New Submarines

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

The Collins class subs are much better than what some will have you believe, yes they had their issues for sure, but when fully operational, they managed to avoid a fleet of US ships and subs during exercises a few years back, the yanks even tried to cheat and still couldn't find the Aussie sub.

Also managed to sit off the coast of China and follow their nuke subs without detection. One even got close enough to Hainan Island Sub Base to take photos thorugh the periscope of the access in the cliff face for the sub base as the yanks couldn't find where the China nukes were departing from before the Chinese sub hunters were on top of them.

We nearly lost two saiors on one operation off the Chinese coast as the sub got in nice and close and got caught in Chinese fishing nets in rough seas.

The German 212 class subs would be the best replacement for the C boats. They have proven long range capabilities, Israel sailed thier version form Hamburg to the Gulf and sat of Iran and did elint work and then went to Israel on their shake down cruise. Ran under the Iranian patrol vessels and multi national fleets operating in the gulf without detection.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

The Collins class subs are much better than what some will have you believe, yes they had their issues for sure, but when fully operational, they managed to avoid a fleet of US ships and subs during exercises a few years back, the yanks even tried to cheat and still couldn't find the Aussie sub.

We did that with outdated o boats too, got in an took photographs of the carrier props turning, but that was so embarrassing it was kept hush hush.

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

We did that with outdated o boats too, got in an took photographs of the carrier props turning, but that was so embarrassing it was kept hush hush.

They did that every RIMPAC exercise, they were famous (infamous) for getting inside the carrier task group and running amok.

[Road_Warrior]

Collins was a disaster at the beginning and in the early years of their lives for a number of reasons:

1) Selecting a design that was optimised for patrol work in the cold, shallow waters of the Baltic sea, instead of one for long range operations with the huge distances our subs have to cover

2) Taking the said design (which was the Kockums Type 471 btw) which was optimised for the above conditions and was a 1900 ton design, and upscaling it so that it would fit the RAN's spec and operational parameters (so long ranges and it ended up being 3300 tons)

3) Trying to reinvent the wheel themselves when it was totally unnecessary with that oddball "Combat Control System" that even the US Navy didn't have and said we didn't need. This ended up being 30% of the overall cost of the boats

4) Changing the requirements in the middle of crucial project milestones

5) Poor project management and oversight (refer 4 above)

6) Crap hardware

7) We've never built subs in Australia and the shipyard didn't exist prior to these submarines. Where did the skills and knowledge come from? Other yards or did everyone start from scratch?

It cost a ****eload of cash to make the Collins boats as good as they are now. They are at the stage where the RAN can once again be relied on for eavesdropping off certain asian countries to our north and they are none the wiser...

[Cashie]

Some good points.

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Collins was a disaster at the beginning and in the early years of their lives for a number of reasons:

1) Selecting a design that was optimised for patrol work in the cold, shallow waters of the Baltic sea, instead of one for long range operations with the huge distances our subs have to cover Pretty common Defence blunder, SeaSprites had similar issue

2) Taking the said design (which was the Kockums Type 471 btw) which was optimised for the above conditions and was a 1900 ton design, and upscaling it so that it would fit the RAN's spec and operational parameters (so long ranges and it ended up being 3300 tons)

3) Trying to reinvent the wheel themselves when it was totally unnecessary with that oddball "Combat Control System" that even the US Navy didn't have and said we didn't need. This ended up being 30% of the overall cost of the boats The Combat System was one of the major issues, once the US was employed to fix it, they ripped it out and fitted a modified LA Class Combat System. Funnily it worked.

4) Changing the requirements in the middle of crucial project milestones Also a common Defence project shortcoming

5) Poor project management and oversight (refer 4 above)

6) Crap hardware And design of the sailplane and propeller etc Not to mention the single valve fluid system design that almost cost us the loss of Collins during initial trials off Perth

7) We've never built subs in Australia and the shipyard didn't exist prior to these submarines. Where did the skills and knowledge come from? Other yards or did everyone start from scratch?

It cost a ****eload of cash to make the Collins boats as good as they are now. They are at the stage where the RAN can once again be relied on for eavesdropping off certain asian countries to our north and they are none the wiser...

[SB076]

Collins had issues at the start, but I believe they have been rectified. Considering we would have learnt a lot during the process it seems painful to throw that all away and simply purchase subs from overseas.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by SB076

Collins had issues at the start, but I believe they have been rectified. Considering we would have learnt a lot during the process it seems painful to throw that all away and simply purchase subs from overseas.

Trouble is we haven't actually built a sub for over 10 years. Done lots of sustainment and refits, but no new builds.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Trouble is we haven't actually built a sub for over 10 years. Done lots of sustainment and refits, but no new builds.

True I believe the Germans are suggesting they can also provide new boats for $20 billion and some of the work will be done by ASC.

No doubt there has been many issues with overseas and local defence projects but this is new technology and most of it is not mass produced or refined as much as anyone would like (tech is moving quickly) I would like to think that as the issues with the Collins are documented, we could learn from it and do better next time round. But maybe I am too optimistic. A the end of the day, I want our Defence force having the best equipment available.

[cheap]

Do a search on Collins class sub incidents, there seems to be many issues for such a "modern" submarine, lucky we didn't lose a few subs and their crew!

Calling them an Aussie widow maker may be a little harsh but they do not have a great track record.

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by cheap

Do a search on Collins class sub incidents, there seems to be many issues for such a "modern" submarine, lucky we didn't lose a few subs and their crew!

Calling them an Aussie widow maker may be a little harsh but they do not have a great track record.

Maybe search for Russian or Indian sub incidents and see how you go then.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Cashie

Maybe search for Russian or Indian sub incidents and see how you go then.

So as an example of how "good" the Collins class is we should compare them to ex-soviet and Indian sub-continent submarines - is that what you're saying?

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by cheap

So as an example of how "good" the Collins class is we should compare them to ex-soviet and Indian sub-continent submarines - is that what you're saying?

No, I am saying that your statement is baseless, what are you comparing them to? The Collins haven't had any more issues than say the JSF or some of the examples given by Road Warrier.
I think the strength of Australian Industry was how they were improved and are now supported.
The Collins generally hold there own against any comparable conventional submarine IMO.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by cheap

Do a search on Collins class sub incidents, there seems to be many issues for such a "modern" submarine, lucky we didn't lose a few subs and their crew!

Calling them an Aussie widow maker may be a little harsh but they do not have a great track record.

There is no doubt there have been operational problems as well. There was a fire in one, and a burst seawater hose in another (HMAS Rankin I think) which could have been disastrous.

Other vessels have had their fair share of issues. Google Armidale Class Patrol Boat problems for example.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

There is no doubt there have been operational problems as well. There was a fire in one, and a burst seawater hose in another (HMAS Rankin I think) which could have been disastrous.

Other vessels have had their fair share of issues. Google Armidale Class Patrol Boat problems for example.

These examples of poor locally built ships/subs is not helping the pro-Aussie-build argument is it.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by cheap

These examples of poor locally built ships/subs is not helping the pro-Aussie-build argument is it.

Thanks!
Your response confirmed my original impression of the depth of your understanding.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by cheap

These examples of poor locally built ships/subs is not helping the pro-Aussie-build argument is it.

Oh ok. So how about the French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle and its propeller falling off (that's right, falling off) during trials? Or concerns the USN's new you-beaut billion dollar DD-1000 Zumwalt class destoyer being swamped by a king wave because of the tumblehome design of the hull? Startup and teething problems with the new USN Virginia class subs? Superstructure cracking on FFG-7 class frigates? Naval projects globally have their issues because warships are complicated things to design and build.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by cheap

These examples of poor locally built ships/subs is not helping the pro-Aussie-build argument is it.

As long as the ship and crew don't visit Davy Jones' Locker I think teething problems are acceptable.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by cheap

These examples of poor locally built ships/subs is not helping the pro-Aussie-build argument is it.

cool story bro

[burnz]

Collins class..
you blokes need to see this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4

[b0son]

Given the massive cost overruns on the current ship-building programme, it would be a brave government to commit to local manufacture.... or would the sub-builders be a completely different organization?

[Road_Warrior]

Road_Warrior says: choose HDW (German) Type 216 design as it meets spec, is more advanced (on paper) than Soryu class and can carry TLAM off the shelf unlike Soryu class. If ASC can't build 6-8 boats in Australia for $40 Billion or less, then we'll get them built in Germany and ASC can EAD.

[mcnews]

Double post

[pottery beige]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1227090685078

[cheap]

A senate committee (majority being anti-government senators) aided by the AWU who are looking at the prospects of losing memberships and millions in union fees. Business as usual for the usual suspects.

[pottery beige]

you really haven't much of an idea of what's going on

cool

[cheap]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

you really haven't much of an idea of what's going on

cool

Go on, by all means share your wisdom

[mcnews]

Wow who could not know about the Zero..... Slaps forehead....

Anyways, as much as we talk about our O boats etc. going in and taking photos of props.... You have to remember such things in war are suicide missions, pure and simple.

That is the job of a sub, get in and take out the high value unit.

But as soon as the sub attacks, via virtually any means, it is a goner. Once it attacks it outs itself and all the other ships and aircraft around the HVU will prosecute it until death, there would never be any escape.

Thus it is a total loss mission every time in reality when it comes to playing the game for real.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Wow who could not know about the Zero..... Slaps forehead....

Anyways, as much as we talk about our O boats etc. going in and taking photos of props.... You have to remember such things in war are suicide missions, pure and simple.

That is the job of a sub, get in and take out the high value unit.

But as soon as the sub attacks, via virtually any means, it is a goner. Once it attacks it outs itself and all the other ships and aircraft around the HVU will prosecute it until death, there would never be any escape.

Thus it is a total loss mission every time in reality when it comes to playing the game for real.

Last submarine action and sinking of a warship was in 1982. Submarine escaped and returned to base. dive fast, dive deep and get lost in the ocean thermal cline so sonar fails to detect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2480241.stm

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by bungarra

Last submarine action and sinking of a warship was in 1982. Submarine escaped and returned to base. dive fast, dive deep and get lost in the ocean thermal cline so sonar fails to detect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2480241.stm

The Belgrano sinking was the most controversial event of the Falklands War. Many people, both inside and outside the British Parliament said it was an unnecessary use of force - the ship was outside the exclusion zone and apparently sailing away from the Falklands.

I cannot understand the mentality of people who cry "excessive use of force/unfair/illegal" when there is a war on. In a sub versus warship engagement between two parties that are engaged in, you know, frikkin war, especially when it is in the region where all the shooting is going on. What was the General Belgrano doing there? What was HMS Conquerer doing there? They were supporting operations of their respective armed forces. They were both warships.

Imagine what would have been said if the British had gone ahead with their plans to bomb Argentinian naval bases and airbases with their Vulcan bombers.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I cannot understand the mentality of people who cry "excessive use of force/unfair/illegal" when there is a war on. In a sub versus warship engagement between two parties that are engaged in, you know, frikkin war, especially when it is in the region where all the shooting is going on. What was the General Belgrano doing there? What was HMS Conquerer doing there? They were supporting operations of their respective armed forces. They were both warships.

Imagine what would have been said if the British had gone ahead with their plans to bomb Argentinian naval bases and airbases with their Vulcan bombers.

If the Brits could have they would have, unfortunately the Vulcans (even with an armada of planes providing in-air refuelling) just had the range to drop a bomb or two on the unsuspecting Falkland Island airstrip. The physiological message was received...