world class research facilities and it’s probably the worlds most efficient resource extractor with a top class agricultural industry but it’s one of the worlds worst places to manufacture anything.
I’m that competitive that if I was in charge , I would make an immediate uplift (batch 2 T31) of another 3 ships purely to ensure we had more.
Mogami cannot use any SM missiles, that requires AEGIS
The RAN was launching SM2 Block IIIA from their now retired Adelaide class (USN Perry Class) frigates – a non Aegis ship.
The CEAFAR AESA radar and AMCAP upgraded fire controls (SAAB 9LV) to Anzac class are also now capable of SM2 launches.
While the current Mogami frigate cannot launch SM2 the RAN is acquiring the upgraded FFM export version specifically developed for Australia which will launch SM2, SM6 and Tomahawk. It’s why it’s fitted with ‘strike length’ MK41 VLS and precisely why the Japanese bid was successful in meeting the RAN requirements.
The Mogami will also see the RAN use the SeaRam rolling frame missile for the first time as a CIWS in place of the Phalanx system.
The Adelaide pre dates Aegis, modern SMs require it or a specially modified production run for different radars.
CEAFAR was built around using American missiles, Mogamis are not getting CEAFAR
The Australians are getting a no modifications design, Japanese radar isn’t compatible with SM
Where has SEARAM been stated
According to the Australian Defence Minister, the upgraded Mogami can fire ESSM, SM2, SM6 & Tomahawk. He also stated that the CMS is actually from LM (I assume modified by Mitsubishi for Japan). He didn’t say it was Aegis so perhaps closer to LM Canada CMS330?
Sea Ram is fitted to the current Mogami. Take a look at a photo of the ships in service.
The FFM export version for Australia is a bigger ship than the in service Mogami 7,000 tonnes (vs 5,000 tonnes), 145 metres long (vs 133) and 18 metre beam (vs 16.3).
The FFM is not getting CEAFAR (systems integration issues with the Hunter class have been learned) but it does have a capable AESA radar already fitted.
So the ‘off the shelf’ notion is a bit of a fiction but the ships will be highly capable for a Tier 2 combatant.
Wouldn’t hurt the RN to get a couple of SeaRAM each for the carriers if not CAMM. Might link in nicely with the Phalanx’s.
Wonder then if SeaRAM will be fitted to the Canberra LHDs? I believe they’ve been cleared for Phalanx’s?
There is no guarantee of SeaRAM that I can see mentioned officially. SeaRAM/Phalanx are not permanently fixed as such. You can put them on, take them off or swap one for the other, so long as the cabling etc are there. Same for canister launched AShM. Mogami has a Japanese canister launched AShM, but I would be extremely surprised if the ships supplied to Australia didn’t come with NSM (or supplied with none & NSM fitted in Australia).
Seems like an even bigger pimp my ride than the USN is trying with the constellation class
What could possibly go wrong 😀
OZ
No enduring concerns re the RAN escort fleet; the submarine flotilla is a separate matter. SSN-A availability during the 2040s? No problemo. Virginia class availability during the 2030s? Ummm…er…ummm…could we interest the RAN in some gently used, recently decommissioned LA class vessels? Not necessarily a prediction of future developments, but certainly a topic worthy of discussion, and more importantly, the development of a viable, short-term Plan B.
If the Mogami transaction with Japan goes smoothly how about this for a Plan B. The RAN says ‘no thanks’ to the second hand Virginias and instead buys 4 plus Soryu Class (latest Lithium battery versions estimated to remain submerged for up to 3 weeks before snorting). Good enough for defence of continental Australia. Stay in AUKUS/AUK SSN program and build 4 to 6 SSN when their design is finalised.
Operate a two tier submarine fleet (all with that brand spanking new car smell) much like the surface combatant fleet and save the Australian taxpayer billions:
If the Japanese are able ro deliver in
a timely manner, Plan B is a definite winner! 👍 Frankly, always believed the original plan and schedule were quite aggressive from a 0,0 baseline. By 2040, enterprise Sit Rep should be reasonably benign.
Never encountered a new a/c smell, most had at least a generation of previous usage. 😖😁 Imagine subs are at least pungent. 😉
The two tier sub fleet is something the UK could do too if monies shrink.
I gather the problem with the Japanese subs is that they are not that much further ahead of the existing Collins class. Collins class were bleading edge at the time they were built. I would suggest the SAAB proposal to Netherlands would be a better option. It even had ASC engineers involved in the design. While France won the deal, the design is not dead, with an eye still on Canada.
Without comparing the SAAB and Soryu sensor technology or weapons systems to Collins, both Soryu and SAAB have longer submerged before snort times (up to 14 days) than Collins (3 to 5 days).
However the Soryu lithium ion propulsion system is more cutting edge (energy dense, compact and simpler to build install and maintain) than the SAAB air independent propulsion (AIP) system.
Japan’s industrial base, quality and production rate is unlikely to be matched by SAAB. Combined with the geopolitical benefits of increasing defence alllance with Japan, the Soryu is unlikely to face competition from SAAB
Be interesting to see with the CIP into the T31s what this will give the RN compared to the Mogami’s. Still good but different. The RN could still add a few more enhanced T31s/A140/MRP if need be. Anyway good on the Aussies, it will be quite a force with not just mk41s but all coming with the 5″ main gun.
I am seriously not surprised by Australias decision, in fact I’d have been Gob Smacked if it had chosen otherwise. They wanted an OTS solution ASAP with some built abroad and then locally, the Japanese FFG are an active “hot line” programme and with a massive amount of logistical commonality with existing Australian programmes.
There is no way whatsoever that Germany could deliver Frigates to Australia as fast as Japan can, they are having serious issues with their own surface builds at present, where as Japan is churning them out at 2pa.
As for a U.K. offering we weren’t even in the down select, but never mind there will be plenty of U.K content in the Hunters and who knows the next generation AAW ships could be a Hunter / T83 derivative 🤔
Both Australia and Japan use mainly US or US compatible weapons and sensors and both the Mogami and Hunter class use RR MT30 GT sets so it makes perfect sense to keep logistics and interoperability simple.
Massive Kudos to Japan and pretty good news for my RR Share price 👍🏻
As for the US LCS and Constellation class are looking pretty expensive mistakes.
The Japanese even offered as a sweetener to allow the RAN to jump the queue on the Japanese production lines.
Would have liked to know what turned them off the T31/A140 though. Was it down to the lack of ASW? Or perhaps too light on the medium range air defences? Was the ship too large for their needs? Is this something we should be worried about?
Totally agree that the USN seem to have fallen off a cliff at the moment with its procurement. They are in massive quandary in regards to retiring their Ticos. They are supposed to be replacing them with the Flight 3 Arleigh Burkes (ABs)and then the new DDG(X). But with the build up of China’s Navy there are some within Congress who want these ship upgraded to the same standard as the Flight 3 ABs. Which would include the SPY-6 AESA radar. the Tico’s are one of the few ships that can accommodate the full fat SPY-6. But as it stands the delivery of the Flight 3s are late and the DDG(X) has not finalised or given a specific date for start of build. So if the original plan for the retirement of the Tico’s stays on track, there will be a massive gap in the USN’s capability.
The Constellation class is what most would call a cluster. A lesson on how to not do redesigning and build on the fly.
I think the 31/A140 was ruled out due to the requirement of the ship being in active service to be a contender, and none of the 31/140 hulls are yet there.
Even though the Danish Iver Huirfelt class that thr A140 was based on had been around a while? Im not sure how different the A140 is from that.
Navy Lookout did an article on developing T31 from the Iver Huitfeld. The improvements include increased compartmentalisation and watertight subdivision, greater redundancy, blast protection (composite armour) for vital areas of the ship, enhanced shock resilience / systems continuity in the event of the ship being hit, signature mitigation measures to reduce the radar returns, noise and heat emitted etc. Also compliance with IMO Tier III environmental regulations. Source Navy Lookout Jan 2023.
They wanted 100% OTS, preferably proven and in service, minimal design changes needed, optimised for ASW, GP weapons fit, US weapons and CCS compatible and 1st 3 built by overseas ASAP.
So not one single thing the T31 could meet and Mogami ticks every box right down to the using the same MT30 as the Hunter and Japan can churn out 3 in just 18 months.
The odd thing is the T31 isn’t really compatible with much else in the RN either as it’s using a mainly different supply chain.
Makes sense, cheers
Yes didn’t stand a chance when you analyse it. You can understand with the problems with making so many changes to the T-26 design with all the delays and cost implications (even if most was their own fault) why they wanted minimum changes.
I don’t know how good these Frigates are, but the Japanese have built and delivered 8 since 2019 and we have built and delivered 0 T26’s, and we started 2 years earlier. If the Aussies want mass quickly this seems like a good move to me.
these arent the same ones, these are the new and upgraded ones.
Even so, 8 ships in 5 years is impressive. Better than our zero in 9. Upgraded or not, you have to think the build rate won’t decline that badly.
Yes a no brainer for Australia best option.
Hopefully gives the MOD to order more frigates for the RN another T26 and 4 more T31 would be nice to give them 9 in each class to provide 3 each available we can pray!
Looks like Argus is for the chop so we will only have the 3 bays for amphibious operations until 2032 so I think we will only ever get 3 MRSS as the politicians will say you’ve managed for 7 years with just 3! I think a lot in the navy would prefer more frigates anyway!
Maybe there’ll be a MRSS tier 2 design coming for the remaining 3?
Maybe but for what purpose is the question the 3 bays were built to supplement the 2 Albion class LPDs and Ocean when the navy still looked at large scale amphibious landings.
If the navy are no longer even considering that as a viable option only small raiding type missions will they even be needed?
Also the 3 new fleet solid support ships will be massive 40000 tonnes with 2 helicopter hangers I believe I can see them having a secondary amphibious role possibly.
Exactly! A large scale amphibious landing would need lots of materiel support so designing FSS with a ‘littoral support ship’ flavour would make sense: Ellida sized flight deck but without the well deck.
Yes indeed making the most of what we actually have on order makes more sense than spending years designing a whole new type wasting millions we haven’t got!
so do these get made with exports to europeans in mind, i.e. the dimensions for people of european size ?
FYI Japanese Warships have been built to USN habitability standards for decades and Japanese people aren’t all small (see Sumo for details).
obviously i knew they weren’t all small, see any treatise on physical characteristics of ethnic groupings
but thanks for the rest of the information
@John Stevens. I think that just another 3-5 frigates would give the fleet a better balance. For example we could cap MRSS at 3 large 15-20k ton sized expensive LPD/LSD designs and build another 3 T31s; well armed ‘expeditionary’ ships.
Yes I think the same the navy has no intention of ever doing large scale amphibious operations again purely small raiding parties and special forces operations is the plan now 3 MRSS well armed capable of defending themselves would seam the best option now and concentrate on more frigates to get a more well balanced fleet that we can actually afford and maintain.
Yes, in addition, the batch 1 Rivers could be replaced by T31s deployed to Gib and the Pacific to either supplement the batch 2 Rivers or enable them to be redeployed. Taken together with the above MRSS strategy frigate numbers could be increased by 5 or 6 and Babcock assured of work beyond the current order book.
Yes totally agree would be the most logical option we just need the politions to be honest and stop all this you will get up to 6! Ha
I think the batch 2 rivers well 3 will be brought back to uk to replace the retired 3 batch 1s and the forth will go to Gibraltar as to not anger the Spanish by putting a frigate in their vicinity!!
The T31 have been built to do the policing role to free up the T45 and T26 to do what they were built to do protect the carriers and nuclear subs.
As you say this makes it such a more flexible force that is easier to use.
I wonder how Australia plan to man their future fleet.
2 LHDs
1 Bay Class
3 Hobart AAW destroyers
6 Hunter ASW frigates
11 Mogami class general purpose frigates
6 + Aukus subs
Numerous patrol vessels
The RAN has fewer than 14000 personnel exc marines.
Australia wants to build 8 of the 11 Mogami locally. what could possibly go wrong?
Japan should be able to deliver the 3 frigates on time, however there is no way that this program will cost only $6.5B AUD if there is local prod. that is one big f’ing whopper.
The initial payment is just for the 3 ships built in Japan. No details at all about the Australian build, but I expect the usual budget blowouts and delays.
There is nothing to go wrong. They will cut the order to 8 Mogamis all built in Japan.
Canada should consider the same for the replacement of the 12x Kingston class to quickly bolster the RCN.
Its going to take 25 years for the T26\River class to be completed and replace the Halifax Class.
This has come has a surprise I only knew about the Type 26 for RAN. Not sure were RAN going fined the manpower from ? But the Australia government have the right attitude on Defence compared to HMG.Looking like RAN going out gun the RN ?
The Mogami Upgraded FFM (2 under construction in Japan) are larger at 6,200 t but with a reduced crew of 90!
They are replacing the ANZAC frigates with a crew of 180.
The Anzac has 8 MK41 cells, 8 harpoons and a 5 inch gun . The Mogami Upgraded FFM has 32 Mk41 cells (strike length) 8 NSM’s and a 5 inch gun with half the crew.
The T32 was never a real contender. Far from being too big a hull at 5,700 tonnes the T31 is considerably smaller than the evolved FFM Mogami at 7,000+ tonnes. this approaches the Hobart class in size
Otherwise there is a long list of factors where the T31 fell short including:
No AESA radar
Too few VLS
None of the longer ‘strike length’ MK41 VLS for Tomahawk SM2 SM6
Baseline T31 fitted for not with approach
Smaller calibre deck gun
Not in service yet
Plus I suspect the production delays and integration issues with the Hunters (T26) didn’t bode well for the needed production schedule so the Mogami’s combination of initial off- shore construction before moving to Australian ship yards was something the T31 could not match
Seems like a serious degradation of capabilities happening. Maybe then a few LHDs to replace the lot or at least one as a second tier carrier? Multi-purpose, very useful. Could utilise a Navantia design and build at H&W. What’s wrong with the Bays? Why can’t they all be given a useful upgrade as was planned for at least one of them? Spend but hopefully save on the overall MRSS budget. For 3 full fat MRSS and 3 low-med fat Bays?
The LHD would probably be a very good solution but there is simply no budget for that or the required manpower to crew them the navy have prioritised the carriers they need escorts first and foremost.
The bays have been excellent ships used for many roles and proved very versatile and require small crews compared to the Albions by the time MRSS replaces them they will be nearly 30 years old.
I think LRG North and South will fade in to memory and we will just have one LRG that will on occasions combine with the CSG making a very potent force.
With the LRGs, not sure how it’s organised, maybe needs to be a bigger LRG for the North and then smaller LRGs for the Med/Suez and a further Indo-Pacific grouping? I like the idea of a LHD/Helicopter carrier for adding air assault and a heavier landing capacity if and when required and made F35B compatible. Six large MRSS’s sounds a lot but could end up being a two design mix.
I think the original idea was Argus and a bay for one LRG and an Albion and a bay for the other which in contested areas would probably mean a frigate would be required to escort them also.
But with the Albions being scrapped the second LRG is no longer viable and the frigate fiasco probably means none available and Argus now looks like its for the chop leaving just the 3 bays.
Which is why I think the overall plan has been to downsize to just 1 LRG all along to act independently and with the CSG.
But only time will tell hopefully in the Autum they might actually order something!
Some procurement is happening. The govt has just issued a contract / tender SHIPACQ/216 wiith Leonardo for IFF systems for FSS with spares for T31.
Excellent choice. These are top notch modern DDGs & should serve Aus well. If only we could take our defence as seriously.