RAN Collins class subs: verdict?

[Supe]

As per the topic. This submarine has had quite a few critics, (perhaps justifiably) in its early days. Apart from the noise issue, does anyone else know of other issues that plagued the Collins class?

I understand that the Collins class has come a long way and is considered to be a potent platform. Is criticism levelled at the Collins class still valid? What is the professional verdict on this sub? I understand they performed quite well in an excercise against the USN.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Collins had they're vastly publicised combat control system issues, which have been partially rectified in several "fast-track" subs, but not fully resolved throughout the fleet. The real fix will come on-line over the next few years with the $450 Million replacement combat system, basically being bought off the shelf from the US...

HMAS Collins also had weld problems, which were Kockums fault apparently and cost a fortune to rectify...

The fast-track subs however are performing at high levels and are rated by various knowledgable sources as amongst the most capable subs in the entire world...

Gf, will no doubt elaborate on these and other issues...

 

[gf0012-aust]

As per the topic. This submarine has had quite a few critics, (perhaps justifiably) in its early days. Apart from the noise issue, does anyone else know of other issues that plagued the Collins class?

I understand that the Collins class has come a long way and is considered to be a potent platform. Is criticism levelled at the Collins class still valid? What is the professional verdict on this sub? I understand they performed quite well in an excercise against the USN.

I've actually worked on this project. I'm still involved with subs as I work in acoustic and signature management for sub warfare.

At the risk of waving the patriotic flag on here, these subs are without question the finest large conventional submarine in the world. Their future combat system will be the same as that on the Virginias and Sealwolf's (and some 688I's). Their acoustic footprint is very very low and we've tagged and tapped quite regularly some of the other sub classes that have a higher "public" visibility.

acoustically they crap all over a Kilo and make some of the current euro subs look rather ordinary.

I can't go into much detail re the above, but I can tell you that the sig management technology has been used on a number of foreign vessels - and some of them are rated as stealth platforms.

What has not been pointed out clearly to the public (and it was done for diplomatic reasons) was that the boat with the early problems was the one first welded up by the Swedes.

I attended an Underwater Defence Technology Conf in Hawai'i last October, and every systems company that was there was promoting technology that was used on the Collins as evidence of system capability.

addendum

there is a clear reason as to why the US has been happy to sign tech transfer agreements with the RAN on a number of fronts. We get combat systems, they get signature management. We're both working on new sensor systems and new Mk48 ADCAP versions (Block 70) for littorals warfare. They're also keen on 2 other "stealth" systems we've designed for sub warfare - but to date I don't think official tech transfer arrangments have been made for that.

We're getting enormous access to some of their technology - some of which even the UK is not privy to.

 

[Supe]

Since I've recently acquired an interest in Defence matters, it astonished (and pleased me) to hear that the Collins class is no lemon as some in the media like to perpetuate. The opinion I had was based on the media echo chamber and I felt that the RAN had been shortchanged. Perusing the various military forums, it appears that the Collins has come a long way and evolved into quite a potent platform.

I've seen it proposed by some folks (based on a personal wishlist) that the RAN be equipped with 2 x more of these subs.... unfortunately, I don't see that ever eventuating.

gf0012: has the weld faults in HMAS Collins been rectified? Other than the Collins, is there any other Sub of this class you hold in high esteem?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Since I've recently acquired an interest in Defence matters, it astonished (and pleased me) to hear that the Collins class is no lemon as some in the media like to perpetuate. The opinion I had was based on the media echo chamber and I felt that the RAN had been shortchanged. Perusing the various military forums, it appears that the Collins has come a long way and evolved into quite a potent platform.

A lot of the stuff in the press was severely misinformed. Unfortunately everyone involved was bound by secrecy provisions, so they could hardly come out and rebut the claims. Although the Libs have fixed the problems by intervention, they also single handedly were responsible for a lot of the crap dished out - so they made a rod for their own back.

I've seen it proposed by some folks (based on a personal wishlist) that the RAN be equipped with 2 x more of these subs.... unfortunately, I don't see that ever eventuating.

Actually we should have ordered a second flotilla. As it is we'll just have to wait another 10 years and order the next generation. By that time there may well be American owners of ASC. There has been some very very strong interest by Electric Boat and Northdrop Grumman to get into the conventionals technology, as even if they don't use the boats for themselves, they can start making conventionals for their smaller allies.

gf0012: has the weld faults in HMAS Collins been rectified? Other than the Collins, is there any other Sub of this class you hold in high esteem?

Boat 1 has been fixed. In conventionals I actually have a lot of respect for the Japanese Oyashios, They can outdive every other sub except the nukes. They also have the hull flexibility to undertake meaningful ISR. In subs - size counts. Contrary to popular misconception, its easier to hide a larger sub than a smaller one. It is the one area where Fluid dynamics in sub design is opposite to aerodynamics (where smaller RCS means less likelihood of detection). Smaller subs are excellent transducers - larger subs are able to distribute harmonics in a far more efficient manner. Thats one single but huge advantage for the Collins and Oyashios.

The German 212's (non export models) are also a savage little sub. I don't rate any others close to Collins in mission capability and platform flexibility. They were cold war warrior designs though, they were designed to go to war by themselves and act as long range hunter killers. Even the AIP subs don't have their range or ISR capability.

What small subs don't provide is sufficient power to have complex ISR systems, so they're handicapped in that area. In real terms you could say that we use the Collins like we use the SASr. Long range ISR capable of fighting on their own.

 

[aaaditya]

hey gf how would the scorpene and the amur compare to the collins or the type212.
recently indian naval chief had stated that the scorpene was found superior to the hdw type214 in several aspects(most importantly in terms of flexibility as it was reported that the scorpene can be modified to accept a nuke reactor,can such a modification be made with a collins which you claim to be a larger submarine )
also does collins class have any escape sphere facility lake the indian type 209's have which can permit the crew to escape in case the sub is sunk?
also i would like to know in the indian ocean region or in terms of costal warfare which would be a stealthier platform ,scorpene or the collins?
does the collins have aip?
indians are against aip on their scorpenes as they beleive that the mesma poses logistical problems since the hydrogen required for the fuel has to be stored on land in large tanks making them vulnerable.
whereas i beleive that the deisels suffer from limited underwater endurance so which would be better?

 

[gf0012-aust]

hey gf how would the scorpene and the amur compare to the collins or the type212.

IMO, They don't. and I'm not going to give details. its inappropriate.

recently indian naval chief had stated that the scorpene was found superior to the hdw type214 in several aspects(most importantly in terms of flexibility as it was reported that the scorpene can be modified to accept a nuke reactor,

You've missed out on some of the news then. It was also pointed out very recently that no data or information on the 214 was even assessed. ipso facto the "evaluation team" knew nothing about 214 performance except unclassified knowledge. I'm not going to go into details, but I deal with submarines as part of my work. I know of no current submariners who would pick a Scorpene over a 212. The 214 is an export model. Fitout is "different". I have very very strong views about German sub building capability and consistency as opposed to the Scorpene consortium.

can such a modification be made with a collins which you claim to be a larger submarine )

The Collins is a larger sub. Check the stats. It and the Oyashios are the largest conventionals in the world. Make sure you check submerged displacement if you decide to look the numbers up. As for fitting a nuke powerplant, yes it is possible to fit one instead of the diesel - the issue is more than whether a nuke can be fitted. There are political as well as doctrine issues, in addition there are issues of how we contend with our threat matrix if we were to use nukes. Australia voluntarily withdrew from using nuke power and nuke weapons in 1972. We stopped development of nuclear facilities etc as a legacy of that decision. We are unlikely to even contemplate going nuclear as it would mean a change of attitude in the australian population is required as well. I can't see it being changed for at least a generation.

also does collins class have any escape sphere facility lake the indian type 209's have which can permit the crew to escape in case the sub is sunk?

Of course, we are one of the foundation members signatory to rescuing distressed submarines anywhere it's approp. We have one of the most modern DSRV's built in the world. IIRC the current rescue vehicle is one of the newest available. It is able to rescue from subs with standard escape collars. As you may know. The USA is in the process of rebuilding some 8-10 Indian subs with these standard collars so as to make international rescue possible. Prior to that India had no rescue vehicles and was also unable to have her subs rescued if they were in distress by outside help.

also i would like to know in the indian ocean region or in terms of costal warfare which would be a stealthier platform ,scorpene or the collins?

no comment. but subwarfare is also about systems and training. seatime and quality of training is more important than construction. these kinds of questions make it all too easy for people to start prancing around a table saying "we have the best sib/destroyer/bomber/rockets (insert suitable platform) in the world". As you know, I avoid those direct comparisons as much as possible:

1) because you've seen nhow quickly they deteriorate through patriotic rebuffs
2) I'm not going to give out data which is protected just to support my argument. I'd rather walk away from the conversation and let the other person "win" the argument. It's a pointless exercise.
3) Notionally, the local sub commander should have a tactical edge - that is platform independant. The rest is skill, training and platform capability.

does the collins have aip?

it has internal space available, but after testing it was decided not to fit the system as there was no measurable or demonstrable change warranting inclusion. the AIP system is bolted to a land based test facility. It's not been considered for installtion after tests because there are other systems that are far more important to install.

indians are against aip on their scorpenes as they beleive that the mesma poses logistical problems since the hydrogen required for the fuel has to be stored on land in large tanks making them vulnerable.
whereas i beleive that the deisels suffer from limited underwater endurance so which would be better?

it's also a doctrine issue. re AIP selection, thats a choice for the Indian Navy. I'm not going to comment on issues such as this in an open forum.

 

[Supe]

Has there been interest by other countries to buy a Collins class Sub? One thing that is not clear to me, is who (currently) owns the design? Kockums? Does Australia have any say in the matter if Kockums wish to sell/build more of these Subs?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Has there been interest by other countries to buy a Collins class Sub?

Unofficially yes.

One thing that is not clear to me, is who (currently) owns the design? Kockums? Does Australia have any say in the matter if Kockums wish to sell/build more of these Subs?

The core design is Kockums. That has been a contentious issue as the amount of work done to the class makes it nothing like the original design.

My understanding is that Kockums/HDW have been paid for work done, but they do not have rights to any of the sensor and silence(ing) technology we've designed.

The hull redesign is via the US (note the similarity on the forward sail fairing to a Virginia/Seawolf)

Also the internals have been redesigned as well. The Swedes had nothing to do with any of the acoustic mods made in the last 5 years.

 

[aaaditya]

i beleive reading somewhere that pakistan was interested in the collins class.:coffee

 

[gf0012-aust]

i beleive reading somewhere that pakistan was interested in the collins class.:coffee

good grief, where and why do people make up things like this?? whoever claimed that is obviously not in the mil industry.

I can assure you that Pakistan has never approached anyone in the AustGov to buy the Collins.

and don't ask about any other countries, as I'm not going to say who it was.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The USA on behalf of Taiwan praps?

 

[aaaditya]

well thats a relief well tell me gf should india approach australia for the collins what would be australia's reactions would it be favourable?are the relations betwean the two nations cordial enough?also i beleive the us technology is involved in it .would it be possible to replace it?

 

[gf0012-aust]

well thats a relief well tell me gf should india approach australia for the collins what would be australia's reactions would it be favourable?are the relations betwean the two nations cordial enough?also i beleive the us technology is involved in it .would it be possible to replace it?

The Collins Class wouldn't be sold to anyone in its current form. Even if it wasn't being fitted with some of the US warfare systems we wouldn't sell it with the Australian tech that's been developed. Collins has got its reputation for being a carrier and sub "killer" without the US electronics - they're all future packages - not current. There is no intent to offer the sub to anyone else for further production either. Any future Australian subs will be a different design altogether.

Australia is actually trying to tread the fine line of staying in the middle of Pakistan and India. We trade and have diplomatic relations with both countries and would avoid getting placed in a position of choosing one over the other.

On that basis, we would not be selling any technology which would upset the military balance in any form or fashion. We've gone through grief before with the Mirage 111's - and we certainly won't be exposing ourselves like that again.

 

[Supe]

well thats a relief well tell me gf should india approach australia for the collins what would be australia's reactions would it be favourable?

I don't see why India wouldn't approach Kockums directly.... presumably they still own the IP to boat as it was originally conceived/sold as. (Just checked Kockums website; looks like they have new owners)

Edit: that was an interesting tidbit about the RAAF Mirages. Google reveals they went to the PAF.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/pakistanmiragema_1.htm

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't see why India wouldn't approach Kockums directly.... presumably they still own the IP to boat as it was originally conceived/sold as. (Just checked Kockums website; looks like they have new owners)

Edit: that was an interesting tidbit about the RAAF Mirages. Google reveals they went to the PAF.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/pakistanmiragema_1.htm

kockums are now owned by HDW. India could approach HDW for a swedish solution which fundamentally be a "mini Collins" ie, a Gotland. IMV, India would be better off with the 214 than the Scorpene. Personally I wouldn't touch a Scorpene with a 10ft pole.

Bottom line is that subs need to fit doctrine - and sometimes countries buy subs for the wrong reasons.

 

[alexsa]

The collins class will be an extremely capable platform once the FC issues are addressed. many of the problems have stemmed from decisions made when the platform was first selected. The FC system was quite ambitious but a level of confidence had built up as a result of the RAN experaince with the SFC1 fitted to the SWUP Oberons. Sadly they were a little too far ahead of their time and it never really worked.

One of the qualifying conditions for the selected design was that it was not to be a 'paper boat'. The Collins design was in fact just that beind a scaled up version of a coastal design. The selectionof the design was an ALP decision and had some in the submarine fraterity a bit surprized. I beleive the impact of scaling up was aprtly responsible forthe flow nose issues and has had a few other undesirable side effects such as a very slow dive time (the main vent size is tha same as that fitted to the original design). This is not a major issue when the sumarine is operating in her element but is not as desirable for landing/insertion operations.

Another feature that has a few scratching their heads is the lack of a periscope roundabout (powered seat to slew the search scope) which means watchkeepers have to push the thing around with their legs if maintaining a visual watch at PD. Not great for extended periods. Again this should not be a significnt issue when the boat is operating in her element and the Collins is not likley to spend as much time at PD as the Oberons did.

As indicated at the beginning these are a very capable platform but have takne along time to be fully effective due to waht appear to be some poor decisions in the first palce. On a positive note any future design will hopefully be a beauty if the lessions from the Collins design and construction process have been learnt.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As indicated at the beginning these are a very capable platform but have takne along time to be fully effective due to waht appear to be some poor decisions in the first palce. On a positive note any future design will hopefully be a beauty if the lessions from the Collins design and construction process have been learnt.

Alex, I actually was involved with this project. Some of what you are saying is a continuation of incorrect information in the public domain that is still unfortunately regarded as correct. It is not.

I'm not going to go into some of the finer detail in a forum like this, but some of the problems were due to misrepresentation of capability by the vendor. that in itself led to a significant blow out in rectification. Some of the issues were due to the contract process - a problem that although sheeted home to the govt, was signed off as acceptable by Kockums at the time. The first boat was almost considered for scrapping as the quality of welding on the hull was abysmal - none of the boats welded and made in australia from lay to launch were ever challenged on build quality.

I'm not going to go into the intricacies of the FCS - but I am intimately aware of them. The fact that we are going to the same combat system as the Virginias and Seawolfs (and some 688I's) is an indication of how much the US values the capability of these vessels. In fact. the USN and NAVSEA were critical in identifying design flaws made by Kockums in the first instance.

The most commonly touted document in the public domain is the Prescott Report. Unfortunately, and for security reasons, that document is the least accurate of any publicly available document.

The Govt was quite intent on litigation towards Kockums and Atlas. It was only the intervention of the US via NAVSEA that we managed to get into the detail of how to turn them around. Be that as it may, the stealth management system on these ships is Australian - and we have provided that technology to a few of our allies as well. So the capability of sub silencing on such large conventional subs is not part of the original design.

btw, I'm still involved with this technology and I positively writhe in horror at some of the stories that are presented as fact.

I can assure you that the information in the public domain bears little resemblance to the actual reasons and processes that troubled the Class in its early years. What has become patently obvious to the USN is the difference in acoustic threashhold between the Gotland and the Collins. Gotland is knicknamed a mini-Collins. The development of Gotland was also an issue of disontent as the AusGov was unimpressed that development issues applied to Collins were transferred to the Gotland - and that was seen as an issue of IP circumvention in some quarters.

The subs in the last 3 years are nothing like they were in the beginning. So much so that they are regarded as completely different vessels rather than an iterative improvement.

Just as a side issue - the sig management technology developed for the Collins was applied to the Visby Stealth Corvette when Sweden had them evaluated by the USN.

 

[alexsa]

Thank you for the additional information. I was aware of quality issues with the welding but was not aware it was quite that bad (the stories I heard related to hull penitrations).

Form what I have been told upgraded boats are a very capable platform but it is a pity the problems with the project delayed the full realization of this potential until well after they were in operation.

On the other hand I am aware the athe development of the technolighy to build and equip such platforms is a challenge in itself and, as such, the process (and technological realtionships) should assist in making the construction of a follow class less prone to such problems.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Fomer New Zealand prime minister David Lange was very interested in aquiring but to 4 submarines most likely the Collins class. He did a defence review which basically said New Zealand needs at least 2 friagtes and up to four subs to have the navy it requires. Subs were better for New Zeland we calimed becasue they have better abbilities in doing the anti surface ship warfare they needed.
The reason the deal didn't go through was that be got kicked out of parliament a year later and he didn't get enough time to sign us up.