Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Without getting into all the political crap, I have simple questions about the Collins.

Can Navy meet it's obligation to put the required number of boats to sea to meet 'peacetime' requirements, let alone wartime requirements?

Everything else is irrelevant I believe.

I also believe Navy cannot currently do this and so I believe every possible resource should therefore go into addressing whatever technical or human issue is causing this situation so that Australia actually gets some benefit from these boats...

Whatever potential capability they have isn't being realised whilst they are tied up to a dock somewhere...

 

[Sea Toby]

GF, deleted own text

While I am not even partially informed about this, Coles isn't some knee jerk journalist hiding behind a desk. He pretty much blamed everybody from the government to the navy to the shipyard. I am fully aware that Collins class submarine shouldn't cost four to five times as much to operate as Virginia class submarine. Furthermore, all of the submarines should have seen some sort of operations in the past few years at some point, not half. A nation doesn't buy new submarines to have half of the six anchored at the pier over a period of years. A nation expects them to sail.

 

[aussienscale]

While I am not even partially informed about this, Coles isn't some knee jerk journalist hiding behind a desk. He pretty much blamed everybody from the government to the navy to the shipyard. I am fully aware that Collins class submarine shouldn't cost four to five times as much to operate as Virginia class submarine. Furthermore, all of the submarines should have seen some sort of operations in the past few years at some point, not half. A nation doesn't buy new submarines to have half of the six anchored at the pier over a period of years. A nation expects them to sail.

Not really wanting to step in, but you are starting to sound like one of the f-35 APA/Sweetman/Sprey/Wheeler followers of the "Collins Conspiracy" !!

Really Toby I expected more from you, listen to the subtle "read between the lines" hints you are getting, this is political, has been from the start, will be for the next 35 years plus, depending on the "success" of the Collins II ? Majority of the current issues are not due to the platform but government decisions etc etc etc etc
6 Was never enough, and when you don't even fund 6 from the start, along with a whole raft of other issues and decisions which have been discussed to death since I have been on this site, let alone before I came here, it was never going to work, but as usual nobody seems to see the positives or achievements to date. Anyway:argue

 

[ADMk2]

text deleted by GF
This is my last on this as I'm not sure my anger management is up to par at the moment.

More than fair enough mate, but I can think of no better way to address the bad criticism than getting the boats to sea, meeting the Government requirements for days at sea, providing visible "good news stories" at Rimpac, Bersama Shield and so on and being available for operations as required.

It's not hard to count the number of boats not at sea and argue that bad things are happening and while journos and "academics" can do that, I don't see it going away...

 

[ThePuss]

This has been a very interesting thread which has spanned from the possibility of Largs being sold off, to today with Choules being been commissioned into the RAN. For one I believe it is time to merge this thread with the RAN thread.

Just my 2 cents of course!

 

[Sea Toby]

Not really wanting to step in, but you are starting to sound like one of the f-35 APA/Sweetman/Sprey/Wheeler followers of the "Collins Conspiracy" !!

Really Toby I expected more from you, listen to the subtle "read between the lines" hints you are getting, this is political, has been from the start, will be for the next 35 years plus, depending on the "success" of the Collins II ? Majority of the current issues are not due to the platform but government decisions etc etc etc etc
6 Was never enough, and when you don't even fund 6 from the start, along with a whole raft of other issues and decisions which have been discussed to death since I have been on this site, let alone before I came here, it was never going to work, but as usual nobody seems to see the positives or achievements to date. Anyway:argue

This is just his first review, a preliminary one. I will make up my mind better after reading the second more finished review. I don't believe the subs are lemons, but I do believe after reading this first review the Aussies aren't operating, maintaining, and sustaining the subs correctly. Not enough crew, not enough spares, not enough preventive maintenance, not enough funding, and obviously not enough leadership.

Three crews for six submarines. You are having retention problems. The US Navy has two crews for each of their ballistic missile submarines. Need more be said?

Furthermore, I don't buy west coast home porting is hurting retention either. The US bases half its ballistic missile submarines in Bremerton, Washington a good two nights train travel from Chicago and the midwest, three nights train travel from New York City and the eastern seaboard, four nights train travel from Georgia and Florida. Two thirds of the US population lives east of the Mississippi River. Being based in Bremerton hasn't hurt retention in the USA and Bremerton is on the wrong side of Puget Sound. While Seattle isn't the most isolated area of the US, they lead the US in percentage of flying passengers compared to any other US big city.

 

[ADMk2]

This is just his first review, a preliminary one. I will make up my mind better after reading the second more finished review. I don't believe the subs are lemons, but I do believe after reading this first review the Aussies aren't operating, maintaining, and sustaining the subs correctly. Not enough crew, not enough spares, not enough preventive maintenance, not enough funding, and obviously not enough leadership.

Three crews for six submarines. You are having retention problems. The US Navy has two crews for each of their ballistic missile submarines. Need more be said?

Furthermore, I don't buy west coast home porting is hurting retention either. The US bases half its ballistic missile submarines in Bremerton, Washington a good two nights train travel from Chicago and the midwest, three nights train travel from New York City and the eastern seaboard, four nights train travel from Georgia and Florida. Two thirds of the US population lives east of the Mississippi River. Being based in Bremerton hasn't hurt retention in the USA and Bremerton is on the wrong side of Puget Sound. While Seattle isn't the most isolated area of the US, they lead the US in percentage of flying passengers compared to any other US big city.

Clearly the demographics are exactly the same then...

It is a fact that submarines are not a sufficiently glamorous posting to entice the bulk of the population and those considering or already in RAN away from the East coast and their families and lifestyles therein.

The submariners already get a great salary and employment package, far better than the skimmer crews from what I understand, so throwing more dollars at the problem isn't the answer.

Basing them elsewhere might well be...

 

[Sea Toby]

Clearly the demographics are exactly the same then...

It is a fact that submarines are not a sufficiently glamorous posting to entice the bulk of the population and those considering or already in RAN away from the East coast and their families and lifestyles therein.

The submariners already get a great salary and employment package, far better than the skimmer crews from what I understand, so throwing more dollars at the problem isn't the answer.

Basing them elsewhere might well be...

The US Navy home ports its ballistic missile submarines in a separate bases just for submarines to give submariners a base billet. We did the same with mine countermeasures as well. Without base billets, its difficult for a submariner to reach flag ranks. Without flag rankings subs get ignored. Appears Australia may require a sub only base too.

Throughout the world many navies use their submarines as training aids, i.e. toys for surface ship ASW. Its my opinion submarines should be operated as a separate command with someone in charge accountable. This does not appear to be the case in Australia.

 

[StevoJH]

Sea Toby, with regards to the RAN's retention problems and comparing basing to that of the US.

The RAN bases ALL of it submarines at a single base in Western Australia. This base is located away from all Australia's other major population centres by about 3000km.

A USN sailor based as Bremerton (to use your example) can expect or apply for a transfer to another USN base after their tour ends while still remaining in submarines. If an RAN submariner no longer wishes to live out west they either need to leave the navy or transfer to the surface fleet.

An RAN submariner will spend their WHOLE career in Western Australia, now just 1 or 2 years at a time.

I believe gf and the others have already talked about submarine maintenance etc enough.

 

[hairyman]

I dont know how relevant this observation is, but I dont recall any of these issues when we only had Oberon Class submarines. The men who manned the Oberon submarines would be well up in rank now, or have they all retired?

 

[the road runner]

The Article in DT says that Australia is courting European sub designers from Spain,Germany and France.

Australia courts European firms for submarine fleet | Navy News at DefenseTalk

After reading Posts from you guys i was under the impression we have chosen the American combat system,still looking at engine/battery tech.We will have a greater understanding of what the hull should look like after choosing plant equipment ect.

The above article left me wondering ,if it sounds like we will purchase European.Maybe the article meant we are looking at European gizmos to install on our future subs?


Is it possible to get access to the engines of a sub(without cutting thru the pressure hull) if you install a lift well with a lock out chamber (exit point for spec forces).This would have 3 doors.

1st door has access in the floor(s) of the lock out chamber with removable floor(s) to be able to gain access to the engines for removal/servicing.

2nd door has access to get special forces from the sub,into the lock out chamber,where it is then flooded..

3rd door gives access to the ocean beyond the sub.1st and 3rd door being the same size,to ensure removal of engines

The reason why i ask,is because the Engine of a sub seems like the weakest link.
If Australia could remove engines from the sub and install new engines as part of its service/overhaul,would this not ensure a more user friendly sub?

Engines could then be sent back to Factory to be serviced while serviced engines are re installed in the sub.

Regards

 

[Todjaeger]

Is it possible to get access to the engines of a sub(without cutting thru the pressure hull) if you install a lift well with a lock out chamber (exit point for spec forces).This would have 3 doors.

1st door has access in the floor(s) of the lock out chamber with removable floor(s) to be able to gain access to the engines for removal/servicing.

2nd door has access to get special forces from the sub,into the lock out chamber,where it is then flooded..

3rd door gives access to the ocean beyond the sub.

The reason why i ask,is because the Engine of a sub seems like the weakest link.
If Australia could remove engines from the sub and install new engines as part of its service/overhaul,would this not ensure a more user friendly sub?

Engines could then be sent back to Factory to be serviced while serviced engines are re installed in the sub.

Regards

While a few of the Oz DefPros could answer this better, I would have to say, "No."

IIRC the Collins-class SSG has a trio of GI-Hedemora diesell-electrics and those engines occupy a significant amount of internal volume. This is why on many subs the after third or quarter of the sub is the engine room and related compartments and machinery.

I have attached a picture of the prototype diesel in the Collins-class which conveniently had two men (one of whom might be RADM Hughes) standing immediately in front of it. Remember there are three of these in the sub. In order to completely insert of remove engines of this size, it it a hull cut and weld job. Judging by the photo, the engines appear to be ~3 m height x 3 m width x 5 m long, but these are just rough estimates. Given the size, and that they are engines with moving parts which need to be properly mounted to minimize the acoustic sig, they cannot realistically be swapped in and out via some sort of external hatchway.

BTW with all the recent comments and criticisms offered of the Collins-class and how they have been handled... How much of this has been caused by the RAN, and how much by Gov't decisions, either directly or indirectly?

Crew retention has been an issue for the subs, but it has also been an issue across significant portions of the entire ADF. This retention issue is partially because Australia has had a booming economy unlike much of the rest of the world, with rawmats/minerals exports and the mining industry driving much of this. As a result, if experienced and competent people want a financially rewarding job that might pay better and/or have better lifestyle arrangements such positions are available. With all the RAN subs being based out of FBW (Perth), the only time the familes of sub crews would not need to move to live with the crewmen is if the family already lived in the Perth metro area. Given that Australia has a population of ~22 mil. and the Perth metro area has a population of only 1.7 mil. that does generally mean relocating since most people live somewhere on the east coast. Being 3,000 km away from friends and family is not typically where a WAG would want to be, especially if they have children and the crewmen is away at sea for periods of time. Not something that higher pay alone can solve, but rotating subs between FBE and FBW could help.

Also Gov't might wish to carefully and consistently fund the Collins to provide proper maintenance and upgrades at the appropriate times while making sure that the personnel required to operate and maintain them are retained.

-Cheers

 

[the road runner]

IIRC the Collins-class SSG has a trio of GI-Hedemora diesell-electrics and those engines occupy a significant amount of internal volume. This is why on many subs the after third or quarter of the sub is the engine room and related compartments and machinery.

Sorry Todjaeger ,I meant to say with future engine designs like the cat18. Incorporating a engine like that in our future subs.
They weigh in at 4.7 ton and take up 6.2m cubed in volume.
So i was assuming an opening something like 2 meters by 2 meters approx.

Given the size, and that they are engines with moving parts which need to be properly mounted to minimize the acoustic sig, they cannot realistically be swapped in and out via some sort of external hatchway.

I just wonder ,if an engine could be made that was a drop in unit,light enough to be craned and pallet jacked into position, to the subs engine bays,and having access to the sub via removable floors and internal/external hatch?

Appreciate your previous reply

 

[StevoJH]

Such a hatch would have to create a weakpoint in the pressure hull though, and a rather large one at that.

 

[the road runner]

Such a hatch would have to create a weakpoint in the pressure hull though, and a rather large one at that.

This is what started the hatch idea.Your are probably right about the weak point.
Thanx

File:USS Santa Fe (SSN-763) VLS doors open.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Todjaeger]

Such a hatch would have to create a weakpoint in the pressure hull though, and a rather large one at that.

Not to mention there would still be the need to properly mount the engine, otherwise the acoustic sig of the boat is going to be significant.

Something else to toss into the equation (or is it a question?) is the difference between a marine diesel for something like a sub or a ship, and a standard diesel engine or powerpack. Some of the larger marine diesels can have portions of the engine shut down for efficiency, maintenance or repair, while the rest of the engine still provides propulsion and power. Not sure if such a small engine as a Cat 18 would be able to do the same.

More importantly though, would a Cat 18 be able to generate and deliver sufficient power? The Hedemora's in the Collins-class SSG are VB 210 18 cylinder diesels and are at the upper range of diesel engines which Hedemora puts out (V18 vs. V6) while I cannot confirm, I suspect the power output is at the high end of the range output from Hedemora engines, which puts it around 2,700 kW, v. the 500 kW output from smaller Hedemora diesels.

When I checked the Cat C18 marine diesels which appear to be I6 engines, the C18DITA1 was the one I came across with the greatest power output and that only appeared to have an output of 847 kW.

While this is a bit of an over simplification, that would seem to suggest that in order to achieve the same levels of engine system redundancy and available power generation, that would require 9 - 10 C18DITA1 diesels in place of the 3 Hedemora VB210 diesels. I do not see that as a real improvement in either space or weight.

As for being able to swap the powerpacks, I cannot really see nine or ten externally accessable compartments being a viable option to contain the various power packs. Having that many panels which can be opened would IMO just reduce the effectiveness of various acoustic treatments but introducing the seams needed to access the panels to get into the various engine/powerpack compartments. And there would still be the issue of engine that if/when the powerpacks were installed into the different compartments the proper sound and vibration dampening was done, otherwise engine noise can resonate and reveal the sub's location.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

This is what started the hatch idea.Your are probably right about the weak point.
Thanx

File:USS Santa Fe (SSN-763) VLS doors open.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2m x 2m that's 4m^2. Thing is that's for one engine only and if you have three, then that makes for 3 hatches unless you can manoeuvre the engines by hand in the engine room. I had a perv thru the Oberon that's parked up on the hard at Fremantle and came away with the belief that subs are built for short skinny people similar to skinny hobbits So no room for such manoeuvring. Also comes back to that number and area of the hatchways which would be too large a weakness.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is what started the hatch idea.Your are probably right about the weak point.
Thanx

File:USS Santa Fe (SSN-763) VLS doors open.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those are hatches to the Tomahawk VLS. The diameter of a cannister with a sub-launched Tomahawk is only going to be ~21 inches/ 0.5 m in diameter. More importantly a VLS is not in direct contact with the hull with parts which are moving, except when the VLS is being used. An engine is going to be generating noise and vibration while it is in operation. Also very important since this is an engine, is that there has to be some way to get fuel and oxygen to the engine for combustion. Unless of course the idea is for the powerpack to be a completely 'closed system' with each powerpack containing the engine, fuel and oxygen required. While this is theoretically possible, in practical terms this would make the engine significantly larger in terms of physical dimensions as well as displacement in the sub were to have any sort of reasonable range.

2m x 2m that's 4m^2. Thing is that's for one engine only and if you have three, then that makes for 3 hatches unless you can manoeuvre the engines by hand in the engine room. I had a perv thru the Oberon that's parked up on the hard at Fremantle and came away with the belief that subs are built for short skinny people similar to skinny hobbits So no room for such manoeuvring. Also comes back to that number and area of the hatchways which would be too large a weakness.

Again, with the power requirements for the Collins-class, it looks more like it would be around nine engines required.

As for sub people all being short and skinny hobbits... I really seems to depend on which navy one is in. A friend of mine who is ex-USN served aboard Los Angeles-class SSN's is about 6 ft 3 in and has a stocky build. OTOH he did serve aboard US nuke boats, which are amongst the largest subs out there. They apparently still could get pretty cramped aboard, especially if they just left New London for a long deployment as virtually every available flat space would have cartons of canned goods stacked on it.

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Clearly the demographics are exactly the same then...

It is a fact that submarines are not a sufficiently glamorous posting to entice the bulk of the population and those considering or already in RAN away from the East coast and their families and lifestyles therein.

The submariners already get a great salary and employment package, far better than the skimmer crews from what I understand, so throwing more dollars at the problem isn't the answer.

Basing them elsewhere might well be...

There where retention issues in the O boat days when the subs were home based on the east coast. The requirements of the project that resulted in the Collins class included a reduction in crew size and improved habitability, both aimed to fix the crewing issues of the Oberons.

Personally I believe the lack of critical mass in both the number of hulls and the total number of qualified crew to have far greater impact than many realise. Simply put the RANs submarine arm is not large enough or well enough resoursed to absorb any unanticipated occurances.

 

[Sea Toby]

There where retention issues in the O boat days when the subs were home based on the east coast. The requirements of the project that resulted in the Collins class included a reduction in crew size and improved habitability, both aimed to fix the crewing issues of the Oberons.

Personally I believe the lack of critical mass in both the number of hulls and the total number of qualified crew to have far greater impact than many realise. Simply put the RANs submarine arm is not large enough or well enough resoursed to absorb any unanticipated occurances.

I believe the Australians weren't/aren't prepared to be a mother country submarine builder, the spares problems reveal it. Its hard to sell submarines and export them when you aren't even prepared to stock up on spares for yourself. Therefore I believe it would be wise to buy or license build a sub from another country. At the moment I prefer the German Type 214.

As far as home basing all of the submarines on the west coast, I was under the impression most of Aussie submarine operations were in the Indian Ocean. Most of your shipping trade travels through the Indian Ocean, its where your submarines should be. Moving the submarines to the west coast was a move to improve retention, avoiding longer transits to Sydney. Aussie submariners will have to get used to being based on the west coast or face longer deployments from their families. I don't see a split with some based on the east coast. The nation is having enough problems sustaining their submarine force as it is on the west coast.