Page 1 of 1

RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 09:42
by BsHvyCgn9
Hey guys can you settle a argument i had with a mate? How many Collins class sub's are actually functional ?? He was of the opinion that we only have one operational at any time?? and that HMAS Collins will never be fit for service??

Cheers Bruce (B2) :nuke: :nuke:

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 10:06
by SlatsSSN
Its all a question of manning or to be correct womanning too.
We don't have enough crews.

J

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 10:11
by kerryjames
They are all fit for service but not enough crews for all subs.

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 10:47
by BsHvyCgn9
Thanks Guys! I shall set him right when I catch up with him :D :D

Bruce (B2) :nuke: :nuke:

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 11:13
by SlatsSSN
here's a nice satellite shot of Sterling,
5 Anzacs and 3 Collins Class in at the same time.
You can zoom in on the photo too.

http://www.gearthhacks.com/downloads/map.php?file=7292

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 20:17
by kimwhite
Hi Bruce,
when you talk to your mate you ought to qualify "fit for service" by saying the subs are really only just adequate now, having had many many tens of millions of dollars spent on them over and above their "original" price, simply to get them to work at all.

Most of them have NOT been operational for all their service life due to inbuilt design inadequacies; they have been noisy (poor hull design resulting in turbulence instead of laminar water flow, incorrectly designed propellers, a combat system that simply did not work, and even - as proved by Dechaineux - a mystery failure of a water pipe which almost caused catastrophic flooding and loss of the boat. The cause of the latter incident cannot even be discovered so the maximum diving depth of all the Collins boats has been reduced as a safety measure.

While some people will tell you that Collins are the best SSKs in the world, you have to ask yourself why a class of submarines, the first of which was commissioned in 1996 - fifteen years ago - is STILL having big money poured into them to get them to a standard fit to enter combat today.

The sheer cost over the last 15 years is staggering and the money wasted could have been better spent on surface patrol boats or cheap diesel-powered frigates.

We would have been better off buying the Type 2400 Upholder which, while it did have some design faults that needed attention, was actually a real boat at the time of the Collins purchase and not an "on paper" design. The Type 2400 would have done what we wanted, all of them would have been in the water six years before the first Collins, and would have been substantially cheaper initially AND would not have needed the mega-millions of dollars we have wasted on our Swedish-designed rubbish.

I think even a Kilo class would be better.

Do you get the idea I absolutely loath the Collins subs and everything to do with them? It was inevitable, really, if you knew what "Smiley" Collins was like as a person. My father served with him during WW2 and has some interesting stories about Collins that take the gloss off his reputation, to say the least!
Well, that's my broadside fired. Salvos!!
Kim

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 22:43
by SlatsSSN
kimwhite wrote:Hi Bruce,
when you talk to your mate you ought to qualify "fit for service" by saying the subs are really only just adequate now, having had many many tens of millions of dollars spent on them over and above their "original" price, simply to get them to work at all.


Kim - all new sub programs cost mega bucks. Study the GOA (Govt Accounting Office) reports in the US, and even the home of the most advanced nuclear navy has massive cost overruns from one class of boat to the next - EVEN - when the same hull was used. If the US who build scores of subs at a time and blow the budget it was odds on we'd do the same.

kimwhite wrote:
Most of them have NOT been operational for all their service life due to inbuilt design inadequacies; they have been noisy (poor hull design resulting in turbulence instead of laminar water flow, incorrectly designed propellers, a combat system that simply did not work, and even - as proved by Dechaineux - a mystery failure of a water pipe which almost caused catastrophic flooding and loss of the boat. The cause of the latter incident cannot even be discovered so the maximum diving depth of all the Collins boats has been reduced as a safety measure.



Not true - sure there have been heaps of problems the No.1 problem we touched on however is man power or lack there of. The issues your describing Kim are typically normal for any new sub class.
The diving depth issue and rectification was resolved quite some time ago. That had all the press coverage Kim of a man walking a dog. The old saying in the press is "If it bleeds it leads" there is no news in good news.


kimwhite wrote:While some people will tell you that Collins are the best SSKs in the world, you have to ask yourself why a class of submarines, the first of which was commissioned in 1996 - fifteen years ago - is STILL having big money poured into them to get them to a standard fit to enter combat today.

The sheer cost over the last 15 years is staggering and the money wasted could have been better spent on surface patrol boats or cheap diesel-powered frigates.


Well for what they do Kim they are the best. There also the largest diesel boats in the world. Why? Because the patrol sectors the RAN employs have longer ranges than any other nation on Earth with a non nuclear fleet, which is why Kim an off the shelf boat in 1996 was simply not up to the job. Subs cost lots of money to maintain.

Its not money wasted Kim - its called Defense and whilst some people think that they don't do much so why "waste" the funds, is to really be a little over simplistic of the broader role of defense. And why not frigates, simple, frigates are not and never will be subs.


kimwhite wrote:We would have been better off buying the Type 2400 Upholder which, while it did have some design faults that needed attention, was actually a real boat at the time of the Collins purchase and not an "on paper" design. The Type 2400 would have done what we wanted, all of them would have been in the water six years before the first Collins, and would have been substantially cheaper initially AND would not have needed the mega-millions of dollars we have wasted on our Swedish-designed rubbish.

I think even a Kilo class would be better.



Also not true, even if we forget that an Upholder won't have the range of Collins, and forget all the spec differences, the RCN has spent almost as much on the Upholders putting them right as we have on the Collins. Its interesting Kim that of the lamenting I see people here doing over Collins the Canadians and their press voice pretty much the same complaints about those "so called bargain" Upholders. I guess sub drivers will always be at odds with taxpayers, and quite rightly so! Kilos shorter range again, incompatibility with weps we use, and no way politically to practically acquire them

kimwhite wrote:Do you get the idea I absolutely loath the Collins subs and everything to do with them? It was inevitable, really, if you knew what "Smiley" Collins was like as a person. My father served with him during WW2 and has some interesting stories about Collins that take the gloss off his reputation, to say the least!
Well, that's my broadside fired. Salvos!!
Kim


Yes get the idea mate, - least the dislike is entertaining.
Best
John

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 23:02
by kimwhite
Hi John, looks like we got us a flame war. :clap:
Look, while I respect the amount of knowledge you have with model subs I am quite confident you will never convince myself or anyone else that the Collins Class have been anything but a disaster.

They did not work properly, they cost far more than the original estimates, the RAN were just plain incompetent idiots. They did little better when ordering the FFGs, which were large aluminium boxes on steel hulls which they were told would break, and they did - frequently.

But back to the subs, get hold of RJ Daniel's book The End Of An Era to get some factual insights on the Australian submarine fiasco.

Waste, John, is when we could have spent xx million to get a decent submarine but instead spent xxxxxxxxxx millions to get a worse one.

What we really need are nuclear boats but we cannot afford them.
g'night
Kim

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 23:32
by SlatsSSN
Hey all cool mate,

I have the Daniel book, but I found Steel, Spies and Spin -far less emotive, more factual, and written by authors with no axe to grind. Sorry but RJ Daniel seems like his whole thesis is driven on by an enormous chip on his shoulder.

I'd love nuclear boats, - it also won't surprise you Kim to know that I have a Victoria Class - former Upholder in 1/72 coming my way later in the year.

J

Re: RE: Collins class facts n myths

Posted: 06 Apr 2011 12:21
by BsHvyCgn9
Actually our Naval Defence procurement disasters pale when compared 2 all the stuff ups the US Navy has had in the last decade or so....
1/ Decommissioning and sinking the entire Spruance class ASW DDG's to try an force congress into buying the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class [of which they will now get just 2 ships @ $4-5 Billon+ each+ who knows how much in development $$]
2/ the LCS 1 & 2's designed to replace the FFG7 Perry class neither design is as good Basic FFG, I'd rather have one of the RAN's upgraded FFG's than a brand new LCS !!
3/ spending upwards of $662mill on refitting Big E and then deciding to decomm her in early 2013 to save money!! :crs: :crs:

I'm sure there are some more stuff up's.

Anyhow thanks for the answers Guys!!

Bruce (B2) :nuke: :nuke: