Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Push to axe Collins subs now, buy European
Aussiegunneragain    10/7/2010 12:44:07 AM
A RADICAL plan is being pushed by a group of senior Australian submariners. It is to retire two Collins-class submarines immediately and fast-track the purchase of four ready-made submarines from Europe. The proposal, which has been sent to both the federal government and the opposition, reflects growing concern among some former senior naval officers that the government's plan to build 12 of the world's most sophisticated conventional submarines is flawed and unrealistic. The proposal comes after Treasury last week urged the federal government to buy more off-the-shelf weaponry. The former submariners say that Australia cannot afford to wait until 2025 for the new submarines and must take urgent action to buy off-the-shelf submarines from Europe to progressively replace the under-performing Collins-class fleet. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage No-show by subs slammed The Australian, 5 Aug 2010 It's up to us, says Collins sub boss The Australian, 4 Jul 2010 We all lose if we buy subs off the shelf The Australian, 4 Jul 2010 Torpedo a $400m embarrassment Adelaide Now, 20 May 2010 SA chases submarine billions Adelaide Now, 31 Jan 2010 End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. "Australia should rapidly acquire four locally built military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) submarines to address the submarine availability issue and address the growing capability gap between the Collins-class submarines and the modern submarines proliferating throughout the region," said Rex Patrick, a former submariner who assists the navy in undersea warfare training and who has authored the proposal. "The Collins-class submarine program has been an unmitigated failure and two of the submarines should be decommissioned immediately (the HMAS Rankin and HMAS Collins) -- they are not available anyway, there are no crews for them and maintaining them is placing an ever increasing burden on the navy's budget." The Rudd government's defence white paper committed to building 12 large, sophisticated submarines in Australia to replace the six Collins-class boats from the mid-2020s. The plan to build 12 large homegrown submarines has been costed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute at more than $36 billion, making it the nation's largest ever military project. The government says it is still committed to the controversial plan, but there is growing debate in the defence community about whether such a large, complex and time-consuming project makes strategic and economic sense. Mr Patrick argues it would be cheaper and easier for Australia to purchase proven off-the-shelf submarines from Europe, such as the German Type 214 or French Scorpenes, rather than try to build a new generation of unique, homegrown submarines like the Collins. He said a military off-the-shelf submarine would meet Australia's strategic needs at a fraction of the cost of building a new class of Australian submarine. Under his plan, the first boat of an initial batch of four MOTS submarines would be operational for the navy within five years and the remaining three in under eight years. The first batch would be supplemented by two more batches of similar, but perhaps modified, design in the years ahead.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain    Just a thought   10/7/2010 8:53:20 AM
If we had to settle for smaller subs, could we meet our ISR requirements by fitting one out especially for the task? If we tore out all the torpedo tubes and racks there would be heaps of room for extra accomodation for lingists, EW operators etc, as well as their equipment and any extra generation capacity available. Sort of like an EP-3 of the sea.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Not Sure but?   10/7/2010 3:54:58 PM
Is there any reason that Australia wouldn't be interested in refurbishing a few of the Los Angeles class subs the USN is retiring?...I would think that given the ranges and length or cruises involved an nuclear sub would be better for Australian needs.
Might be cheaper to refuel, refurbish, and upgrade 10 los Angeles class subs than buying all new ones.
Just my 2 cents.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/7/2010 7:46:48 PM

Is there any reason that Australia wouldn't be interested in refurbishing a few of the Los Angeles class subs the USN is retiring?...I would think that given the ranges and length or cruises involved an nuclear sub would be better for Australian needs.

Might be cheaper to refuel, refurbish, and upgrade 10 los Angeles class subs than buying all new ones.

Just my 2 cents.


That isn't going to happen here, the anti-nuclear lobby is too strong and pretty much own the current government.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/8/2010 6:42:03 PM

If we had to settle for smaller subs, could we meet our ISR requirements by fitting one out especially for the task? If we tore out all the torpedo tubes and racks there would be heaps of room for extra accomodation for lingists, EW operators etc, as well as their equipment and any extra generation capacity available. Sort of like an EP-3 of the sea.

No need, the RAN has modular systems they fit as required without affecting the weapons load out, realestate in the fin for the appropraite masts is a bigger issue.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/8/2010 7:16:58 PM
One of the reasons the Germans lost out in the first place is they underestemated the need for the extra space and hotel load crews require on long deployments.  The Swedes designed the better option for the long range missions specified.  We are talking about people not machines so habitability is a major issue, the smaller the sub the poorer its habitability and the greater the fatigue suffered by the crew.  Also the smaller the crew the greater the level of cross qualification required and the heavier the load on individual personnel, crews currently operate on a two watch, 12 hour on 12 hours off system.
 
I am not adverse to a two tiered buy with a squadron of small coastal subs filling the training and littoral requirements in home waters and a squadron of larger more capable boats (possibly nuclear) covering off the long range strike, ISR, SF, ASW ASVW missions.
 
As a side note the only submarine class to have achieved greater availability and reliability than the Collins class are the RN's four Vangard Class SSBNs as, since their activation, the RN has always been able to maintain one of the boats on patrol at any time.  Other navies rely on greater numbers to keep one available at any time with the ratio closer to ten or twelve boats needed to ensure one can be deployed. 
 
Doing what we have done, with only six hulls, is incredible, factor in that the RAN has barely been able to scrape together two crews since the early 2000s, that half the fleet has been extensively upgraded with a new combat system, weapons and other more mundane but still critical systems while usually maintaining two boats ready to deploy defies belief. Oh by the way, since the mid 2000s one boat has usually been laid up prior to full cycle docking with no work being done on it while another one or two have been in FCD and another in mid cycle docking.  When you hear about only one or two boats being available that is because we are running an effective fleet of two or three hulls in the water not the five plus one in FCD that was planned.  The reason there is a requirement for twelve subs is because we have finally reasised that only six hulls is unsustainable in the long term.  With only six you have no fat / reserve when an issue does arise, as it does with any system in any navy.
 
Quote    Reply

Shawnc       10/9/2010 4:04:51 PM
Oh.. look.. I was google searching for current SSK patrol durations when I stumbled upon this.. by coincidence, a MOTS design for a 3,600 ton patrol SSK just waiting for a navy to call home:
 
 
And look, a white paper on extended patrol SSKs that just happens to use this design as an example:
 
 
Quote    Reply

Shawnc       10/9/2010 4:11:03 PM
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/11/2010 9:52:22 PM

AUSTRALIA'S SUBMARINE CAPABILITY

We have recently seen a blog in the Submarine 2020 Google Group and an article in The Australian that suggested among other things, that two Collins boats be commissioned and that construction be started of a number of ?MOTS? submarines in a shipyard in New South Wales. Unfortunately, this ?idea? was quite widely reported. Perhaps, most disappointing was that the suggestion has been attributed to the SIA.

I wish to assure you that the suggestion is not supported by the SIA and in no way does it reflect the SIA position.

Over the past 40 years Australia has established a well deserved reputation for its effective employment of long range conventionally powered submarines. Its operations are held in high regard by our major Ally, and our regional neighbours look to Australia for advice on submarine matters. At the same time, Australia has developed substantial scientific and industrial capacity to support this capability.

Australia is seen by potential suppliers of submarines and associated systems as a very demanding customer, and the World?s leading submarine designers and builders of conventional submarines have difficulty meeting the Australian requirement. It is well known that this has been achieved at some cost. Indeed, Government has only recently started to come to terms with the cost of maintaining the level of skill and availability it requires.

It is therefore quite worrying that there should be any interest in giving up this hard won capability in an exercise that not only restricts the current submarine force, but also introduces greater risk (a new construction facility and a new (to Australia) submarine design) at greater cost. The suggestion might also be interpreted as a very sad and uninformed appreciation of the dedication and professionalism of today?s submariners.

Australian submarines are a critical part of our maritime strategy. Of necessity, Australia has invested a lot to establish itself at the leading edge of conventional submarine capability. It is very hard to see any benefit to be achieved by giving up that status.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    http://www.submarineinstitute.com/?doc=42   10/13/2010 12:52:23 AM

AUSTRALIA'S SUBMARINE CAPABILITY


We have recently seen a blog in the Submarine 2020 Google Group and an article in The Australian that suggested among other things, that two Collins boats be commissioned and that construction be started of a number of ?MOTS? submarines in a shipyard in New South Wales. Unfortunately, this ?idea? was quite widely reported. Perhaps, most disappointing was that the suggestion has been attributed to the SIA.


I wish to assure you that the suggestion is not supported by the SIA and in no way does it reflect the SIA position.


Over the past 40 years Australia has established a well deserved reputation for its effective employment of long range conventionally powered submarines. Its operations are held in high regard by our major Ally, and our regional neighbours look to Australia for advice on submarine matters. At the same time, Australia has developed substantial scientific and industrial capacity to support this capability.


Australia is seen by potential suppliers of submarines and associated systems as a very demanding customer, and the World?s leading submarine designers and builders of conventional submarines have difficulty meeting the Australian requirement. It is well known that this has been achieved at some cost. Indeed, Government has only recently started to come to terms with the cost of maintaining the level of skill and availability it requires.


It is therefore quite worrying that there should be any interest in giving up this hard won capability in an exercise that not only restricts the current submarine force, but also introduces greater risk (a new construction facility and a new (to Australia) submarine design) at greater cost. The suggestion might also be interpreted as a very sad and uninformed appreciation of the dedication and professionalism of today?s submariners.


Australian submarines are a critical part of our maritime strategy. Of necessity, Australia has invested a lot to establish itself at the leading edge of conventional submarine capability. It is very hard to see any benefit to be achieved by giving up that status.



Two of the SIA's executive are managers in ASC and a bunch of others are employed in related companies. They are hardly an unbiased source.
 
The highlighted statement in particular seems to be a cheap shot - Patrick was a submariner so the implication that he is ill informed about the dedication and professionalism of today's submariners seems very unfair. Just goes to show what monopolists will stoop to to maintain their stranglehold.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    SIA Executive   10/13/2010 12:53:04 AM




AUSTRALIA'S SUBMARINE CAPABILITY




We have recently seen a blog in the Submarine 2020 Google Group and an article in The Australian that suggested among other things, that two Collins boats be commissioned and that construction be started of a number of ?MOTS? submarines in a shipyard in New South Wales. Unfortunately, this ?idea? was quite widely reported. Perhaps, most disappointing was that the suggestion has been attributed to the SIA.




I wish to assure you that the suggestion is not supported by the SIA and in no way does it reflect the SIA position.




Over the past 40 years Australia has established a well deserved reputation for its effective employment of long range conventionally powered submarines. Its operations are held in high regard by our major Ally, and our regional neighbours look to Australia for advice on submarine matters. At the same time, Australia has developed substantial scientific and industrial capacity to support this capability.




Australia is seen by potential suppliers of submarines and associated systems as a very demanding customer, and the World?s leading submarine designers and builders of conventional submarines have difficulty meeting the Australian requirement. It is well known that this has been achieved at some cost. Indeed, Government has only recently started to come to terms with the cost of maintaining the level of skill and availability it requires.




It is therefore quite worrying that there should be any interest in giving up this hard won capability in an exercise that not only restricts the current submarine force, but also introduces greater risk (a new construction facility and a new (to Australia) submarine design) at greater cost. The suggestion might also be interpreted as a very sad and uninformed appreciation of the dedication and professionalism of today?s submariners.




Australian submarines are a critical part of our maritime strategy. Of necessity, Australia has invested a lot to establish itself at the leading edge of conventional submarine capability. It is very hard to see any benefit to be achieved by giving up that status.







Two of the SIA's executive are managers in ASC and a bunch of others are employed in related companies. They are hardly an unbiased source.

 

The highlighted statement in particular seems to be a cheap shot - Patrick was a submariner so the implication that he is ill informed about the dedication and professionalism of today's submariners seems very unfair. Just goes to show what monopolists will stoop to to maintain their stranglehold.





http://www.submarineinstitute.com/?doc=42
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics