RSN Launches AIP Archer Sub,submerged endurance min 14 days
-
Australian Collins-class Submarine within seconds from sinking ...
Creatures of the deep (life on Australia's Collins-class submarines)
-
2.why did Sg Ty compare ST Eng with Oz in sub building?
The history of oz sub building is not a very glory chapter in oz ships building.
Yes,i admit SG is few generations behind oz in sub building.
I am glad the ST management dunt wear this big hat.
Is it a shame that oz ,a 21 million country,cant get enough crews to man
6 subs?Is it a shame that only one or two or three subs can sail?
I am not talking can fight a war,just to sail.Understand?
Sg Ty could tell me the history of Oz CV..........
3.Have oz learnt fr WW2 lesson?
a U boat reached Oz !!
-
Too bad you don't want to believe the good news, your news is wrong.
Collins is one of the best SSKs in the world.
Go and read:
HMAS Sheean had "held its own" during two rigorous weeks of combat trials off Hawaii with the Los Angeles class attack sub USS Olympia. The two subs swapped roles as hunter and prey and scored roughly equal numbers of hits. During its mock attacks on Olympia and on two US destroyers, Sheean fired 28 torpedoes. The chief-of-staff of the Australian Navy's submarine force reported that "a respectable percentage of shots Sheean fired at Olympia were hits that would have destroyed the powerful US vessel."[9] In the RIMPAC 02 exercises, playing a 'rogue' submarine Sheean penetrated the US Navy surface unit screen to ‘sink’ both the amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa and dock landing ship USS Rushmore.
Sinking a 688I class SSN as well as penetrating the advanced ASW screen of the USN is indeed no mean feat, no surprise you failed to mentioned it in here given how selective you are about your articles.
In any case the Aussies are smarter then you, the only way to get an SSK suited for their open water needs is to build one themselves and get the experience from it for the simple reason no SSK class in the world really suits what they need. What they created in the Collins is expected of a first-generation design with teething problems but eventually they got pretty competent at it. Navies around the world anknowledge the Collins as a very capable SSK and it seems that it is that all you have in your pocket is trying to put a spin to any media article you can scrounge up, which is kind of sad.
I could actually list the problems we had with our own-made systems just like you, like how the SAR-21 was quite a piece of junk when it was first issued and plenty of things didn't work as advertised, not to mention hated by the SAF soldier... of how the Primus was rendered "partial blind and crippled" during it's first few tests with the grunts because of undiscovered problems and what else. But unlike you I have some common sense that militaries generally experience problems with new systems, but the experience is more then worth it.
-
The role of seeking and destroying an enemy submarine is one of the most difficult faced by Australia's six new Collins class submarines. The success off Hawaii in August has boosted morale dramatically among submarine crews who have had to endure years of hearing their boats condemned as noisy and vulnerable.
A 1999 report by the then CSIRO chief, Malcolm McIntosh, and former BHP managing director John Prescott said the Collins' combat system should be junked, the vessels were noisy and vulnerable to attack, their engines broke down regularly, a badly shaped hull and fin made too much disturbance when they moved at speed under water, the view from the periscope was blurry, the communications system outdated and the propellers were likely to crack.
Commander Steve Davies, chief-of-staff in the navy's submarine force, said that during the past three years those problems had been fixed to the point where the submarines were able to match the best of the US Navy's giant underwater fleet.
During its mock attacks on the Olympia and on two US destroyers, the Sheean fired 28 torpedoes. Commander Davies said "a respectable percentage" of shots Sheean fired at Olympia were hits that would have destroyed the powerful US vessel.
Commodore Davies, Australia's most experienced Collins commander, said the two vessels were very evenly matched. The submarines also practised landing special forces.
The exercises provided a crucial test for the Australian submarine, which has been as much criticised at home as it has been feted abroad.
The Olympia, 110 metres long and 12 metres across the beam, is twice the displacement of the Sheean, at 80 metres by eight metres. The Olympia carries up to 120 crew; the Sheean 45. Many of the Americans are engineers caring for their reactor.
The Collins is powered by diesel and electric motors and its roles include undersea warfare - finding and destroying other submarines - destroying enemy warships and merchant ships, surveillance and intelligence collection, support for special forces and covert transport.
Commander Davies said the US sub's size was not an advantage: "It just means you make more noise when you go faster."
He said cooperation with the US submarine force had increased significantly recently. "That has come about because they're interested in the Collins class and in our submarine force generally."
While the Americans run the world's most powerful submarine arm, they acknowledge that changes in international conditions in the past decade and new priorities have left them with tactics to learn from the small Australian submarine arm.
Commander Davies said Australian submariners were used to operating in shallow water. "That's one of the things the Americans are looking towards us for experience in.
"Ten years ago their submarine force was chasing Russian submarines around the deep ocean. Now, as with all submarine forces, it's more focused on closer inshore operations, intelligence collection or working with special forces. They're looking to us as a submarine force which has a long experience in that sort of thing."
The six Collins' combat systems are to be upgraded further and they will get more modern torpedoes. Those the Sheean used in its clashes with the Olympia were developed in the 1970s; the Americans used a far more sophisticated generation.
While smaller than the US nuclear boats, the Collins is one of the world's biggest conventional submarines. It was designed to cover long distances and the Sheean easily reached Hawaii without refuelling.
-
Deadliest Diesel Boat in the World Goes to Sea
<!-- Article Start -->Australia has completed the refurbishment and upgrades on the first of its six Collins class subs. The United States, in a rare move, gave Australia access to American sonar and underwater warfare systems technology for this. Australia is spending nearly a hundred million dollars each, to upgrade the sonar and fire control systems on its six Collins class subs, and this new deal with the U.S. means that those diesel electric subs will carry the most advanced electronics in the world. The Collins class boats, mainly because of the quality of their crews, have proved to be among the most capable diesel-electric subs in the world. This is known because Collins class boats often train with U.S. Navy ships and aircraft, and usually come out ahead.
This has made the American admirals more concerned about the threat from diesel-electric subs. For the moment, however, none of America's potential naval foes have submarine crews as well trained as the Australians. The new electronics will provide the Collins class boats with combat capabilities similar to the new U.S. Virginian class SSNs.
The Collins class boats were built in Australia during the 1990s, and are based on a Swedish design (the Type 471.) At 3,000 tons displacement, the Collins are half the size of the American Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs. However, boats that size are nearly twice the size of subs Europeans are accustomed to designing and building for their own use. Australia needed larger boats because of the sheer size of the oceans that surround Australia. There were a lot of technical problems with the Collins class boats, which the media(lionnoisy) jumped all over. The design of these subs was novel and ambitious, using a lot of automation. This reduced the crew size to 45.
-
6 subs?Is it a shame that only one or two or three subs can sail?
I am not talking can fight a war,just to sail.Understand?
Sg Ty could tell me the history of Oz CV..........
3.Have oz learnt fr WW2 lesson?
a U boat reached Oz !!
Yawn, I'll answer you from an old post since you don't seem to understand anything from all your defeats in here.
You seem to have this fantasy that a fleet of multi thousand ton ships can just teleport out of nowhere across thousands of miles of ocean and surprise the Australian navy without getting picked up by radar or sonar or other forms of sensors when such a journey will take days and leave plentry of time to get detected and having actions taken by the right kind of naval unit long before they even come close to Australian waters.
What that can suddenly happen anyday is the small, terror suicide boat that the PV is designed to handle that our current navy and coastguard cannot effectively, an Iowa class battleship is not going to "anyday, happen to be around". You might as well say 15,000 enemy tanks "anyday, happen to be around" Orchird road.
This is not surprising given your inline skates, F-18s off LHDs and crashing Fantail ideas all defy good common sense.
Going by your logic, you might as well say that our Primus is useless and has no role because it is totally defenceless if an MBT suddenly teleported next to it and the closest help is too far away.
Going by your logic you might as well say we shouldn't have people doing guard duty because all they have is a SAR-21 and 5 rounds because what if a Gundam suddenly show up?
Going by your logic, you might as well say we have to use Leopard 2s to do guard duty
-
To refresh your memory, you are using, old, defeated, arguments:
What is interesting is that you're still at it despite being beaten so badly the last time round.
Sigh, some people never learn...
How can the 3 operationally ready subs protecting Oz and at the same
time sailing in Asia and Pacific waters?
What is your idea of protecting Oz with submarines? With 18,000 miles of coastline? That they have to sail constantly around australia and hope they run into something bad by luck?
Even the USN would be unable of such a task, something that we already pointed out and that you kept quiet.
But now it seems you are trying to either revive old arguments, or simply learnt nothing from there.
Let me answer you from an old post:
You seem to have this fantasy that a fleet of multi thousand ton ships can just teleport out of nowhere across thousands of miles of ocean and surprise the Australian navy without getting picked up by radar or sonar or other forms of sensors when such a journey will take days and leave plentry of time to get detected and having actions taken by the right kind of naval unit long before they even come close to Australian waters.
What that can suddenly happen anyday is the small, terror suicide boat that the PV is designed to handle that our current navy and coastguard cannot effectively, an Iowa class battleship is not going to "anyday, happen to be around". You might as well say 15,000 enemy tanks "anyday, happen to be around" Orchird road.
This is not surprising given your inline skates, F-18s off LHDs and crashing Fantail ideas all defy good common sense.
Going by your logic, you might as well say that our Primus is useless and has no role because it is totally defenceless if an MBT suddenly teleported next to it and the closest help is too far away.
Going by your logic you might as well say we shouldn't have people doing guard duty because all they have is a SAR-21 and 5 rounds because what if a Gundam suddenly show up?
Going by your logic, you might as well say we have to use Leopard 2s to do guard duty
Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 19 Jun `08, 10:07PM -
You talk so much about Aussie projects.
How come I never hear any word from you about our much delayed improvements to the basic SAR-21 our soldiers need which have been delayed for 9 YEARS, to the point that if we go to war today our M203 gunner still does not have a common weapon with those using the SAR when it should have been corrected back in 1999?
And note that this is a BASIC need, the rifle is the most basic building block of our defence.
What about many of the promised capabilities of the 3G network that have been delayed or logjamed?
What about the 20 year long light tank project that came to nothing and is still stuck somewhere?
It seems that when Aussie projects logjam, you can talk alot, but things on your own doorstep you can't even handle?
Don't be a joke larh.
Can you answer...
Or once again you don't dare?
-
Why 9 year delay lionnoisy? You mean our STK is unable to sort out problems with such a basic thing like a 40mm grenade launcher for the SAR-21 despite having a 9 YEAR period to do it?
How come till now all we see of the SAR-21 M203 and advanced SAR-21 variants are only in wayang pictures and worse, in the hands of soldiers of other countries?
For a small nation which needs a top-notch defence is this acceptable?