New submarines now Australia's biggest ever military project

Driller

New Member
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/24/2500218.htm

The replacement for the Collins class submarines is set to become Australia's biggest-ever military purchase, blowing the Joint Strike Fighter out of its expensive position of first place.

In an exclusive, the ABC has learnt that the Defence White Paper due in April will confirm more than $25 billion, and possibly up to $35 billion, will be spent on the project.

That is likely to allow the current fleet of six Collins submarines to be doubled.

The first of the submarines is due in the water sometime after 2020, so they are in service when the Collins fleet is retired in 2025.

Former submarine commander Peter Clarke says the expanded fleet will put Australia in the race in a region that is investing heavily in submarines.

"Twelve is many, many times better than six because of the greater flexibility it gives you," he said.

European-designed hulls will house US combat systems in the new submarines, which will be capable of running for weeks without surfacing.

The Navy will be the biggest winner of the multi-billion-dollar Defence shopping list to be released with the White Paper, which reflects the priority the Prime Minister gave to sea power last year.

The Minister has appointed Rear Admiral Rowan Moffitt to ensure sonar, combat and design secrets make it to Adelaide where American technology and European hulls will again be combined at the Australian Submarine Corporation shipyard.

Flawed history

The original fleet of Collins Class submarines was part of an ambitious plan to take Australia's Navy well into the 21st Century, replacing the Oberon class submarines.

However, the Collins Class have not been without their problems, with the project experiencing significant design and construction delays.

Although originally a fixed-cost contract, because of later upgrade specifications, the submarines' total cost snowballed to over $6 billion as of 2000, compared to the $3.9 billion stated in June 1987 by then prime minister Bob Hawke's government

Initially, the Collins Class leaked more than 300 litres per hour. This was eventually corrected to 3 litres.

The metal that was used in the propeller had not been thoroughly tested and was brittle and inadequate.

And the vessel's sound signature was not correct; it was noisy and could not adequately avoid detection.

The first of the submarines, HMAS Collins, was commissioned on July 27 1996, with HMAS Dechaineux, HMAS Farncomb, HMAS Rankin, HMAS Sheean and HMAS Waller all following in the years after.
 

the road runner

Active Member
GREAT NEWS INDEED:)

I thought we would design our own sub hulls,but the article states that we will purchase a European Design.Hope they are wrong and we do design an evolved COLLINS 2 .

ASC has the capability to design a sub hull,and i would think that the money would be better spent by designing the sub in Australia.The European Design will be built by ASC ,but i am wondering why we, will not/can not, design this new sub in Australia?

White Paper is due out in April
Looking very good for Navy:D
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
GREAT NEWS INDEED:)

I thought we would design our own sub hulls,but the article states that we will purchase a European Design.Hope they are wrong and we do design an evolved COLLINS 2 .

ASC has the capability to design a sub hull,and i would think that the money would be better spent by designing the sub in Australia.The European Design will be built by ASC ,but i am wondering why we, will not/can not, design this new sub in Australia?

White Paper is due out in April
Looking very good for Navy:D
umm, I wouldn't be taking that article as gospel. there is no requirement to buy a european hull at all

we will be buying some euro fitout - but we definitely have not committed on a euro hull - and I would suggest that we won't for a number of reasons.

it's very very early days. ignore the press as they're jumping to lots of conclusions and without foundation.
 

macman

New Member
So we are talking about over $2 billion per sub minimum???

A little steep for diesel sub's, no matter how fancy - that's the cost of the new US nuclear Virginia class submarines.

You can pick up 3 Scorpenes or Type 214 sub's for about $1.2 billion.
 

Unicorn

New Member
Not that much actually.

It includes the R&D and development costs for a completely new class of submarine, budgetted 15 years out, in a time of rapid technological change involving new sensor technology, propulsion and battery advances and UAVs.

Given the rate of inlation that afflicts military projects world wide, I think they're actually being rather modest.

Unicorn
 
Last edited:

enghave

New Member
So we are talking about over $2 billion per sub minimum???
Sum of $2bn per boat in $AUD, not $USD.

Sum of $25bn AUD is approximately $16bn USD, a per boat cost of $1.3bn USD, which makes sense for diesel/electrics.

But a lot of things can happen in 15 years.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
A billion a boat in USD is about right..

Owing and operating a cutting edge submarine fleet isn't cheap, and developing one costs even more. Look at the RN sub fleet, the USN, the french etc.. Even diesels cost big money, if you want them to be any good.

But if its anything like collins evolved into then they are exactly what we need. Anything that is easy proberly isn't worth doing, I just hope we have all learned lessons from collins (procurement, media, design, management, contracts, technology etc) and can apply them to the new boats.

Buying boats off existing manufacturers isn't always a good idea either (look at Canada!).



Scorpenes or 214 are not suitable for Australia. They would be less capable than the current Collins boats. We need long endurance blue water diesels of which there is nothing really out there.

12 sounds like a bold build, hopefully 6 will be located back at FBE.

If the navy gets the 2 LHD (1 current under construction), 4 AWD (3 currently agreed on) and 12 subs while still maintaining and later build additional frigates (as replacements) then the RAN is doing quiet well indeed. Double the tonnage? Infinately more capable ships. Some sort of fleet plan comming together with sustainable marine industry? Lets hope so!

Combined with a new F-35/F-18 SH RAAF with C-17 and hopefully some herc/bou replacement and a well sorted RAA, Australia will have an impressive defence force. Definately a major regional power, and big enough to have significant clout internationally. With capabilities only avalible to us through the UK or USA previously.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Based on current reports (The Australian) only three Collins class are available for sea due to chronic crew shortages, how the hell is Australia going to find the manning for twelve? According to reports , submariners feel undervalued by the rest of the Navy, with a significant number looking to leave.

The only hope is that the Oz Government is planning to build twelve unmanned submersibles or a highly advanced design requiring absolute minimum crew levels or else we will see a white elephant fleet moored at Garden Island.
 
Last edited:

Jon K

New Member
Based on current reports (The Australian) only three Collins class are available for sea due to chronic crew shortages, how the hell is Australia going to find the manning for twelve? According to reports , submariners feel undervalued by the rest of the Navy, with a significant number looking to leave.
Well, you can always rig a global economic crisis which means that a military career is suddenly much more popular... ;)

Back to the issue, if it wasn't for certain pecularities, wouldn't a Japanese design suit Australian particular needs best? Their SSK's are large and suitable for open water operations. Despite arms transfer problems there's a large part of components which could be exported.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Back to the issue, if it wasn't for certain pecularities, wouldn't a Japanese design suit Australian particular needs best? Their SSK's are large and suitable for open water operations. Despite arms transfer problems there's a large part of components which could be exported.
There are quite a few in Japan who'd love to have a technical relationship involving Collins and the Oyashio upgrades.

Me? I'd do it in a heartbeat. Those things can poke a nuke boat at depths that other conventionals would start to trigger stress frame alerts....

It's the only other conventional that I see as competitive for our mission sets.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The only hope is that the Oz Government is planning to build twelve unmanned submersible or highly advanced designed requiring absolute minimum crews or else we will see a white elephant fleet moored at Garden Island.
The next sub will not be your traditional sub - and there are some very very tricky technologies that australia and a few of our allies are trying at the USV level. by 2025 those systems will be deployable and probably mature before the subs are even slipped.

traditional sub design is well on the way out.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The next sub will not be your traditional sub - and there are some very very tricky technologies that australia and a few of our allies are trying at the USV level. by 2025 those systems will be deployable and probably mature before the subs are even slipped.

traditional sub design is well on the way out.
A very interesting statement. Could you please elaborate in detail?
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Well looking at recent trends, ASTUTE for example, the hull size is much larger than its predecessor, but the manning levels have decreased. I'm convinced this trend will continue as technology continues to evolve.

A large hull brings to the table a greatly increased weapon load. Again using ASTUTE as an example 38 (Tom/Torp/Harpoon) vs 18 on the new French Barracuda class. Even if Aus sticks with Diesels, the bigger the better in my humble opinion, particularly if they plan on conducting long patrols and/ or intend having a large area allocated for SF personnel and associated paraphernalia.

Hopefully they will learn lessons from the US & more recently the UK and build the sub's vertically in sections. Apparently this proved a real bonus, using gravity to install the internal subsections rather than tying to 'stuff a sausage' in the horizontal position.
 

BLADE135

New Member
Hi guys,

Just like to say this is great news about the submarines. But would like to add that the Collins Collins Class Subs and there crews have turned out to be a great conventionally powered team and have done us proud.

Hopefully we will be able to man them all, even with the technology that would help to reduce the need for manpower.

Do you think that ASC will get the contract to build them?


:)
Blade135
 

Jon K

New Member
There are quite a few in Japan who'd love to have a technical relationship involving Collins and the Oyashio upgrades.

Me? I'd do it in a heartbeat. Those things can poke a nuke boat at depths that other conventionals would start to trigger stress frame alerts....

It's the only other conventional that I see as competitive for our mission sets.
May I ask that do you mean that Japanese subs are only competitive to current Collins-class, or do you mean that in future SSK acquisition there would be some other suitable candidate?

New Japanese Soryu-class seems large enough for anybody, with 4200 ton submerged displacement it's of similar size as smaller, older, SSN's (Rubis: 2600tn, Alfa: 3200tn, Swiftsure: 4900tn). It also has a Stirling-engine for AIP.

But as Australian sub project is quite far into future, let's speculate about it. I, with my ignorance will start with what could be seen.

Armament:

1.) Conventional torpedo tubes with reloads (torps, mines, missiles, small AUV's.)

2.) Multi-mission bays similar to Trident-tube arrangement in converted Ohios. Capable of housing some VLS cruise missiles, larger AUV's, special force equipment + insertion vehicles + may be UAV's if they're available. More than one for flexibility.
 

zanzibeer

New Member
As a non-military, completely ignorant civilian, I'm interested in "why subs?". I don't have a problem giving the Navy $25bn - and it will create a lot of new jobs in Adelaide - but do we actually use submarines for anything?

Given our military's role in the last decade seems to include a lot of peace keeping, conducting operations in countries like Afghanistan (which isn't exactly submarine territory) and border patrol (I watched Sea Patrol :)), are submarines really that practical?

The AWD's that ASC are currently building seem a lot more practical (and cheaper IIRC). Why not buy a hundred of those, or an Aircraft Carrier?
 

Lofty_DBF

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Submarines do alot of different tasks such as training up other fleet and air units in anti submarine warfare.

gather intelligence;
undertake surveillance and carry out reconnaissance missions;
monitor the air, land and sea (both above the surface and below); and
act as force multipliers: forcing foreign military to launch several vessels in response to even the threat of a single submarine.

All these roles are carried out regardless of weather we are at war or peace.

read the article below.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-to-the-surface/2006/09/07/1157222265317.html
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Do you really think the Aussies would spend that much out of country? Do you think another shipyard in Australia can build the new submarines? Who owns the shipyard? Isn't the government building new AWDs at this shipyard so they can keep the shipyard workers on the payroll.

Yes, I believe so. Wouldn't make any sense to do all the others and not.
 
Top