RAN Collins class subs: verdict?

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust have you ever, in any thread, on any board, in the history of mankind said RAN crews the same ships with smaller crews than USN? C'mon I'm dying here.

actually, yes. repeatedly. The OHP's, CFA's were all manned below US levels for equivalent ships. I've said it on StratPage, Warships1, 5th Column.

The current discussions re crewing levels in the USN/RAN are being targetted towards a min 20% and probably 30% reduction for an Arleigh Burke sized platform.

We've had the Gibbs and Cox design for at least 5 years that I know of (I saw it at PACNAV 2000) and even then we had a discussion with the designers telling them that the RAN would prefer 20% reductions for identical capability.

The USN has already taken 20% reductions in some of their newer vessels based on some of the work done by the RAN. Commercial vessels sometimes have an 80-90% difference. All of the "western" navies that I know of are trying to rationalise their navies into smaller manning footprints.

 

[alexsa]

Sean, it is unrealist for a maritime nation (we are just that as over 90% of a trade is sea borne) to rely on air power alone. We need a balanced force. If you need 24 hour air coverage by our strike air craft they would soon run out of airframe hours as the transit time would chew up much of the operational time and on task time dimishes (even with 5 A330 tanks operating continously) dwindles markedly the further you get from the coast.

Submarine are remarkable poor at protection of trade but very good at threatening those that attempting to interfere with trade provided they have good intelligence and are correctly positioned.

An air craft operating far from its home base cannot effectively protect trade even with AWACs support if on task time is limited. It must also be recognised that the aircraft may need to be carrying weapons for both anti surface and and anitair warefare (noting it also has to defend the AWACs). In this case the advantages are with the attacker. There are a couple of countries around here that can employ long range air strike as well as efective surface combat units. If we had no such capability a much less effective force could effective stop sea baorn trade (thye may not have invaded but the impact will be pretty severe even if it was only for a short time)

The AWD and other escorts provide very credible defence. When used in conjucton with land based airpower iwhen in range) this greatly increase this capability.

Actually the most effective way to maximise the capablity of the aircraft is to put them on a flat top with an AEW system to allow maximum flexiblity of employment, short reaction time and maximum time on task.

 

[seantheaussie]

I believe someone around here mentioned problems with the FFG UP, bt nothing official has been released about it. I'd be interested if someone could provide some info on this?

It was me. For a couple of days I've been trying to find my source & I HAVE DONE IT! For some reason my computer currently refuses to cut & paste from the link so I can only give you the web page
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:mxjyPPFXx2UJ:www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/555F03062BE2B6B7CA25700B0077785A/%24file/Audit%2520Brochure%252045.pdf++site:www.anao.gov.au+anao+%22hmas+sydney%22&hl=en

 

[seantheaussie]

Sean, it is unrealist for a maritime nation (we are just that as over 90% of a trade is sea borne) to rely on air power alone. We need a balanced force. If you need 24 hour air coverage by our strike air craft they would soon run out of airframe hours as the transit time would chew up much of the operational time and on task time dimishes (even with 5 A330 tanks operating continously) dwindles markedly the further you get from the coast.

Submarine are remarkable poor at protection of trade but very good at threatening those that attempting to interfere with trade provided they have good intelligence and are correctly positioned.

An air craft operating far from its home base cannot effectively protect trade even with AWACs support if on task time is limited. It must also be recognised that the aircraft may need to be carrying weapons for both anti surface and and anitair warefare (noting it also has to defend the AWACs). In this case the advantages are with the attacker. There are a couple of countries around here that can employ long range air strike as well as efective surface combat units. If we had no such capability a much less effective force could effective stop sea baorn trade (thye may not have invaded but the impact will be pretty severe even if it was only for a short time)

The AWD and other escorts provide very credible defence. When used in conjucton with land based airpower iwhen in range) this greatly increase this capability.

Actually the most effective way to maximise the capablity of the aircraft is to put them on a flat top with an AEW system to allow maximum flexiblity of employment, short reaction time and maximum time on task.

Anyone who sinks raw materiels going to US, japan, Korea OR China is now fighting US, Japan, Korea OR China. The main job of the ADF is to deter an invasion not fight against an invasion therefore subs attacking capabilities are perfectly servicable. I have said for every $3 I spent on subs I would spend $2 on frigates/destroyers & $1 on amphibious/command ships which does not indicate relying on air power alone.

 

[alexsa]

Anyone who sinks raw materiels going to US, japan, Korea OR China is now fighting US, Japan, Korea OR China. The main job of the ADF is to deter an invasion not fight against an invasion therefore subs attacking capabilities are perfectly servicable.

Not strictly true. Declaring a martime exclusion zone would stop trade dead if you cannot provide a credible defence (the insurance companies wouel do this not governments).

In so far as the main job of defence is concerned is to protect Australias interests and this is not limited to stopping invasions. It includes such roles as intervening in failed states, peace keeping and our of area active operations. For this Australia need a balance of assets to maximise force projection and undertake policing roles. the ADF has been pretty streached and lots of submanrines and aircraft at the exclusion of a balance of other assets would have done little to help.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Not strictly true. Declaring a martime exclusion zone would stop trade dead if you cannot provide a credible defence (the insurance companies wouel do this not governments).

In so far as the main job of defence is concerned is to protect Australias interests and this is not limited to stopping invasions. It includes such roles as intervening in failed states, peace keeping and our of area active operations. For this Australia need a balance of assets to maximise force projection and undertake policing roles. the ADF has been pretty streached and lots of submanrines and aircraft at the exclusion of a balance of other assets would have done little to help.

Exactly. Australia has a limited defence budget, but significant defence requirements. A balanced force is what's required not wishlists. I don't express a preference for any major capability over others, they are all equally important, particularly within the structure of the "Joint" ADF they are trying to build today. If I was to, I'd argue that the Army requires greater funding at the expense of the other services.

The other services have benefited greatly with the development of relatively advanced capabilities, whilst the Army has languished thanks to the extremely limited role assigned to it by Mr Dibb. Unfortunately the Army has been (as ALWAYS) the most heavily deployed and used service of the 3.

Despite the recognisance of this problem if Australia were deployed in a shooting war within the next 3 months, the best land force it could raise would be a force of 5 battalions supported predominantly by short ranged LIGHT artillery, (with NO precision strike capability whatsoever) a small force of 30 year old (though 45 year old design) tanks and partially mounted in un-upgraded 40 year old plus APC's.

The rest of this miniscule force would be travelling in unarmed and unarmoured Unimogs and landrovers. Some would be moved in relatively capable helo's, but the requirements on our "35" strong force of Blackhawks would be tremendous with our world class specwarries ALSO expected to use the same force!!! A small part of this force could be protected from air attack by VERY short range SAM's, though if this war occurred in 6 months from now, they'd have to bring our Rapiers out of retirement, because their pedestal mounted replacements the RBS-70's won't arrive until 2008-9 (and the Rapiers will be gone by November). No part of our force could be protected from stand-off weapons because THAT project was canned to fund an overdue tank replacement program...

I could go on, but I think everyone can see my point...

 

[Supe]

AD: It seems logical to me, that it is much wiser to be able to deter and prevent forces from getting here. In which case investing in more Subs, surface combatants and ensuring Orion fleet remain capable is Australia's best defence.

Just on Air Defence capabilities: that's pretty damn shortsighted to have that sort of gap! I suppose the theory on that is, if it did come to a shooting war, Australia would time enough to purchase quantities of the RBS-70's. I did hear it mentioned, that Sweden is a somewhat unreliable supplier though...

 

[knightrider4]

Excuse me AD but there was an article in the Adelaide Advertiser from Mr Hill the dill from up the hill that Australia was to purchase a new generation GBAD.Heard anything about this? Is it simply more RBS-70'S.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It's a bit off topic, but additional RBS-70's have been ordered to replace our Rapier SAM's. We currently operate a single battery of RBS-70's and a battery of Rapiers. Eventually we'll have 2 of RBS-70's (110 and 111 Air Defence Battery, 16 AD Regt), but we still won't have a medium or long range SAM system, which is a glaring deficiency IMHO.

Yes for DOA tasks, it makes sense to destroy enemy forces before they get to Australia, but as per our most recent White Paper and a simple observation of history, DOA taskings are the most unlikely task for the ADF. Deploying off shore whether it be for combat operations, or peace-keeping missions, is THE most likely task for the ADF. Another such a deployment will be seen soon, with the inevitable Army deployment to Afganistan.

The question then becomes, should our forces be designed for DOA or "coalition warfare"? And really belongs in another forum...


Getting back ON topic, I think the RAN's sub force is going from strength to strength. The Collins verdict from me then is an above average at present, moving towards a high achievement with the Collins upcoming Fire control upgrades, the selection of the Mk 48 ADCAP Mod 7 and other enhancements.

On a similar topic, does anyone know if the Collins "Sub-Harpoon" missiles are to be upgraded to Harpoon II standards as part of the ADF wide Harpoon II upgrade ? This would give the Collins some sort of "land strike" capability for the first time...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Excuse me AD but there was an article in the Adelaide Advertiser from Mr Hill the dill from up the hill that Australia was to purchase a new generation GBAD.Heard anything about this? Is it simply more RBS-70'S.

Everyone I know in DMO says that they're just getting more 70's. There is no proposal or RFT for SAMs

 

[Aussie Digger]

A project to acquire a medium to long range SAM (ground based air defence in ADF lingo) system for the Army was slated in the 2000 White Paper, (Land 18) but promptly canned and forgotten about (just like the 120mm self propelled mortar project) in the Defence Capability Plan update in 2004.

Additional RBS-70 units and portable radar systems (including IFF) and the new Bolide missile have subsequently been ordered to fill out our existing Very low level air defence missile capability within 111 AD Bty and to re-equip 110 AD Bty when the Rapier system is retired in November 2005.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Additional RBS-70 units and portable radar systems (including IFF) and the new Bolide missile have subsequently been ordered to fill out our existing Very low level air defence missile capability within 111 AD Bty and to re-equip 110 AD Bty when the Rapier system is retired in November 2005.

bloody hell, I forgot all about Bolide! (and so have they apparently!)

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Whats wrong with the collins subs?

 

[alexsa]

Originally Posted by Jason_Kiwi
Whats wrong with the collins subs?

In so far as their capabilities ars concerned; not much, particularly after the FCS is replaced. This does not mean they are useless now rather theya re about to undergo a siginficant capability upgrade that puts them in the forefront of current technology.

This does not mean the design cannot be improved as scope does not exist for improvement, far from it. As I said earlier developing the technology to build these platforms is a major undertaking and now that Australia has done it I look forward to any follow on plafrom with interest.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In so far as their capabilities ars concerned; not much, particularly after the FCS is replaced. This does not mean they are useless now rather theya re about to undergo a siginficant capability upgrade that puts them in the forefront of current technology.

Just a little hint. Collins is getting the same combat system as what is in the Virginia/Seawolf and some of the 688I's. No other navy will have access to that combat system.

This does not mean the design cannot be improved as scope does not exist for improvement, far from it. As I said earlier developing the technology to build these platforms is a major undertaking and now that Australia has done it I look forward to any follow on plafrom with interest.

A variation of the acoustic management system on Collins has been provided to some of our allies. That system is now on nukes and has also been installed on a few surface "stealth" skimmer systems. Again that's a technology that is Australian and is very highly regarded. The Block 70 Mk 48 ADCAP is a torpedo that is being co-developed by Australia and the US to fight smaller submarines in the littorals. It is an order of magnitude far more sophisticated than current Mk48 ADCAPs and the Mk50.

At the UDT Conference I attended in Hawai'i last year, USN Acoustic Warfare Officers made it abundantly clear that in their view, it is the most lethal long range conventional sub in the world. One of the delegates made reference to the fact that he had publicly stated 8 years ago that Collins would be the most lethal conventional sub in the world within 10 years - and that this would become apparent when we "sank" one of their nuke subs. We "sank" one of their nukes 2 years ago. So his premise was that we had hit the benchmark 5 years ahead of their predictions.

As for specifics I'm not going to go into further detail - but what I do for a job is acoustic warfare management for subs and stealth skimmers.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

so there is nothing wrong with there combat systems?

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Collins Class subs combat system never really worked as originally advertised. They were simply trying to push the technological envelope too far and were never able to get it exactly right.

In the end the Australian Government signed a $455 million project to replace the combat system with a developed version of that fitted to the US Navy's Seawolf/Virginia Class subs and some of the Los Angeles Class as pointed out by GF. This is underway now and should be achieved by around 2008-9, (I think).

3 Collins Class subs also had a "fast track" upgrade that brought them up to a basically "full" but interim capability until the new system can be brought fully into the fleet. In addition new Mk-48 ADCAP Mod 7 Torpedo's are being acquired and hopefully an upgraded
Sub-Harpoon missile system.

Is that about right in laymans terms GF?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is that about right in laymans terms GF?

yep. The only real difference is that the USN/RAN co-developed update of the Mk48 ADCAP is referred to as a Block 70.

 

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21500144-31477,00.html

"
Refitted subs now world class

• Patrick Walters, National security editor
• April 04, 2007

AFTER a three-year refit costing more than $150 million HMAS Waller is now the best conventional submarine in the world.

That's the verdict from the navy's submariners after the Waller became the first of the six Collins Class boats to be fitted with a wholly new combat system and a more powerful torpedo.
Close co-operation with the US Navy has meant that HMAS Waller is now equipped with the same combat system installed in America's state-of-the art nuclear-powered Virginia class attack submarines.
"I am extremely confident of the new combat system and the new weapon. The Collins class will be exceptional and in my personal opinion is the best conventional submarine in the world," Commodore Rick Shalders, commander of the RAN's submarine arm, told The Australian.
After inspecting HMAS Waller yesterday John Howard said $921 million had been earmarked for the upgraded combat system and new torpedo for the Collins class submarines.
The latest improvements come on top of hull modifications and new propellers to reduce noise, and the installation of new communications equipment including new masts for high speed data transmission.
Mr Howard said the key to delivering the higher capability boats had been "unprecedented" access to US submarine technology.
But manning the Collins boats remains a major planning headache for the Navy with the first of the class, HMAS Collins, having to be used for training new submariners before it can be put to sea fully crewed later this year.
The manpower shortages have seen the submarine force plan to spend 397 days at sea this year (an average of 88 days per available submarine) compared with 490 days at sea (113 days per boat) in 2005.
Labor's defence spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon, said last night the reduced number of submarine days at sea flowed from the Government's failure to respond quickly to workforce shortages.
"They should have seen this coming. As a result our submarine capability has been reduced and our national security undermined," Mr Fitzgibbon said.
Mr Howard said the government had earmarked more than $100 million for a review navy seagoing and submarine service allowances and was committed to recruiting and retaining high calibre submariners."



Apologies to those non Australians who are sick and tired of reading about the 'best conventional subs in the world'

The Australian taxpayer has had to shell out some serious $ though to get them though.
So how long does the RAN plan on keeping them before upgrading to the next type of sub?
The recent defense agreement between Australia and Japan I would imagine, raises some interesting possibilities regarding future cooperation in such areas. (Although I have to admit I have no idea of the scope of the agreement and whether any such cooperation would fall within it)

I wonder what time line the Japanese might have for the introduction of a future submarine type and how does this fit with the RAN's?



rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

Geez. I wish Patrick Walters would get a real job insted of coming with these half assed comments.

Collins Mk2 is already being planned and has been under review for he last few years.

I'd love to see us do some co-op work with the Japanese using the Collins "Mk2" proposals and the upgraded Oyashios.