New Submarines

[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.

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We did that with outdated o boats too, got in an took photographs of the carrier props turning, but that was so embarrassing it was kept hush hush.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

[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...

[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.

[burnz]

Collins class..
you blokes need to see this.

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

[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 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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Bill M

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

Fell free to provide your answer to the submarine replacement. You do have an answer, don't you? Oh that's right, you're the same guy who thinks Ricky Muir is a brainiac...

[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.

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

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.

Totally, also shows how we struggle to build major capital projects here, especially if its a orphan design.
Our previous US designed and built (except for the last two FFGs) ships (Charles F Adams DDGs and Oliver Hazard Perry FFGs) came with the US parent support through the life of the class.
Oberon Subs were a similar kettle of fish with the UK support through life.

An interesting comparison would be to compare the cost of the last US built FFG04 (Darwin) with each of the two built in Williamstown (Melbourne and Newcastle).. They cost considerably more and took about 2 times longer to build. I remember the unions held Newcastle back for many months with strike action over future employment post build.

I'm all for Australia manufacturing but I don't think we can compete in the world stage with major capital builds.

[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.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by cheap

Fell free to provide your answer to the submarine replacement. You do have an answer, don't you? Oh that's right, you're the same guy who thinks Ricky Muir is a brainiac...

Brainiac? No not quite! The subtleties must have escaped you!
I was hoping you would share some more of your enlightened views of Japanese submarines...

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Bill M

Brainiac? No not quite! The subtleties must have escaped you!
I was hoping you would share some more of your enlightened views of Japanese submarines...

Back to you, why don't you provide some information

Hopefully you'll have information not from Janes, FAS , Wiki or some other generally available source.

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by cheap

Back to you, why don't you provide some information

Hopefully you'll have information not from Janes, FAS , Wiki or some other generally available source.

What, so Janes isn't a reputable resource now?
90% of the worlds Navies would say otherwise.

Do you have any insight on Japanese submarines you want to share?
The Soryu is regarded by most with a clue as the most advanced conventional submarine in the world.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Cashie

What, so Janes isn't a reputable resource now?
90% of the worlds Navies would say otherwise.

Do you have any insight on Japanese submarines you want to share?
The Soryu is regarded by most with a clue as the most advanced conventional submarine in the world.

I never said Janes wasn't reputable. So either you can't read or you deliberately want to verbal people.

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by cheap

I never said Janes wasn't reputable. So either you can't read or you deliberately want to verbal people.

I want to verbal people....?

I agree largely with your original post, I sadly think we need to be looking offshore for the best product for our budget. At this time the Soryu is a good contender.

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Apparently the name of the Jap subs, was the name of a WWII aircraft carrier that launched planes that bombed Darwin.

It would be an absolute slap in the face of our veterans if we purchased them, considering the name was used to "honour" the carrier that killed our people.

Aussies buy mistubishi's and other products from Japanese companies that made arms and war material for Japan in ww2.

The Soryu was sunk anyway, all the big Japanese carriers were.
So the goodish guys won anyway.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by cheap

Back to you, why don't you provide some information

Hopefully you'll have information not from Janes, FAS , Wiki or some other generally available source.

Originally Posted by cheap

I never said Janes wasn't reputable. So either you can't read or you deliberately want to verbal people.

Huh? You appear to not comprehend your own words!

[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.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Bill M

Huh? You appear to not comprehend your own words!

Just provide the information - it is that simple, so hop to it...

[pottery beige]

extremely complex projects, with a definate specific skillset, mindset, even culture? required

building the first type of anything of course you are in for a steep learning curve in all facets of the build (read massive)

would be a shame to have invested all that time and money, learning and building those skillsets etc with no more on going work

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Aussies buy mistubishi's and other products from Japanese companies that made arms and war material for Japan in ww2.

The Soryu was sunk anyway, all the big Japanese carriers were.
So the goodish guys won anyway.

The Japanese named it after the Soryu to honour it. And they have never officially apologised for their WWII attrocities. They just pretend WWII never happened.

Mitsubishi is a brand, they never released a Mitsubishi Zero.

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The Japanese named it after the Soryu to honour it. And they have never officially apologised for their WWII attrocities. They just pretend WWII never happened.

Mitsubishi is a brand, they never released a Mitsubishi Zero.

Yes indeed they did mate..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero