Chinese sub trailing US carrier again

[AegisFC]

One of the Aussie subs sunk a USN carrier in war games off the coast of Hawaii a few years back, that is a collins class, which was thought to be obsolete and overly noisy by the time it was commissioned.

It seems you do not know much about naval war games. Do you know what restrictions were placed on the carrier? Do you know if the carrier had to transit a simulated choked point or was other wise was placed in the way of the sub?
It is easy to trot out the periscope pictures and claim "kills" but during war games they are rigged to produce training for both sides.

The Collins class is not obsolete, do some searching on this forum and you will find out just how good they are.

 

[peterAustralia]

hi all,

I have just read a book about the Collins Class submarine project.
Collins class submarine story, steel spies and spin; by Peter Yule and Derek Woolner

The Collins class have good point and some bad points. The book was generally complementary, in retrospect if they went with the German design and not Swedish they would in all probability got submarines that work sooner rather than later.

Some specifics,
The book said that the size of the bow sonar was increased to allow for coverage of the stern. It was assumed that the hullshape would still be quiet, but the new hullshape was not tank tested for quietness! Part of this was the Swedish way of operating, going out a few hours from port and sitting on the bottom, thus quietness at medium speed has never been a priority.

The Collins class was (at time of Hawaii) was very very quiet at low speed, 4 knots and less. At medium speed is was found noisy due to hull noise. There were early problems with the propeller, this was changed to an American one with special tips, additionally the propeller was machine (robot) finished rather than hand finished to give a much quieter setup.

Recently work was been done with fairings and smoothing the bow sonar hull juncture to make hull noise less. So what speed now the Collins class can go at low noise would be nice to know. the aim was 8 knots, whether that was archived I do not know, the book did not say, so the current quiet speed is somewhere between 4 and 8 knots.

A huge issue was the Combat system,
It had 3 versions, the initial , the interim and the final.
in reading the book the origiinal combat system was a massive disaster.

The interim fix which is still in place is some boats is still only so so.

Apparently they have something quite good now (American system) but it is not in all boats yet. Before the interim fix it was amazingly bad, they could barely get out of Port (I think at this time the Oberons were retired, so if we had a war at that time we would have been stuffed!). The book seemed to suggest that instead of The American system a better way to go would have been a system installed in Israeli boats. But because of political reasons they went with USA.

going with USA has plusses and minuses. Minuses was that it was inferior to alternate, plusses was that it allows for greater cooperation with American navy. Now the American navy is just buying commercial off the shelf components for it's new system!


In regards to the Hawaii test the book claimed that this was staged to favour the submarine. Because the submarine was at that time quiet only at low speed, the surface vessels were located close to the submarine so that the sub would not have to go fast to get into shooting position.

As to why the panel chose the Swedish and not German. Apparently the Germans just did not get what the Aust navy wanted. The Navy wanted a big capable submarine with long range. For some reason the German company proposed a smaller than ideal sub. Part of this seems to have been a communication issue. So if the Germans had modified their proposal for a larger sub with more range, then in all probability they would have won the contract as their design was deemed lower risk.

To really really know, just read the book, but at the library because it is expensive!

 

[gf0012-aust]

To really really know, just read the book, but at the library because it is expensive!

actually , I worked on Collins as an initial supplier for hardware for the combat sim software, as a skills analyst sourcing specialist for some of the technology reqs, and finally at the sig management level for an australian technology that has been onsold to a number of other navies - including nukes.

fundamentally the book has a lot of good points historically, but it also missed out on some substantial details.

what was obsolete was that the CPU's available at that time were unable to deal with the architecture and fly by wire systems which are now only just appearing in the 214's and the architecture design which is also now appearing in modern nukes.

at a systems concept level these boats were 15 years ahead of their time.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

actually
what was obsolete was that the CPU's available at that time were unable to deal with the architecture and fly by wire systems which are now only just appearing in the 214's and the architecture design which is also now appearing in modern nukes.

at a systems concept level these boats were 15 years ahead of their time.

I went to rimpac 98 and again in 2000 (Held off Hawaii) the first time was on HMAS Onslow (Oberon class submarine) and then on HMAS Waller.
HMAS Onslow was a 25 year old submarine which managed to sink over half a million tonnes of warships including the USS Blue Ridge and Carl Vinson.
Because of the impact we had on the war games that rimpac the following one we (HMAS Waller) was placed in a out of the way area and we had to actively chase the Aircraft carrier to attact it.
Even if the Ships have to pass thru a choke point that choke point is heavily searched by aircraft and warships before the heavys pass thru.

 

[peterAustralia]

hi

So how did the sub cope when it was posted miles away and had to chase the target in order to get off a shot?

On reading the book, the new quiet speed for Collins class is somewhere between 4 and 8 knots, what information can be realesed publicy about that. I assume this is probably quite sensitive. My understanding was that the Navy wanted the boats to be quiet at transit speed. I assume say they left from Perth/Stirling and go up North somewhere at 8 knots or so they want to remain undetected on their passage up there.

How does/did the interim system in the Collins class compare with the upgraded Oberon combat system. According to the book, the upgraded Oberon combat system was very successful.

In terms of if a large vessel is about to enter a choke point, that this area is first searched with aircraft/smaller vessels. How do you think a Collins class boat would go in being undetected. I assume that the surface vessels would use a lot of active sonar and sonar bouys to try and detect it. According to the boat they could not detect the Collins boat by Hydrophines when it was travelling slowly.

Why do the crew of the Subs leave. Seems a fraction odd to have spent a fortune of building six submarines, and now there is the prospect of having four of them out of the water because there is not enough crew. If the Navy had spent a few million dollars more in keeping submarine crew in service then they may have had a better prospect of keeping 2 billion dollars of Submarines in service as opposed to dry dock.

Are there any other things you are allowed to say about the Collins class. I assume they are much more comfortable with a smaller crew and larger size.

You probably already know this, but I was reading a book and it said that in the 1960s (decade from memory) that the russians delivered 2 diesel boats to Indonesia, however they were both lost to accidents.

regards,
peterAustralia

 

[gf0012-aust]

peterAustralia. you're not going to get any performance data on a public forum. there is an OPSEC issue that has to be appreciated,

However, the majority of any claims seen on the internet are close to being rubbish as submariners (and they're the only ones who have intimate operational knowledge) are just as circumspect if not more silent about capability than special forces operators.

at a technical/engineering level, the issue is the same. we're not going to say much no matter how tempting it is to correct some of the public chatter.

Lofty_DBF's comments are about as much as you will get beyond a RIMPAC USN release (as they're a bit more chatty than ADF on event specifics)

I'd add, that I'm a member of the US Naval Sub League, and I have never ever seen any detailed specs discussed even in a specialist publication that is aimed at submariners and their support peers. If data is not appearing in the "specials" they certainly won't appear in here.

 

[aricho87]

Aussie subs

As i was only staiting the weaknessess of the american carriers and there protection in my last post, it came at no great suprize that a few members got offended at the comments i made on the Collins Class subs.

From my limited knowledge of the subs they had a very taugh start (noisy) to there life which was very expensive to repair and get on track. however after these inital repairs i am actually a big fan of these subs and what they can do, i was merely pointing out another circumstance were an CVBG sub defences was penetrated (and that was in war games).

From my understanding the American carrier was on one side of two islands and the Collins sub had to transition through these two islands (choke Point) to attack the carrier. From what i saw this choke point was full of ASW forces and the collins still managed to confirm a kill.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As i was only staiting the weaknessess of the american carriers and there protection in my last post, it came at no great suprize that a few members got offended at the comments i made on the Collins Class subs.

no harm no foul.

the reason why some of us will react (and eg me), having been personally involved, know that some of the unfortunate rubbish quoted as fact by the media still has currency and is now accepted as fact by the public.

I despise irresponsible journalism, and it irritates me no end when you see "claims" repeated which some of us know were absolute unmitigated rubbish.

eg the first bow section was welded in sweden, it had over 11,000 weld defects which the swedes acknowledged as part of acceptance and review. Yet in sweden you'll see their press blaming the ASC workforce (a bit hard seeing that there were no ASC welders in Sweden). In fact the welds were so bad that No 1 was almost regarded as a engineering "write off". In fact all the deficient welds were rectified in Australia by ASC and ASCE.

Another example is the "rock concert" statement. It was accepted as fact and is quoted ad infinitum even today in the australian press - and yet it was never said and was a legacy of journalistic license.

Rule No 1. Don't trust - verify. and then be silent.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

Boats

Most ASW exercises i have been involved in make it so hard for the submarine to achieve its objectives.
The sub will have to snort and provoke contact with the surface unit or aircraft to help the skimmers try and find us.
There is a very good reason submariners call skimmers Targets.

Why do the crew of the Subs leave.
Because of the continuing decline of the conditions of service that submarine crews are experiencing.
for e.g
More time at sea and a lot less port visits.
Whilst in port sub crews where put up in hotels and paid extra money for food. in Hawaii its about $120 US a day, Sydney $80 Aust all tax free.
what they do now is put you in service accommodation with no meal allowance.
You do your 2 to 3 years at sea and get posted ashore only to be posted back to another submarine again to do it work ups.
This even happens during maintenance periods.
Are there any other things you are allowed to say about the Collins class. I assume they are much more comfortable with a smaller crew and larger size.

Mate there is bugger all I can say about Collins class capabilities and Oberon tactics.
The Collins class boats where a huge improvement over the O boats in habitat and comfort.
But as usually the bigger the submarine the more equipment they jam in there.
So even tho' there is less crew and a lot bigger boat it was still pretty tight.

 

[the road runner]

GF i am wondering why the press dose not talk about the money invested into ASC and how Australia has a World Class submariner facility that has employed an Australian workforce,invested in australian industry and has given the Royal Australian Navy a wepons platform that is well suited to the requirements the navy needs.I.E. long endurance,sensors,intellegence gathering ,deterence .ect....

I am wondering form a tax payers view point how much money Collins and follow on projects will/have saved the Australian Tax payer by not having to source a Submarine from overseas,the maintanance/upgrades beieng done by ASC.
This in itself gives Australia the capability to construct and maintain the Collins class and ensures a larger amount of money will go into the development of an Australian ship and sub building capability.This capability IMHO you cannot put a price on.The benifits far outweigh the cost involved

I think with having the flexibility to construct and build ,the effort gone into traning the workforce i.e project managers,technicians,engineers,this is an asset that australia will benefit not only now but into the future.

Gf i am wondering a few things and i think you are the man that can answer these questions for me if possible?(Thanx in advance)

1.Dose ASC have the capability to "Design'' a new Sub from scratch?I.E from concept to drawing board ,(i know we can construct it)

2.Do you know the cost saved for the Aussie tax payer by having the subs built here? or did the Aussie tax payer loose out?

3.Would Australia ever try to find exports for Collins or subs after collins,or have any navies shown intrest in the purchase of australian subs/technology?

I honestley think that if Australia could find exports for subs or large ships eg frigates(like NZ with Anzac) and destroyers,we would have a sustainable ship building industry,where project managers,engeneers ect are trained and retained.Retention beieng the main issue.

But then again with all the new equipment that Navy will recieve over the comming decade and beyond our ship building industry will have alot of contracts to fulfill.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF i am wondering why the press dose not talk about the money invested into ASC and how Australia has a World Class submariner facility that has employed an Australian workforce,invested in australian industry and has given the Royal Australian Navy a wepons platform that is well suited to the requirements the navy needs.I.E. long endurance,sensors,intellegence gathering ,deterence .ect....

The press is a lot better now than they were 10 years ago - although there are some who still provide rubbish because they're too ignorant to get the facts from any number of credible ssources. For papers it is is "colour and movement" - the same rubbish is now happening wrt JSF

I am wondering form a tax payers view point how much money Collins and follow on projects will/have saved the Australian Tax payer by not having to source a Submarine from overseas,the maintanance/upgrades beieng done by ASC.
This in itself gives Australia the capability to construct and maintain the Collins class and ensures a larger amount of money will go into the development of an Australian ship and sub building capability.This capability IMHO you cannot put a price on.The benifits far outweigh the cost involved

you're expecting broadsheet journalists to be smart and do some homework - good luck on that. Unfort newspaper journos in most countries I've been to have similar issues of research indolence.

I think with having the flexibility to construct and build ,the effort gone into traning the workforce i.e project managers,technicians,engineers,this is an asset that australia will benefit not only now but into the future.

It has across a number of critical vectors

Gf i am wondering a few things and i think you are the man that can answer these questions for me if possible?(Thanx in advance)

do my best, but can't answer in detail for some questions

1.Dose ASC have the capability to "Design'' a new Sub from scratch?I.E from concept to drawing board ,(i know we can construct it)

Yes, they're doing it now

2.Do you know the cost saved for the Aussie tax payer by having the subs built here? or did the Aussie tax payer loose out?

It's more expensive to initially build here - but the contract was established because we wanted to establish a local industry. The benefits outweigh the added costs

3.Would Australia ever try to find exports for Collins or subs after collins,or have any navies shown intrest in the purchase of australian subs/technology?

A number of countries wanted the subs. I visited one as part of a delegation by a private consortium who had provided critical tech paths. A number are using some of the tech developed locally. (3 that I know of, none are up for public discussion)

I honestley think that if Australia could find exports for subs or large ships eg frigates(like NZ with Anzac) and destroyers,we would have a sustainable ship building industry,where project managers,engeneers ect are trained and retained.Retention beieng the main issue.

we could have exported - politics was the killer

But then again with all the new equipment that Navy will recieve over the comming decade and beyond our ship building industry will have alot of contracts to fulfill.

It's not a dead option. In fact, it's more likely than before if the parent company ends up being American

 

[tphuang]

The press is a lot better now than they were 10 years ago - although there are some who still provide rubbish because they're too ignorant to get the facts from any number of credible ssources. For papers it is is "colour and movement" - the same rubbish is now happening wrt JSF

I was thinking the same thing, I couldn't believe some of the junk I've been reading lately regarding su-30 and JSF.