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
gf0012-aust       10/18/2010 12:51:14 AM
just to add, australian companies have provided hull and sig management expertise to 3 regional navies that have had this problem.
 
we are one of the few that know how to fix it...
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/18/2010 1:28:24 AM

just to add, australian companies have provided hull and sig management expertise to 3 regional navies that have had this problem.

 we are one of the few that know how to fix it...


How much did it add to the initial purchase cost of those submarines?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/18/2010 3:51:46 AM


How much did it add to the initial purchase cost of those submarines? 


can't comment on that or the other capabilities that were acquired

I can say however that its not the kind of capability that the US is prepared to share - even with close allies.  They're prepared to assist but not give the tech solution.  The French charge like a wounded bull and its not on the same level as what the US does, and the australian capability is "less" than the French solution.

Ironically for the french, the australian solution has been used by a few countries on french made subs in preference to the french solution. The french are also not keen on sharing that tech, so you pay for it if you want it. Its not a one hit wonder either, until someone manages to economically achieve active cancellation for the entire platform, then everyone (except the US) periodically will have to pay to maintain performance.  Some countries are aggressively trying to find the solution to do it themselves, but the ones that do you can count on one hand.  eg the russians don't have it.  the chinese certainly don't.

IMO, smaller euro subs don't have the range, speed submerged and sensor awareness of what we need for the size of the real estate we patrol and manage.  I did work for a company who's CEO was an ex nuke driver, so having been exposed to the data that he had available (and he is one of the few who actually did tactical missions) then I have no problem admitting to a degree of bias based on the material that we worked with.  Part of our contracts with foreign countries as partners meant that we did see their operating condition data as well. 

if you look at every modern sub program where a nation buys in the capability from a friendly seller - even the "off the shelf" ones which were supposed to save money as they were supposedly cookie cutter designs - every single one has blown out in price.  In capability terms they've provided no advantage. I would bet all the tea in china that a modified singaporean sub would outperform, outfight and outseek a malay Scorpene. The problem with the Sings is that they don't release costings on specific capabilities (subs, specwarries, armour, ewarfare) - but they are prepared to pay for the capability to outpunch a numerically stronger force. 

 
Quote    Reply

C2    With regards to the wonderful US sub tech...   10/18/2010 4:37:35 AM
Didn't we breach they're picket and 'kill' one of their ACs with one of our 'poorly performing' Collins class? In fact I have read that the some in the US consider the Collins class as tactically capable as a Modernized LA class... Which isn't a bad accomplishment considering we had to re-invent the wheel when it came to tiles, glue and combat systems (which we just gave up on and then settled for the AN/BYG-1)...
 
All of this is expensive yes, but when it comes to developing a strong local knowledge base that is leaps and bounds ahead of our region, i would say it is invaluable in the long run, also I have heard some interesting stories about the collin's range, not to mention the crew pets... ;) 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/18/2010 5:41:10 AM

Didn't we breach they're picket and 'kill' one of their ACs with one of our 'poorly performing' Collins class? In fact I have read that the some in the US consider the Collins class as tactically capable as a Modernized LA class... Which isn't a bad accomplishment considering we had to re-invent the wheel when it came to tiles, glue and combat systems (which we just gave up on and then settled for the AN/BYG-1)...

you have to appreciate that they're referred to as "partial prosecutions". ie even though they've done some very speccy things, these are not open ocean training events.  its a proscribed box, with time constraints etc...  thats not meant to diminish the success, but there needs to be a reality check when you talk about subs killing carriers etc in exercises. OTOH, knocking out a USN nuke is a different story, different parameters and more meaningful as the scenarios are much much harder..  I've never heard anyone from USN or ONR refer to them as capable as an LA-I, but without a doubt I've never heard anything but praise. They are one of only two conventionals that has the space and onboard capacity to carry a version of the US nukes combat system. (BYG) 


All of this is expensive yes, but when it comes to developing a strong local knowledge base that is leaps and bounds ahead of our region, i would say it is invaluable in the long run, also I have heard some interesting stories about the collin's range, not to mention the crew pets... ;)  

The Oberons used to run missions out to Vladivostok, the Collins was designed to strike further, sustain longer and be able to basically emulate US nuke sortie cycles.  I don't know anyone in subs past or present who will tell stories in the public domain.  They are by nature a silent bunch.  Even some of the ex oberon drivers I worked with and who are no longer bound by any caveats don't talk to outsiders about what their subs could do because they don't want to raise comparisons about what Collins can do.  The reference to the Oberons running ferrets into Vladivostok only came out because it was released under the 30yr expiry rule a few years back.

The frustrating thing for me is that the high regard that these subs are held with in foreign navies does not seem to register with the public over here, they are without doubt very fine and capable platforms, and considering that we had zero experience, what DSTO and some private australian companies managed to do to turn them into nuke killers is nothing short of amazing.  Unfort subs have become a permanent political football and the capacity to get meaningful intelligent and coherent engagement from both sides of politics is long gone.







 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/18/2010 6:39:07 AM
The term paint trial seems to be used when submariners don't want to talk about what they have just been doing.
 
The biggest issue with the Collins is they didn't take up the option for hulls 7 and 8.  They would have been completed to the same baseline as Rankin an provided more flexibility in maintaining the capability.  i.e. we could have planned and executed maintenence in a more efficient manner rather than having to chop and change to incorporate scope creep and emerging work while still maintaining as many hulls at sea as possible.
 
Six hulls was cutting things too fine. which is why we are now aiming for twelve.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/18/2010 7:21:06 AM

The term paint trial seems to be used when submariners don't want to talk about what they have just been doing.

 

The biggest issue with the Collins is they didn't take up the option for hulls 7 and 8.  They would have been completed to the same baseline as Rankin an provided more flexibility in maintaining the capability.  i.e. we could have planned and executed maintenence in a more efficient manner rather than having to chop and change to incorporate scope creep and emerging work while still maintaining as many hulls at sea as possible.

 

Six hulls was cutting things too fine. which is why we are now aiming for twelve.


We aimed for 10 last time and got six, so we will probably aim for 12 and get 8 this time.

 
Quote    Reply

Shawnc       10/18/2010 8:03:45 AM

if you look at every modern sub program where a nation buys in the capability from a friendly seller - even the "off the shelf" ones which were supposed to save money as they were supposedly cookie cutter designs - every single one has blown out in price.  In capability terms they've provided no advantage. I would bet all the tea in china that a modified singaporean sub would outperform, outfight and outseek a malay Scorpene. The problem with the Sings is that they don't release costings on specific capabilities (subs, specwarries, armour, ewarfare) - but they are prepared to pay for the capability to outpunch a numerically stronger force. 


 
This is something I find quite strange about this whole MOT debate... hands down the Collins subs are superior in all capability to the two MOT designs mentioned, so I don't understand why the RAN would ever want to replace one submarine system with another inferior system.
 
Or worse, once again purchase a platform and sensor suite separately as was done for the Collins.
 
It's exactly like buying a track house from AV Jennings... buy the standard design, and it seems cheap, but add even an additional room like a garage, and they charge you through the roof for a 'customization' package. Sub-contract out your kitchen to a kitchen designer, and you run into fitting issues like having to move the electrical wiring to fit your new lighting plan...
 
 That there were harsh and costly lessons learned on the Collins is a fact, but that doesn't directly translate into the next design being more costly than buying Scorpenes over a life-cycle. I would think the mistakes learned would be applied and avoid in the future.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/18/2010 8:29:49 AM
As stated in an article in the October edition of APDR another MOTS option, other than those suggested in the regular media, exists, that is the Spanish S-80.  It is larger than the Scorpion or Type 214, incorporates state of the art US systems and has similar range and operational capabilities to the Collins.
 
Not saying it would be a suitable MOTS solution but rather it may be a better / safer option than the Germans or French.
 
Quote    Reply

C2       10/18/2010 8:52:05 AM
A family friend was a sub driver and they're only quiet if they don't know you (trust you)  ;)
Ferrets on the oberons huh? sounds hard to control...
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics