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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain    Submission by Rex Patrick   10/7/2010 12:53:55 AM
>>
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/7/2010 2:25:22 AM

unfort we are going to see more of these articles over the next 10 years.

there are a number of groups who will be promoting their views


the pro german RAN blokes

the pro french RAN blokes 

the newly formed pro spanish RAN blokes

the pro US RAN blokes

the pro British industry RAN blokes

SIA and their view of local industry having priority

ASPI and the current crop of idiots that the public purse is helping pay for....

and finally the pro nuke RAN blokes (some of who include people who actually have driven nukes for other navies and have more of a clue than most of the above.  (and nukes are running last as an option anyway)

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/7/2010 2:59:12 AM
I don't see what is unfortunate over the comments.
 
The Collins was delivered 14 years ago now and Volkodav is always saying about how the Japs replace their subs every 16 years. Even if she hadn't had all the problems that she has had, she is starting to get long in the tooth and a MOTS replacement with the latest German or French sub might be just the thing. Rankin was only launched in 2003 but from what I have read she is looking at being laid up until 2013 for maintenance anyway, so it wouldn't be any loss. In any case, the entire Collins Class is going to be well and truly out of date by 2025. I don't think we can afford to wait that long to replace them.
 
Whatever the case, I just don't like the idea of us going off on another frolic trying to develop a unique solution. The submission in the second post that I made refutes the arguement about us absolutely needing big subs, so I don't think there is really any excuse to not look at MOTS now.
 
Quote    Reply

Shawnc       10/7/2010 3:46:05 AM
Don't see what current or upcoming MOTS platform the RAN could 'buy into' that would suit Australian CONOPS without significant modifications, especially as the Collins class were designed as long range open ocean boats with approximately 1,000 tonnes more displacement than most other conventional subs.
 
Would buying into an existing design mean the RAN intends to give-up or limit Blue Water submarine operations?
 

unfort we are going to see more of these articles over the next 10 years.


there are a number of groups who will be promoting their views

the pro german RAN blokes
Well.. there's those Type 214s that the Greeks couldn't afford..

the pro french RAN blokes 
Unless it's a conventional Barracuda class... -_-
 
the newly formed pro spanish RAN bloke
S-80 would be a good possibility, especially with a tie-in to US systems, although LockMart's involved..

the pro US RAN blokes
What? That recycled Barbel design that's mentioned every few years?
 
the pro British industry RAN blokes
And who can forget the issues with the Upholder/Victoria class the RCN has?

 
Quote    Reply

Shawnc       10/7/2010 3:47:41 AM
Oh.. GF.. I noticed you didn't mention the A27.. guess there aren't any Pro-Kockums RAN blokes...
 
Don't see what current or upcoming MOTS platform the RAN could 'buy into' that would suit Australian CONOPS without significant modifications, especially as the Collins class were designed as long range open ocean boats with approximately 1,000 tonnes more displacement than most other conventional subs.


 

Would buying into an existing design mean the RAN intends to give-up or limit Blue Water submarine operations?


 


unfort we are going to see more of these articles over the next 10 years.





there are a number of groups who will be promoting their views


the pro german RAN blokes

Well.. there's those Type 214s that the Greeks couldn't afford..




the pro french RAN blokes 

Unless it's a conventional Barracuda class... -_-


 

the newly formed pro spanish RAN bloke

S-80 would be a good possibility, especially with a tie-in to US systems, although LockMart's involved..




the pro US RAN blokes

What? That recycled Barbel design that's mentioned every few years?


 

the pro British industry RAN blokes


And who can forget the issues with the Upholder/Victoria class the RCN has?





 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/7/2010 4:02:08 AM

I've worked on 3 of the sub types he talks about.  I've worked on subs in the US, Singapore and Australia,  I was privy to assessments of most of those subs he quotes.

I note with some curiosity that he's quoting mission reqs from the mid 90's on smaller subs when we clearly refuted that both in the private companies I worked with and with some of the countries I worked in.

he has clearly selectively ignored one of the critical reasons why we prefer larger subs in the current climate..

1) larger subs provide real estate for generation - we want the real estate because it means that we can place far more effective combat and sensor suites into them.  Outside of nukes, there's only one other conventional that has the onboard generation to power the sensor and combat suites we seek.  power generation is critical, it impacts on sonar fitout, it impacts on the type and size of sensor and flank arrays.  it impacts upon persistence at range and with a decent warload.

2) we use large subs because critical elements like the torpedoes it takes are designed to be carrier/capital killers, those torpedoes are designed to be able to hunt and kill small subs in the littorals - the traditional argument that small subs advocate use as an advantage.  we took that advantage away a couple of years ago

3) we seek to have common combat and control and fitout capability with our principle partners, it makes cross training easier, it makes exchanges easier, it makes common curricula issues eg perisher more useful and shortens training and development times

If we go MOTS then it should be Japanese as we have the synergies, they have tech that is useful - and we still retain our edge in being able to hunt and kill nukes (like the japanese can)

I would never go near a swedish product again, and we already have a number of projects in place where we got screwed by the french on both capability and costs.

I'd suggest that he has a short memory as he has come from the same areas I have and where the germans basically told uis to get on our bike and made it stunningly clear that if some specific australian companies were involved in co-operation builds then we could go shove it up the nearest fundamental orrifice.  As those companies and more importantly their senior executive are still in place, then any co-op build with the germans is more than a long shot.

I'd heartily support any project though where ministerial interference is kept out and where we have had procurement decisions get compromised because their highest priority was to make sure that most of the work was done in country - and at the expense of capability.  I'm happy to say to anyone left on this forum in 6 years time "I told you so" when some of our bigger projects ferk up.

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/7/2010 4:11:53 AM

Oh.. GF.. I noticed you didn't mention the A27.. guess there aren't any Pro-Kockums RAN blokes...
 

actually I don't mind the swedish subs -but thats only after australian companies (not ASC) fixed up both Collins and the Singaporeans "mini-me's".  

they have the cheek to brag about their subs but ignore the fact that we paid for and fixed them without their help. (layer and sig management issues).

besides that creates another two camps.  those in ASC who think they should be the primary contractor and those in ASC who actually think that they can design subs.

I think you know my views pretty well on this.

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/7/2010 4:19:25 AM

I have met Rex as well, he was at the last SIA Conf on australias future subs for SEA2000

he's also one of many ex sub drivers who have their own view and who even disagree amongst themselves.  eg there are a couple of ex RAN drivers who actually drove nukes in other navies - and they naturally favour larger subs.

just a small point, its far easier to design flexibility into a larger sub than it is in a smaller sub when you are doing transoceanic patrols - its one of the things that the swedes ferked up on when they first designed the collins and gotlands and it was one of the issues that impacted upon gotland cross training in the atlantic with the USN.

as australia plys its patrol trade in 4 different ocean states, cross capability is an issue.


 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/7/2010 6:19:55 AM

Don't see what current or upcoming MOTS platform the RAN could 'buy into' that would suit Australian CONOPS without significant modifications, especially as the Collins class were designed as long range open ocean boats with approximately 1,000 tonnes more displacement than most other conventional subs.


 Would buying into an existing design mean the RAN intends to give-up or limit Blue Water submarine operations?

Read his submission in the second post. He considers that the whole big sub/blue water thing is rubbish and that the smaller subs have the range to do what we want them to.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/7/2010 8:49:47 AM
The latest Japanese subs look like they would be ideal MOT options if the Japanese could be persueded to break their prohibition on defence exports for our benefit. Otherwise we should just accept the limitations that smaller subs impose. Smaller subs can adequately do the most important jobs we need them for in our region, sea denial, protection of amphibous forces against attack by other submarines, recon and specops insertion.
 
We don't need subs capable of tackling nukes or carriers in our current threat environment as there is no chance that we would be fighting somebody who has those capabilities without US involvement (and if we did have to fight a war like that we would be ferked anyway). The better ISR capabilities would be missed but that is a better option than no adequately operational subs at all for years, like we had happen with the Collins class fiasco. That is what would happen if we tried this again as on current form Australian industry just isn't up to the task of pulling this off.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics