• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
411
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Published on Apr 14, 2016

DCNS proposes the world's most advanced conventionally powered submarine - named Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A - as its pre-concept design for Australia's future submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP).
https://youtu.be/XHZUJe3N99c
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
GTX said:
Any ideas on what they may named in service?
Well, the current official naming convention with regards as to submarines is rather vague, i.e. "submarines may carry names with a uniquely Australian connection". The Collins class were all named after prominent RAN personnel who served with distinction in WWII. Two of the preceeding RAN Oberon class (Oxley subclass) were named after O-class submarines that served with Australia during WWII, with another, HMAS Orion, being named in what was a then unusual break from convention after the star constellation. HMAS Ovens was named after the explorer John Ovens. HMAS Onslow was named after the town in Western Australia. HMAS Otway was apparently named after the Otway Ranges. I have no idea what HMAS Otama was named after.

However, with the new PM and the Minister of Defence that he appointed, I have a feeling that past precedent & tradition is going to going to count for very little this time around.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
107
Otama is an aboriginal word for Dolphin. When the second batch of O Boats were ordered (was planned to be four rather than two) their names were one for the old world and one for the new: HMA Subs Orion and Otama.

The new submarines will probably be named for Australian sailors. The two sub rescue boats have followed this tradition (Stoker and Besant) and there are plenty of deserving Australian naval personnel who have done more than just live to an old age (HMAS Choules still upsets me). Bungaree, Dumaresq, Biddlecomb, Rudd, Gaunt, MacAndie, Blacklock, Goldsworthy, Darling and Hudspeth would all make good names.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
Grey Havoc said:
However, with the new PM and the Minister of Defence that he appointed, I have a feeling that past precedent & tradition is going to going to count for very little this time around.
And you base that on what, exactly?
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
107
Kadija_Man said:
Grey Havoc said:
However, with the new PM and the Minister of Defence that he appointed, I have a feeling that past precedent & tradition is going to going to count for very little this time around.
And you base that on what, exactly?
Ergh, he just told you? "I have a feeling..."
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
671
Reaction score
35
Website
www.hisutton.com
I think that its good to have all the names begin with the same letter, just my preference. Maybe the Aussie's very own T-boats to follow the O-Boats?

HMAS True Blue
HMAS Tin Arsed
HMAS Thingo
HMAS Tallie
HMAS Throw down
HMAS Thongs
HMAS Tall Poppy
HMAS Trough Lolly
HMAS Turps
HMAS Tinny
HMAS Two Pot
HMAS Tony Abbot
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,804
Reaction score
205
Website
beyondthesprues.com
covert_shores said:
I think that its good to have all the names begin with the same letter, just my preference. Maybe the Aussie's very own T-boats to follow the O-Boats?

HMAS True Blue
HMAS Tin Arsed
HMAS Thingo
HMAS Tallie
HMAS Throw down
HMAS Thongs
HMAS Tall Poppy
HMAS Trough Lolly
HMAS Turps
HMAS Tinny
HMAS Two Pot
HMAS Tony Abbot
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
<Nearly splutters tea across the keyboard.>
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
107
covert_shores said:
I think that its good to have all the names begin with the same letter, just my preference. Maybe the Aussie's very own T-boats to follow the O-Boats?

HMAS True Blue
HMAS Tin Arsed
HMAS Thingo
HMAS Tallie
HMAS Throw down
HMAS Thongs
HMAS Tall Poppy
HMAS Trough Lolly
HMAS Turps
HMAS Tinny
HMAS Two Pot
HMAS Tony Abbot
Your ideology appeals to me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-build-australia-subs-us-arm-them-040625464.html
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,804
Reaction score
205
Website
beyondthesprues.com
bobbymike said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-build-australia-subs-us-arm-them-040625464.html
Why is it that some people (incl journalists who should know better) can't seem to understand the difference between announcing a preferred solution and signing an actual contract. Case in point - the very first line of the above article:

Australia may have awarded France a bumper contract to build its next generation of submarines, but its highly secretive combat system will come from close ally the United States.
There is absolutely no contract awarded yet! There will be many months of discussions and negotiations before that occurs. In the extreme case, it might not even occur - just look at the Indian Rafale discussions...
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
213
Reaction score
9
.

An obvious solution ;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNBy1D1Y0h4

As a matter of interest how long do modern submarine batteries last before their ability to hold charge deteriorates sufficiently to replace them ?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
phil gollin said:
.

An obvious solution ;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNBy1D1Y0h4

As a matter of interest how long do modern submarine batteries last before their ability to hold charge deteriorates sufficiently to replace them ?
There's a whole lot of variables to consider when answering that question. Depends on the back, the builder, the optempo, etc. Sufficient to say, not long enough for the poor folks who have to dobthe swapping.
 

Apophenia

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
633
With Tony Abbot gone, a naming update is required. HMAS Turnbull is too dull ... I'm thinking HMAS Troppo (HMAS Toey might be bad for morale or misinterpreted).
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,804
Reaction score
205
Website
beyondthesprues.com
If I was being cynical I would say name them after our PMs...we have had enough in the last few years ;)
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
671
Reaction score
35
Website
www.hisutton.com
DCNS give the length of the shortfin as 97m. The length of the regular barracuda SSN is 99m? So only 2m shorter. What does this imply re Propulsion and kit?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
covert_shores said:
DCNS give the length of the shortfin as 97m. The length of the regular barracuda SSN is 99m? So only 2m shorter. What does this imply re Propulsion and kit?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
671
Reaction score
35
Website
www.hisutton.com
Well the short fin is only two meters shorter than the regular SSN. It doesn't have the reactor section. It needs larger diesel generators, but I doubt that takes up so much length. Same for the increased batteries, which are possibly li-ion anyway. So it seems to me that there is probably an AIP section after all. DCNS have a MESMA model and are rumored to be working on fuel cells. But off its not public what this boat will have.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
I wouldn't draw that conclusion myself, there's just too little information out there. Not saying you aren't correct, just that the length alone is not enough for me to make a call.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
107
The French use a very different sort of nuclear reactor architecture in their boats than the USN and RN deriving from their initial much smaller boat sizing. They combined the core and the steam generation in a single unit. This makes for far less required volume. So the difference between a nuclear Barracuda and a diesel Barracuda is much smaller than such a change in a USN or RN boat.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-australia-spending-billions-submarines-16098
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-australia-spending-billions-submarines-16098
*SIGH* its always all about China.

I'd recommend you read the 1986 Dibb Report for the real reason why Australia is putting money into submarines. The peripheral stuff has changed, the main reason has not. The adoption of submarines is all about deterrence of any potential invading nation's plans. Submarines force them to invest heavily in ASW warfare assets. No nation in our region presently has a large blue water ASW force.,,
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-australia-spending-billions-submarines-16098
*SIGH* its always all about China.

I'd recommend you read the 1986 Dibb Report for the real reason why Australia is putting money into submarines. The peripheral stuff has changed, the main reason has not. The adoption of submarines is all about deterrence of any potential invading nation's plans. Submarines force them to invest heavily in ASW warfare assets. No nation in our region presently has a large blue water ASW force.,,
Can things change in 30 years?

Secondly, I post stories that I believe will be of interest to members they do not necessary reflect my views. One of, I believe, the keys to a site like this is searching the web and starting informative threads for the benefit of all or most here.

That is the least I can do for the honor of being accepted as a member here.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
bobbymike said:
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-australia-spending-billions-submarines-16098
*SIGH* its always all about China.

I'd recommend you read the 1986 Dibb Report for the real reason why Australia is putting money into submarines. The peripheral stuff has changed, the main reason has not. The adoption of submarines is all about deterrence of any potential invading nation's plans. Submarines force them to invest heavily in ASW warfare assets. No nation in our region presently has a large blue water ASW force.,,
Can things change in 30 years?
Of course they can. However, the reason why the COLLINS class was adopted and why the future submarines are being adopted haven't changed. Primarily they are a deterrent force, secondarily they are an expeditionary force. The primary reason given was because they were for use against China. That is part of their secondary raison de' entre'.

Secondly, I post stories that I believe will be of interest to members they do not necessary reflect my views. One of, I believe, the keys to a site like this is searching the web and starting informative threads for the benefit of all or most here.

That is the least I can do for the honor of being accepted as a member here.
Fair enough. My comment was directed against the reasons given by the article as to why Australia was purchasing 12 new submarines - for use against China. That is not the reason why Australia is purchasing 12 submarines. Despite what that article believes, the world does not revolve around America's contest over hegemonic control of the South China Sea with the PRC.

Here's a question for you and others, can the United States exist without perception of an external threat? To me, it doesn't appear that way.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-australia-spending-billions-submarines-16098
*SIGH* its always all about China.

I'd recommend you read the 1986 Dibb Report for the real reason why Australia is putting money into submarines. The peripheral stuff has changed, the main reason has not. The adoption of submarines is all about deterrence of any potential invading nation's plans. Submarines force them to invest heavily in ASW warfare assets. No nation in our region presently has a large blue water ASW force.,,
Can things change in 30 years?
Of course they can. However, the reason why the COLLINS class was adopted and why the future submarines are being adopted haven't changed. Primarily they are a deterrent force, secondarily they are an expeditionary force. The primary reason given was because they were for use against China. That is part of their secondary raison de' entre'.

Secondly, I post stories that I believe will be of interest to members they do not necessary reflect my views. One of, I believe, the keys to a site like this is searching the web and starting informative threads for the benefit of all or most here.

That is the least I can do for the honor of being accepted as a member here.
Fair enough. My comment was directed against the reasons given by the article as to why Australia was purchasing 12 new submarines - for use against China. That is not the reason why Australia is purchasing 12 submarines. Despite what that article believes, the world does not revolve around America's contest over hegemonic control of the South China Sea with the PRC.

Here's a question for you and others, can the United States exist without perception of an external threat? To me, it doesn't appear that way.
If you just tweak the last paragraph you may just have a personal epiphany.

Otherwise I suggest you start another thread on the topic and not mess up this one (as is your wont it appears at SPF)
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
107
Both arguments are wrong: China and the Dibb report. The reason behind 12 submarines raher than 6-8 the Navy actually wants is to establish a continuous submarine build program. The sub builders even suggested 18 and no MLU so a truncated life of 15 odd years rather than 25 per boat. But that was too much for the political leadership.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
Forgot to post this before: http://www.defencetalk.com/first-australian-submarine-contract-signed-with-dcns-to-commence-design-phase-68266/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/saab-a26-submarine-gets-vertical-launched-tomahawks
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,804
Reaction score
205
Website
beyondthesprues.com
bobbymike said:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/saab-a26-submarine-gets-vertical-launched-tomahawks
Not sure if this belongs in this thread
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240

The ANAO report, titled “Transition to Design,” found that the design phase of the program is already nine months behind schedule and two important milestones had been missed. It said Defence “could not demonstrate” its expenditure of $396 million (US $273 million) on the design to date has been fully effective in achieving the two milestones to date. The Defence Department has spent 47 percent of all program expenditure thus far on design work and, despite the risk mitigation strategies, it continues to describe program risk as “high”.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
Given the headaches of the Collins class development, I'm leaning toward thinking it's not Naval Group creating the most headaches.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
139
Reaction score
42

So I caught this address to the National Press Club yesterday raising a number of issues with the proposed new submarine project. The whole address is up on the ABC's iview vod service but my attempts to actually post the link have so far come to naught. Would be interested to hear opinions of those more knowledgeable. Speakers seem very keen on AIP now, dismissive of access to leased or otherwise obtained US SSN and concerned about cost of Collins 2.0 which seems the likely stopgap. Very interested in getting some perspective on where the project is headed now.

UPDATE:
Had trouble getting the link to work on my phone, this is the vod version of the address:

ABC iview - National Press Club Address - SA Sen Rex Patrick, Hugh White, Peter Jennings : Australia's Future Submarines - Time for plan B?
 
Last edited:

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
This comes up periodically in any conversation about subs for the RAN: "Why not adopt nuclear powered ones?" We won't for the same reasoning why we won't adopt nuclear power or nuclear weapons. We don't have the infrastructure or the personnel required to maintain them. We don't have the nuclear technicians or engineers and it would take too long to train them up. We lack the refueling capability. We lack the enrichment facilities. We basically have a small research reactor at Lucas Heights and that is it. You would be looking at a decade at least to train them up. You would need a similar amount of time or longer to build enrichment and refueling facilities. On top of that you would neither to either convince overseas suppliers to provide a nuclear boat(s). All this would skew our defence budget a great deal. Finally you would need to change the minds of the voters because this would last a lot longer than the usual three year electoral cycle. All in all, highly unlikely to happen.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
139
Reaction score
42
I certainly agree that SSN really isn't an option for Australia, certainly not politically anyway. It's probably a shame from a cost and performance point of view but, as you say, we simply can't support them and the effort required to get to the point where we could, both technologically and politically, is just too enormous.

No, I was just wondering if anyone else had caught the address and had opinions on the points raised, on the apparently renewed advocacy for AIP (despite it not really fitting with our operational needs) and what they thought of the Collins 2.0 idea and the likely directions its execution might take us in.

I do think they raise some valid points regarding cost and risk. We are (again) on track to spend a hell of a lot for diesel electric subs, especially in the 2030-40 time frame.

I do have to say I am a little disappointed that we're buying new subs at all and not simply evolving the Collins. So much effort has gone into making the the Collins one of the best SSKs in the world, it seems a shame that we are unwilling to either modernize the design or develop our own completely domestic type from the ground up.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
We aren't because we never intended to. The RAN was never intending to make a COLLINS 2.0. ASC as a consequence never intended to. Cultural Cringe means we always seem to buy from overseas, unfortunately when we more than likely have the capability but don't intend to use it.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
139
Reaction score
42
We aren't because we never intended to. The RAN was never intending to make a COLLINS 2.0. ASC as a consequence never intended to. Cultural Cringe means we always seem to buy from overseas, unfortunately when we more than likely have the capability but don't intend to use it.
Yep, we seem to start from scratch with a completely new platform every time. And every time we get caught with a capability gap too. So ASC may not have intended to make a Collins 2.0 but guess what, they're probably going to wind up making one anyway! Or a Collins 1.5 least ways.

The lack of planning is a little disconcerting, I mean we did see this coming...again, didn't we?
 
Last edited:

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
147
Reaction score
59
We aren't because we never intended to. The RAN was never intending to make a COLLINS 2.0. ASC as a consequence never intended to. Cultural Cringe means we always seem to buy from overseas, unfortunately when we more than likely have the capability but don't intend to use it.
Yep, we seem to start from scratch with a completely new platform every time. And every time we get caught with a capability gap too. So ASC may not have intended to make a Collins 2.0 but guess what, they're probably going to wind up making one anyway! Or a Collins 1.5 least ways.

The lack of planning is a little disconcerting, I mean we did see this coming...again, didn't we?
Far Cry 3 said it best.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
334
Do the Collins class have fuel cell stacks? Could they be retro fitted? Air independent engine types?
 
Top