Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

MeatCleaver

New Member
Collins Class - trouble brewing or storm in a teacup?

Font Size:
Decrease
Increase Print Page:
Print EXCLUSIVE: Patrick Walters, National security editor | October 21, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE navy's $6 billion Collins-class submarines face serious operational restrictions after being hit by a run of crippling mechanical problems and troubling maintenance issues.

Some senior engineering experts now contend that the Swedish-supplied Hedemora diesel engines may have to be replaced - a major design and engineering job that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to complete.

So serious are the problems that the Defence Materiel Organisation has put the Collins boats at the top of its list of "projects of concern" - the key equipment issues troubling Australia's Defence leaders.

The Australian understands that in recent times only a single Collins-class boat has been available for operational duties but it is unclear whether this involves more than extended training missions.

Senior Defence leaders are also vitally concerned about the productivity and efficiency of ASC, the Adelaide-based wholly government-owned builder and maintainer of the Collins class.

One senior Defence source characterises the level of concern in senior government ranks about the availability of the Collins submarines as "extreme".

In the recent defence white paper, Kevin Rudd announced that the government would double the size of the RAN's submarine fleet from six to 12 when it came to replacing the Collins-class boats from 2025.

"If you can't do this right, how do you do the next one," observed one senior Defence source last night.

"We spend a lot of money on this core defence capability and they aren't working properly."

Defence Minister John Faulkner and Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet have now demanded monthly updates from the navy and Defence about the operational state of the Collins-class vessels.

ASC, the Adelaide-based builder and maintainer of the Collins class, is now working through a range of mechanical issues affecting the performance of the six submarines with the state of the diesel engines a fundamental concern.

The trouble-plagued diesel engines are expected to last at least another 15 to 20 years before they are progressively replaced by the planned next-generation submarine from 2025.

While ASC believes they can still last the expected life-of-type and has called in a Swiss consultant to advise on a long-term remediation plan, other external experts believe there may be no option but to start planning for their eventual replacement.

The Hedemora diesel engines have never functioned well from the start and there are now real doubts that they are robust enough to see out the life of the Collins boats.

Other mechanical issues include the performance of the electric motors, batteries and generators but ASC sources are confident that these glitches are being satisfactorily resolved.

HMAS Collins is undergoing repairs on its diesel engines and there are temporary restrictions on two other boats while the bands on their electric motors are fixed.

But ASC remains confident that four "operational" boats will be available to the navy early in 2010 while HMAS Rankin and HMAS Sheean enter ASC's Adelaide yard to undergo a "full-cycle docking" - a major refit and overhaul.

ASC has the maintenance contract for the Collins boats worth nearly $200 million and this year is budgeted to spend $330m on maintaining and upgrading the submarines, including the combat system.

But Defence leaders are concerned about the company's ability to efficiently manage the regular full-cycle dockings (FCD) and other lengthy maintenance periods that the Collins boats require. Defence wants to cut the average time taken for a FCD from three to two years, saving at least $60-70m a year, which would be ploughed back into supporting the Collins capability.

ASC has a $3bn long-term through-life support contract for the Collins boats with the DMO which is due to be renegotiated by next March.

Senior Defence sources say there will be three key performance indicators that they expect from the new contract with ASC including an increased availability of boats for operations and a reduced cost of ownership to the commonwealth. "We are concerned with the amount of availability of the boats and the cost of doing the maintenance as well as some of the technical outcomes being achieved," DMO chief Stephen Gumley told The Australian.

"We are working with the company to improve in each of those areas. We hope to have a new through-life support contract for the Collins by Easter next year, which would commence in the financial year starting on July 1, 2010," Dr Gumley said.

"Like any complex asset, there is a series of technical challenges.

"We are working with ASC and external consultants to evaluate some of the challenges that wehave."

A recent external consultant's study of workforce productivity on the Collins boats at ASC's Adelaide yard suggests room for significant improvement.

According to documents obtained by The Australian, the study showed that some mechanical tradesmen working on the Collins boats were idle for much of their time on the shop floor.

One electrical tradesman was present for the entire day but his only role was to insert and remove the fuses for a pressure test. This test took 10 minutes and was held mid-afternoon.

Another electrical tradesman was clocked to have spent three hours and 12 minutes of productive work in a day. "The average efficiency observed (using generous definitions of productive work) was 30 per cent. Over 15 days of tradesperson time across multiple disciplines was observed, and nobody has suggested that theperiod of time we studied was not representative," the consultant report found.

"We believe that an efficiency of 80 per cent should be considered world-class in this environment. This would be a 167 per cent increase in the work output of the current workforce or opportunity for a dramatic cost reduction," the report said.

Ever since they were launched, the Collins boats have been plagued by mechanical problems.

As early as June 1999, a report to the Howard government found a range of serious technical defects in the Collins boats, three of which had been delivered to the navy by that time. These included problems with the diesel engines as well as noise propagation and the performance of propellers, periscopes, masts and the combat system. By far the most expensive fix was the the combat system. The original system never worked and was eventually replaced at a cost of close to $1 billion.

Story Tools
Would be great to get peoples thoughts on th above article - just another storm in a teacup?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I reiterate my prev.

the current executive in ASC need removing.
the current engineers in ASC need retiring

if ASC are to be involved with the 2020 build then they need to be swept clean or only allowed fo build on an established design. all of the australian design fixes have not come from ASC, they've been developed and designed through other australian companies (usually involving ex ASC staff who left in disgust, or with ex submariners)

if we are to partner with anyone it should be the americans so that we can leverage off their management style and abilities.

continuing to have ASC as a prime is a first class WOFTAM.

its time to clean shop.
 

PeterM

Active Member
I reiterate my prev.

the current executive in ASC need removing.
the current engineers in ASC need retiring

if ASC are to be involved with the 2020 build then they need to be swept clean or only allowed fo build on an established design. all of the australian design fixes have not come from ASC, they've been developed and designed through other australian companies (usually involving ex ASC staff who left in disgust, or with ex submariners)

if we are to partner with anyone it should be the americans so that we can leverage off their management style and abilities.

continuing to have ASC as a prime is a first class WOFTAM.

its time to clean shop.
It seems like a good opportunity to look at best options

perhaps if ASC partnered with one of the US companies such as Electric Boat
 

PeterM

Active Member
It seems the ADF is looking to leverage US submarine expertise in some capacity

from US Submarine Industry Visit - Royal Australian Navy

US Submarine Industry Visit

6 October 2009

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, today finalised discussions with US industry on Australia's Future Submarine project that will replace the Collins Class submarines.

"The United States is a leader in the design and development of submarine technology, and I expect that Australia will look to learn from companies like General Dynamics Electric Boat and Lockheed Martin in designing and developing the Collins class replacement," Mr Combet said.

"The Future Submarine will be Australia's largest ever Defence acquisition and the Rudd Government is committed to ensuring that Australia obtains a world leading submarine capability. US technology is likely to be an important facilitator of this capability.

"Electric Boat designs and shares the build of the Virginia class submarines for the US Navy and has been instrumental in driving down production costs to enable the US to increase the production rate of these submarines.

"Lockheed Martin is a major supplier in the US Navy submarine combat system, the Collins Replacement Combat System supplies submarine combat systems or components to Spain and the United Kingdom."

"I welcome the interest from US industry in supporting the Future Submarine project.

"Any US involvement in the Future Submarine would build on the relationships developed with Electric Boat and other US companies in support of the Collins class."

Mr Combet also discussed the ongoing arrangements between ASC and Electric Boat in support of the Collins Class.
 

the road runner

Active Member
I agree with all that. Yet, considering that Australia's Future Submarine. Is still going to be conventional by design. Wouldn't it be wiser to marry up with a country/company that extensive experience with SSK's????
The problem is that most Conventional sub designs are to small is size for Australias needs.Japan being the exception..........

I think it is very wise that The government is looking at Electric boat,General Dynamic,Rayethon as partners in Australias future subs....

As for ASC it seems gfs idea has alot of merit........time to get the broom out and give ASC a sweep i think.A breath of fresh air is needed in ASC.
 

Crusader2000

Banned Member
The problem is that most Conventional sub designs are to small is size for Australias needs.Japan being the exception..........

I think it is very wise that The government is looking at Electric boat,General Dynamic,Rayethon as partners in Australias future subs....

As for ASC it seems gfs idea has alot of merit........time to get the broom out and give ASC a sweep i think.A breath of fresh air is needed in ASC.


Well, has any general information been released on Australia's Future Submarine. That is size, displacement, etc.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Well, has any general information been released on Australia's Future Submarine. That is size, displacement, etc.
One would think the new Australian submarine would be at least as large as the Collins class. Here is a list of some submarines in length and displacement today....

Collins 77.42 metres, 254 feet x 7.8 metres, 26 feet, 3051 tonnes surface
Type 214 65 metres x 6.3 metres, 1700 tonnes surface
Type 209 64.4 metres x 6.5 metres, 1810 tonnes surface
Gotland 60.4 metres x 6.2 metres, 1494 tonnes surface
Scorpene 59.4 m. (compact) 65.4 metres (normal) 76.2 metres (AIP):
1450 tonnes (compact) 1,700 tonnes (normal) 2,000 tones (AIP)
Trafalgar 85.4 metres x 9.8 metres, 4750 tons surface
Rubis 73.6 metres x 7.6 metres, 2400 tonnes surface
Virginia 115 metres x 10 metres, 7900 tonnes

If you want to carry the number of weapons of the USA or UK submarines with long range and long patrols, Australia is going to need a large submarine. I expect the next Australian class of submarines to be larger than the Collins.... which is bigger than a Rubis.
 
Last edited:

Crusader2000

Banned Member
One would think the new Australian submarine would be at least as large as the Collins class. Here is a list of some submarines in length and displacement today....

Collins 77.42 metres, 254 feet x 7.8 metres, 26 feet, 3051 tonnes surface
Type 214 65 metres x 6.3 metres, 1700 tonnes surface
Type 209 64.4 metres x 6.5 metres, 1810 tonnes surface
Gotland 60.4 metres x 6.2 metres, 1494 tonnes surface
Scorpene 59.4 m. (compact) 55.4 metres (normal) 76.2 metres (AIP):
1450 tonnes (compact) 1,700 tonnes (normal) 2,000 tones (AIP)
Trafalgar 85.4 metres x 9.8 metres, 4750 tons surface
Rubis 73.6 metres x 7.6 metres, 2400 tonnes surface
Virginia 115 metres x 10 metres, 7900 tonnes

If you want to carry the number of weapons of the USA or UK submarines with long range and long patrols, Australia is going to need a large submarine. I expect the next Australian class of submarines to be larger than the Collins.... which is bigger than a Rubis.


Sounds like Australia's Future Submarine will be the largest SSK ever constructed? If, true I wonder how large and the type of propulsion?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I agree with all that. Yet, considering that Australia's Future Submarine. Is still going to be conventional by design. Wouldn't it be wiser to marry up with a country/company that extensive experience with SSK's????
I could be mistaken, but there would seem to be a few different schools of thought regarding sub (and other vessels) design. One could place the most importance on the powerplant/propulsion design, or one could consider the mission systems the most important.

While the US does not seem to have current diesel sub propulsion experience, it is inarguable that they have amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced submarine mission systems.

This then leads into the question of whether it is more important to be able to transit to/from the AoO, or a subs ability to complete mission tasks within the AoO. From the RAN's Collins experience, it seemed that the early Collins were ability to transit, but the mission systems were insufficient for the required taskings.

Now, if one were to look for whom could possibly carry out both mission system and diesel powerplant designs, IMO that would just leave the Germans and Japanese. I am uncertain though if either country would be sufficiently capable on their own to be a 'one stop sub shop' as it were for everything the RAN would want in Collins replacement.

My impression of what is desired in the Collins replace is as follows:
  • Long-ranged patrolling
  • Ability to lay mines
  • Able to deliver/retrieve SOF
  • Land attack capability
  • Able to dive to depths comparable to most SSNs
  • Offensive/Defensive capability sufficient to engage SSNs

Several of these would seem to require a fairly large submarine. Given that the Collins SSK is already large for a diesel and does not have the full breadth of the above capabilities, it would seem likely that a future design would be even larger.

-Cheers
 

Crusader2000

Banned Member
Well, nobody has tried to build such a large and complex SSK before??? So, it will be interesting to see what solutions they come up with.;)
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Ooops! :D

Yeah, the "PACSCAT" would have to be scaled up for Oz. I think the RMs don't mind not being able to carry Challengers. We have other ways to get them ashore.
The UK has roll on roll off landing craft for Challanger sized assets, these where specifically designed for Albion & Bulwark, they will also fit in a Bay Class well-deck.. The PACSCAT is the same size as the craft used on Ocean designed for troop movement only.

I believe the UK will be looking at the new Aus boats with interest. A long range, high-tech alternative to large and expensive SSN's may be an option if future budget's restrict the purchase of a third batch of Astutes once six are in the water.

I can't help but think the Collins class has been a bit of a disaster, they have been plagued with mechanical problems since day one. Recent reports claiming that only one out of six boats is operational leaves Australia vulnerable. When the LHP's are in the water , with the operational vessel deployed and escorted by a typical mix of AeW, AsW and a convential sub, you will be be left with no spare boats to conduct independent patrols / missions?
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Well, nobody has tried to build such a large and complex SSK before??? So, it will be interesting to see what solutions they come up with.;)
Quite true. It does beg the question though, as to which part is the most complex? Is it the diesel powerplant and propulsion system, or is it the integrated array of sensors, comms and computers which make up the mission systems? I know which of the two would get my vote as 'most complex"...

-Cheers
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, nobody has tried to build such a large and complex SSK before??? So, it will be interesting to see what solutions they come up with.;)
Probably not accurate to call it an SSK. It might be diesel-powered but capability-wise it sounds to me like it'll have more in common with large fleet submarines than hunter-killers. SSG maybe (assuming they go with the land attack missiles)?
 

the road runner

Active Member
One would think the new Australian submarine would be at least as large as the Collins class.
Agree with this point,and lets not forget the Government wants Cruise missles to be part of Australias future subs......Thus a Larger platform than Collins.......


Also to Add to your list

Harushio class....77m,x10m,x7.75 m Displacement surfaced= 2450 tons,submerged=?
Range is 22,236km(12,000nm) @ 10 knots...

Oyashio class....81.7m,x8.9m,x7.9m Displacement surfaced=2700 tons,Submerged=3000 tons.
Range is Classified,but i would assume its greater than the Harushio

Would/have Japanese Desiel engines ever been looked at for Collins or Collins 2?
Ruddy may be time to ring Japan
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Probably not accurate to call it an SSK. It might be diesel-powered but capability-wise it sounds to me like it'll have more in common with large fleet submarines than hunter-killers. SSG maybe (assuming they go with the land attack missiles)?
My understanding of the designation SSK is that it is a diesel-powered fleet submarine.

As for any Japanese involvement with Australian submarine development, IIRC some nameless members here;) have mentioned some interest in Japanese subs. The Oyashio comes to mind IIRC.

There had/have been some concerns however with restrictions on TOT. From what I recall and understand, there are possible legal restrictions on Japan exporting weapons technology, as well as possible restrictions the US might impose upon Australia as well. The last part I honestly am not certain on, as I do not know what level of involvement the US has with Japanese submarines, if any.

If US tech is already pervasive in Japanese subs and/or mission systems, then I imagine it would not be much of an issue. If, however, most Japanese systems are wholely domestic, then the US might look upon any Japanese partnership as favourably any French involvement. Which is to say not at all.

-Cheers
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
My understanding of the designation SSK is that it is a diesel-powered fleet submarine.
SSK is for hunter/killers, I think. From my understanding the hunter/killer designation revolves predominantly around anti-submarine duties and does not denote significant land attack capability, which I believe the Collins replacements are supposed to have.

Minor quibble though, and happy to stand corrected. :)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
RAN classifies Collins as an SSG. SSK's are almost a redundant classification in modern navies. Older navies with classical conventionals still have them but SSG is what you'll find in most modern navies with conventionals.

Similarly, the Oberons when they were modified were reclassified SSG's. They were the first western conventionals (and certainly the first Oberons) modified for GM attack and with modern fire control systems.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It seems the ADF is looking to leverage US submarine expertise in some capacity
This was being seriously discussed as far back as when I was in Hawai'i in 2004. It's never been hidden. The general public were just not informed by the media as the media had no interest.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If US tech is already pervasive in Japanese subs and/or mission systems, then I imagine it would not be much of an issue. If, however, most Japanese systems are wholely domestic, then the US might look upon any Japanese partnership as favourably any French involvement. Which is to say not at all.

-Cheers
Japanese subs are extant US designs. They're a design variant legacied to the Barbels
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top