Subs and Carriers

[Jissy]

I have just read (on this site) that Oz is organizing a new stock of subs, to replace the Collins Class, and are leaving things open so as to benefit from developing tech. over the next ten years, that is very good news! However, after the utterly dismal track record in building the Collins, (the first one, on launch was heard in Hawaii by the USA Navy I read), and the construction failure of multiple other areas, not the least of which was the computerised attack system, I wonder whether we should be more careful about going down that route again?

An ex-Navy person told me, for instance, that sub parts were left in the open, and rusted, rendering them next to useless, but they were installed anyway, as no one wanted to get into trouble by reporting it! It was suggested this only added to the noise problems.

Are our Collins subs fully fixed up now? Or are we just pretending and everyone on Earth can still hear them coming?

As for Carriers, should we not be developing a newer, faster, smaller and more stealthy Carrier, which could be of great benefit in peace time as well as in war?

And lastly, why not develop a 'sub transporter', that can dispurse subsurface capable troop transports and tanks, that can be driven up onto shorelines from under the water?

 

[the road runner]

I have just read (on this site) that Oz is organizing a new stock of subs, to replace the Collins Class, and are leaving things open so as to benefit from developing tech. over the next ten years, that is very good news! However, after the utterly dismal track record in building the Collins, (the first one, on launch was heard in Hawaii by the USA Navy I read), and the construction failure of multiple other areas, not the least of which was the computerised attack system, I wonder whether we should be more careful about going down that route again?

An ex-Navy person told me, for instance, that sub parts were left in the open, and rusted, rendering them next to useless, but they were installed anyway, as no one wanted to get into trouble by reporting it! It was suggested this only added to the noise problems.

Are our Collins subs fully fixed up now? Or are we just pretending and everyone on Earth can still hear them coming?

As for Carriers, should we not be developing a newer, faster, smaller and more stealthy Carrier, which could be of great benefit in peace time as well as in war?

And lastly, why not develop a 'sub transporter', that can dispurse subsurface capable troop transports and tanks, that can be driven up onto shorelines from under the water?

We are currentley talking about this topic here.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8810

As some members have stated Australia dose not have the personel to equip a modern aircraft(approx 5000 people)Carrier.

As for Collins,it is a Very capable sub.......dont believe what you read in the newspapers.Read the above link and im sure it will answer some of your Questions.

As for leaving Collins parts stored in elements,i had not hear that one before:hitwall

 

[Jissy]

actually,

the Collins fiasco was well documented, and the costings (over budget) etc had to be tabled in Parliament, it seemed a mixture of incompetance and bad planning that hurt the subs so much, particularly the first three.

As for the Carrier idea, I posed a small scale one, not a full sized one, as I realize our forces are small in size, obviously such an idea would include developing Harrier (jump jet) type aircraft for it.


Just some ideas I floated, to see what people can come up with...

 

[StingrayOZ]

The main problems with collins class has been fixed for a while now. AFAIK the only problem with the class now is manning them. They are either the most or equally the most dealiest conventional sub in the water, and proberly outright hold their own against (in any capability except pure $'s) any type of sub or surface target.

Subs are expensive and difficult to develop. Everyone who makes them has conciderable issues compared to relatively simple surface ships. China, UK, USA, France, germany, Russia. Even off the shelf purchases of equipment have had significant problems (canada, greece, India etc).

Are are getting some *huge* multi role LHD's. They can operate as a STOVL carrier for things like Harriers or F-35B's, some UAV's or as a rotory sea control ship as well as being ships with excellent amphibious capability. Ideally in an ideal world we would suppliment them with a large 40,000t conventional carrier that could operate F-35B's or C's, our current procurement infact would support that asset, we just don't have the cash nor the need to obtain a massive conventional strike carrier (of which none exist right now), besides we should get some experience operating and crewing our LHD first.

 

[Jissy]

The main problems with collins class has been fixed for a while now. AFAIK the only problem with the class now is manning them. They are either the most or equally the most dealiest conventional sub in the water, and proberly outright hold their own against (in any capability except pure $'s) any type of sub or surface target.

Subs are expensive and difficult to develop. Everyone who makes them has conciderable issues compared to relatively simple surface ships. China, UK, USA, France, germany, Russia. Even off the shelf purchases of equipment have had significant problems (canada, greece, India etc).

Are are getting some *huge* multi role LHD's. They can operate as a STOVL carrier for things like Harriers or F-35B's, some UAV's or as a rotory sea control ship as well as being ships with excellent amphibious capability. Ideally in an ideal world we would suppliment them with a large 40,000t conventional carrier that could operate F-35B's or C's, our current procurement infact would support that asset, we just don't have the cash nor the need to obtain a massive conventional strike carrier (of which none exist right now), besides we should get some experience operating and crewing our LHD first.

Thanks again Stingray,
glad to hear the Collins are ship shape now. I remember it was reported they had to enlist the services of a local lad (Melbourne I think) who was expert in designing computer war games and the like, to assist the builders with the Collins attack systems... it sounds almost comical, but all in all, with so many major problems being experienced it left me wondering whether we were being subtley sabotaged by subtle foreign interests.

Anyhoo, also glad to hear we are getting heavy transporters with flight capability.

I still see the need for a range of small scale carriers, for hey then psoe a smaller target and can travel faster, than a large scale carrier.... but I have to admit, ego wise, it would be great having something like the USS Enterprise on our fleet list!! I saw it in our harbour, many moons ago, and that is definitely one impresive lump of floating steel.

cheers

jissy

 

[smellyjocks]

The Collins have been "fixed" for a few years now haven't they? Afterall one did manage to sink an American nuclear sub,support vessel and an Aircraft Carrier in wargames around 2005ish.

I haven't seen it but the ABC had a documentary called Submariners which showed another exercise between a Collins and 3-4 American ships including a Nuclear sub where the Collins was being tailed and tracked for a couple of days then the Americans were meant to back off for a while to let the Collins slip away..The idea was to see if the Collins could covertly enter a canal which was being protected by the American ships... the Americans changed the rules and didnt actually back off but the Collins managed to lose them and successfully breached the canal.

All reports i've read on them say they're almost undetectable and a top notch sub.

As for an Aircraft Carrier, its not just the 5k sailors needed to man the thing, Aircraft Carriers need to be protected by 10-12 ships which even with strong funding and recruitment increases would mean we would still only be able to focus on one point..wherever the Carrier is.

 

[kev 99]

We are currentley talking about this topic here.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8810

As some members have stated Australia dose not have the personel to equip a modern aircraft(approx 5000 people)Carrier.

You don't need 5000 people to crew a carrier, you do need 5000 people to equip a US style Supercarrier.

 

[Jissy]

You don't need 5000 people to crew a carrier, you do need 5000 people to equip a US style Supercarrier.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. In fact, if any of you are old enough, you may remember the Australian carrier, the HMAS Melbourne, which we decomissioned, with the British promise they would sell us the carrier Ark Royal, but then the Falklands came up, and we lost out, no one persued it any longer, however, I wondered why we did not approach the Americans for one.

So, yes, we had a carrier, and we had all the manpower and ship support needed for it.

cheers

jissy

 

[kev 99]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. In fact, if any of you are old enough, you may remember the Australian carrier, the HMAS Melbourne, which we decomissioned, with the British promise they would sell us the carrier Ark Royal, but then the Falklands came up, and we lost out, no one persued it any longer, however, I wondered why we did not approach the Americans for one.

So, yes, we had a carrier, and we had all the manpower and ship support needed for it.

cheers

jissy

At the risk of being pedantic it was Invincible, Ark Royal was still being built.

 

[smellyjocks]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. In fact, if any of you are old enough, you may remember the Australian carrier, the HMAS Melbourne, which we decomissioned, with the British promise they would sell us the carrier Ark Royal, but then the Falklands came up, and we lost out, no one persued it any longer, however, I wondered why we did not approach the Americans for one.

So, yes, we had a carrier, and we had all the manpower and ship support needed for it.

cheers

jissy

Isn't the ADF down 25% personnel wise now than in the 90s? there seemes to be alot more ships back then too which i suspect would have shown the Navy had far more personnel than current levels.

 

[Jissy]

At the risk of being pedantic it was Invincible, Ark Royal was still being built.

Quite right, it was Invincible, marvellous how Wikipedia and the net can clear this up so quickly!

cheers!

P.S. It only used just over a 1,000 personnel too, and the HMAS Melbourne was aobut 1350 personnel, so the chap citing 5,000 must e thinking of the American large carriers I expect.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Are the uk carriers really carriers. There is a massive leap between them and the american carriers and carriers past. We could fit out our LHD as pure carriers if we really wished, but we will get more use as amphibious ships.

Which is all we really used the sydney for after the 50's. And air ops on the melbourne were pretty darn difficult.

Even an american LHD like the wasp is huge in terms of crewing. A nimitz is a floating city airbase.


If we need a carrier after the two LHD are delivered, and the AWD are built, and the subs.. We can seek one then, but really, do we need a strike carrier? Spain and Italy have some nice designs suitable for australia that would add additional amphibious capability.

That said, for our region Tigers will tear things apart. If we do want to get 24 F-35B's and use the LHD as lilly pads or fuelling stops we can do that if we want.

 

[kev 99]

Are the uk carriers really carriers. There is a massive leap between them and the american carriers and carriers past. We could fit out our LHD as pure carriers if we really wished, but we will get more use as amphibious ships.

Of course they are, that's how they were designed and that's what they've been used for, they are admittedly limited by the aircraft they carry as all the Harrier carriers are but that will be changing soon of course.

The two LHDs that Australia are getting are based on the Spanish BPE (Juan Carlos) design.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We are any carrying harriers at the moment? Not all carriers are the same. Super carriers really are on a whole different planet.

Problem with harrier carriers is having aircraft avalible for use. I would like to see Australia get ~24 F-35B's but given how aviation is going to change over the next few years and how teh Tigers in our region are going to be able to do nearly anything we want to do we are better off putting money else where.

 

[Jissy]

"smellyjocks",
yes I guess you are right, about Navy personnel numbers, I know thye are in a big recruitment drive at the moment, my nephew is looking at joining up.

It is one of the two main perennial problems, getting enlistments (without the draft) and money to buy the hardware.

cheers
jissy

 

[Sea Toby]

From the wiki selected sentences:
The Melbourne operated a standard air group of four Skyhawks, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of Skyhawks doubled. Although replaced by the Sea King, two or three Wessex helicopters remained onboard as search-and-rescue aircraft.

Melbourne was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refuelling, crew leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft.

As well as an operational aircraft carrier, Melbourne was Flagship of the RAN. She received this role almost immediately following her 1956 arrival in Australia, and fulfilled it until she was decommissioned in 1982. During her service, the carrier was deployed overseas on 35 occasions, and visited over 22 countries.

Melbourne was the physical and psychological centrepiece of the RAN fleet, and after her decommissioning and lack of replacement, the RAN fell from its position as the most powerful Navy in the Pacific area to sixth most powerful.
=======
While the LHDs can operate F-35s, the Melbourne usually carried 8 Skyhawks toward the end of her career. I would think if Australia decided use one of the LHDs as a light carrier, no more than 15/16 F-35B aircraft would be required. Of course, since both LHDs are similar, the other one could replace one during a maintenance period.

Notice Spain operates 16 Harriers for their light carrier.