Most of the availability issues with the Collins can be traced to a combination of insufficient hulls to do the job, insufficient funding for maintenance, a gross (governmental) underestimation of what was required for maintenance, government failure to follow advice and provide the required money, i.e waiting for things to break instead of proactively upgrading and replacing before failure.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
There was a piece in the Australian today about plans to extend the life of the Collins class subs.
Perhaps Japan's recent brushes with China are softening its policy on exporting defence technology to its allies.
Modern Technology could give Collin's subs a new lease of life
For those who can't get to the full story here is an excerpt.
Perhaps Japan's recent brushes with China are softening its policy on exporting defence technology to its allies.
Modern Technology could give Collin's subs a new lease of life
For those who can't get to the full story here is an excerpt.
King Wally
Active Member
Straight off the bat I really think (from all I've heard) that Australia and Japan should sign a cooperation agreement regarding Sub design and tech. We help them they help us. Not saying one particular model will suit both of us but coperating on the designs and tech of both our future sub fleets sounds like it could hold mutual benifits.
I'm not sure what would be in it for the Japanese.
We need better propulsion and power generation for our submarines and they have it.
What we have that they may desire, may not be ours to share.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think GF alluded to this sometime ago in a roundabout way, in regards to sig management, it seems that Collins needed some rubber tiles that the US did not want share so from what I'm lead to believe DSTO came up with something better. If this is what GF was referring to I'm not sure but it's one possibility.
Of course from a political viewpoint you would have to question whether or not Australia actually wants to be Japan's ally.
I am not sure that Australia would be willing to go to war with China on Japans side.
At the moment the only ally that Japan has is the US.
Of course there is no need for any formal alliance with Japan. In the future there could be economic benefits for both countries in pooling there resources on any future submarine project.
I am not sure that Australia would be willing to go to war with China on Japans side.
At the moment the only ally that Japan has is the US.
Of course there is no need for any formal alliance with Japan. In the future there could be economic benefits for both countries in pooling there resources on any future submarine project.
SamuraiBlue
New Member
Technology, I don't think so but if Australia is willing to throw in an infrastructure development project like the high speed transit link between Sydney and Melbourne utilizing Maglev then Japan will probably bite.
It's a win-win the Australians gets two new technologies, Japan obtains the much required business to keep the two projects going.
the road runner
Active Member
IMHO Australia is an ally of all 3 country's. We had all our C-17 in Japan after the Tsunami/Nuclear meltdown .Experts and equipment was sent to assist Japan,in there time of need and was noticed and appreciated by the Japanese Government.
The RAN has trained with China's PLA-Navy ,that in its self would show a close and trusting relationship,add to that ,China is our biggest economic trading partner.
I would see Australia's role as a mediator between all 3 parties in resolving any disputes.
Japan may be interested in MK-48 Mod 7 CBASS torpedo's ?
Something that the RAN was involved with in developing with the USA.
I recall gf also stating we have some pretty good sensors for our Collins.
@ Blue Samari i am under the impression that Australia only want's drive train/engine tech off the Japanese subs.
Would be good to hear gf's take on this
SamuraiBlue
New Member
JMSDF uses the Type 89 torpedo which is similar to the Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo. Japan also developed and recently placed on line the TYPE12 light torpedo which is an advance version of the type 97 light torpedo which was similar to the mk 50 torpedoes that the US uses. Japan basically has good knowledge on underwater hardware.
As for only going for the drive train I believe it is a bad idea since subs requires an holistic approach in development so to literally balance the boat under all conditions.
unfort what I and a few of the other ADO Personnel know about collins can't be said in an open forum
needless to say that there's a few bizarre assumptions coming up in the press.
there are 4 options, none have been decided on
press speculation is just that - speculation, and most of it is enthusiastic assumption
needless to say that there's a few bizarre assumptions coming up in the press.
there are 4 options, none have been decided on
press speculation is just that - speculation, and most of it is enthusiastic assumption
without deliberately going into details, thats incorrect.
subs get "retuned" for want of a better terminology after refits, rebuilds.
in a prev life its what we used to do when I worked for a sig mgt company.
we do it in Oz, as do the French, Singaporeans, Russians, Brits and Americans
the caveat being that you do it on subs where there is the design flexibility to do so in the first place.
replugging a boat is not difficult, has been done many times and there are subs out there which inherently are best suited to the mod - the majority of in old parlance being "fleet subs"
Collins, Soryu, Oyashio etc are fleet subs
There are 4 options under consideration. None have been decided on
SamuraiBlue
New Member
Use to do some refits of cars during my college day at the automobile club and basically placing a big engine into a small chassis was always a break down waiting to happen. One of the biggest problem is that the chassis is optimized to withstand a certain strain.
Placing a bigger engine had always been a pain since it has different dimensions and weight balance from the original placing stress on different spot requiring enforcements.
At the end the balance is always off making the car not able to perform at optimum performance.
I do not see any difference in my experience tinkering with cars as with subs unless the Soryu/Oyashio class power trains are smaller in dimensions and lighter then the Collins class or the Collins class was designed with intentions of placing a bigger engine at the beginning in mind which I seriously doubt based on similar engineering difficulties and optimization.
Placing a bigger engine had always been a pain since it has different dimensions and weight balance from the original placing stress on different spot requiring enforcements.
At the end the balance is always off making the car not able to perform at optimum performance.
I do not see any difference in my experience tinkering with cars as with subs unless the Soryu/Oyashio class power trains are smaller in dimensions and lighter then the Collins class or the Collins class was designed with intentions of placing a bigger engine at the beginning in mind which I seriously doubt based on similar engineering difficulties and optimization.
Seriously?
cars are not subs, and yes the CoG issues and balance issues, exist, but thats why you have engineers and computer modelling in place
you do realise that the Collins are already modified from their original design intent, and that acoustically retuning the hull has been done before (and lots of times)
how do you think the americans do it with the LA's and their spook subs.?
The design difficulties are exactly the same, and for a sub like Collins, Soryu, Oyashio, its not as difficult as trying to achieve the same thing with a 209/212/214
Its not rocket science if the basic hull design is sound - and Collins is very very good despite what all the screaming cretins in the cheap seats say in the broadsheets etc....
Are you certain there couldn't possibly be significant engineering differences between refitting a car and refitting a submarine? After all, they're not really the same thing, are they? Conceptually I'm sure you could break down a bunch of common points but one is far, far more complicated than the other. So I'd be hesitant to draw comparisons too readily.
King Wally
Active Member
Don't worry Im sure its something they will look at a lot closer then your local street yobbo trying to squeeze a 300kw race engine into their 1998 hyundai excel!
I'll give your point though its certainly a rather complex mission to take on. I have this image now of a Collins with a massive Wing at the back and bonnet scoop slapped at the front, Fully sick!
There are common points.
they both have metal
they both carry people
they both have a centre of gravity
they both have steering and performance issues determined by drivetrain and layout.
after that, they're chalk and cheese - and I bet there are a few ex submariners, maritime engineers and ex industry people in here who under different circumstances would be happy to oblige with detail in a suitable environment.
Public forums? Nope, Non, Nada, Nyet /grin
I'm happy to try and acoustically remap my car, but I'm not sure its the same thing as to when we do it on subs and USV's
SamuraiBlue
New Member
At the end it's about balance. There is not much of a difference in fitting a different engine into a car or a sub. The container or chassis is already built and optimized to a certain engine changing the engine requires modifying the chassis so the balance can be maintained. This is what optimization is, balancing the chassis with the engine. Modifying an already built chassis is not something that can be done easily because of structural limitations and at the end you will have a heavier chassis because of ad-hoc material placed in order to balance the structure making it less then optimal then if you build from the bottom up with the engine in mind.
This is basic structural engineering.
This is basic structural engineering.
- Status