This has to be the most catastrophic project in Australian defense history. I hope the lesson learned here is buy proven stuff of shelf, do not try to remanifacture everything locally.. might send $$ abroad but it will save twice as much in long term. I will be watching with interest development regarding proposals for next gen subs to replace Collins.
I think the best way is for RN simply to issue tender, saying this what we want, and this how much we are paying for it, and then let industry deliver,,, if they go down the same path as with Collins, where RN was “the project manager”, you will inevetablly get local bafoons like ASC putting political pressure to have manifacture carried out locally, using clueless contractors with 0 experience.
Best way of procuring defense material is by launching competitions, having bidder deliver products on their own cost, and then buying the best one.. might not get everything custom made to you, but you sure as heck avoid disasters like Collins or now F35.
By: StevoJH - 16th May 2010 at 14:43
Steve: I had a bit of time about these boats, both them and the O Boats they replaced- so i think I know what I am talking about, I served in the RAN
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply you didn’t and hadn’t….
By: Ja Worsley - 16th May 2010 at 14:27
Maybe it should be explained for some that the RAN stands for Royal Australian Navy, whereas RN stands for Royal Navy (British).
Give up mate- I’ve tried, they aren’t interested.
I imagine that, much like the F-111, these boats will (possibly allready have) will settle in as very fine systems.
Well it’s like every system, not just the F-111’s, the new Patrol Boats, the Anzacs, the LPA’s, PC-9’s everything. Collin’s is now a very capable system don’t let the history tell the story- let those who have served and are serving on them do that- the only thing that lets them down is the poor standards of the Sub Contractors who couldn’t fix a flat tyre on their grannies wheel chair! (Yes I have issues with Tenix)!
By: hawkdriver05 - 16th May 2010 at 02:36
I imagine that, much like the F-111, these boats will (possibly allready have) will settle in as very fine systems.
By: d'clacy - 16th May 2010 at 01:17
Maybe it should be explained for some that the RAN stands for Royal Australian Navy, whereas RN stands for Royal Navy (British).
By: Ja Worsley - 15th May 2010 at 19:45
Steve: I had a bit of time about these boats, both them and the O Boats they replaced- so i think I know what I am talking about, I served in the RAN
By: StevoJH - 14th May 2010 at 05:11
Steve: Mate they use those Computers now, but in the begining they were equiped with a Honeywell system that promised so much but delivered so little- the problem was sensor fussion, too much info was coming in and it just couldn’t be sorted by the processors we had- thus everything from Fire Control through to life support was messed up!
Beyond the leading edge when the contract was given and obsolete by the time it entered service was one way i’ve heard it described.
As for these vessels- yes now that the problems are sorted they are a huge step in front of most other subs, these aren’t piddly little SSK’s these vessels are huge SSG’s two decks deep (IIRC not even the Japanese subs are two decks), they really are the biggest D/E subs around and the main reason is due to the area these boats operate in- It’s not just across a little Puddle to the next country!
*Cough* Oberon’s in Vladivostock harbour.
Operations of that distance and duration and that difficulty are what Collins was designed to carry out.
Pitty that Kockums were really Kock-ups.
By: Ja Worsley - 13th May 2010 at 17:21
Thanks Kev, some people can’t seem to distinguish the difference between RN and RAN- goes to add weight to their pointless arguments!
These people wouldn’t know the difference between Collins and a Lotus Espirit and given my back ground in the RAN I think I should know what we have and what I actually was aboard!
Steve: Mate they use those Computers now, but in the begining they were equiped with a Honeywell system that promised so much but delivered so little- the problem was sensor fussion, too much info was coming in and it just couldn’t be sorted by the processors we had- thus everything from Fire Control through to life support was messed up!
As for these vessels- yes now that the problems are sorted they are a huge step in front of most other subs, these aren’t piddly little SSK’s these vessels are huge SSG’s two decks deep (IIRC not even the Japanese subs are two decks), they really are the biggest D/E subs around and the main reason is due to the area these boats operate in- It’s not just across a little Puddle to the next country!
By: StevoJH - 12th May 2010 at 14:53
The “Collins” class subs seemed so great while the RN was having them designed. Now it appears the class had a PR network that had a lot of smoke and mirrors!
The Collins class have had their share of problems, but what technology at the “bleeding edge” to steal a phrase, does not?
Its no different to F-22 or F-35….and F-22 has a lot of problems even today (earlier airframes incapable of being upgraded to later blocks levels).
However the vast majority of the Collins class’s problems have been sorted out and with the possible exception of the Japanese Oyashio and Soryu class are currently at the front of the pack for non-nuclear submarines.
Kev, don’t have a breakdown mate.
By: kev 99 - 12th May 2010 at 13:56
RAN
By: Adrian_44 - 12th May 2010 at 13:52
RE: Collins Strikes again
The “Collins” class subs seemed so great while the RN was having them designed. Now it appears the class had a PR network that had a lot of smoke and mirrors!
By: StevoJH - 12th May 2010 at 07:09
$375,000 to fix the generators is nothing. Especially since Collins and Farncomb are at or have passed their mid life refit.
If you have a 15 year old car, you expect things to go wrong on it, you expect things to need fixing. This is no different.
Oh, and the Collins class uses the same Raytheon combat system that the Virginia, Ohio AND 688I.
The lesson with Collins was that its a bad idea to hire a company to do the design work who have never built a submarine anywhere near as large before.
Fairly sure i’ve heard it said that HMAS Collins herself is not as capable of the other submarines due to design defects that were worked out for the other submarines. 😡
For reference Look at this. It makes interesting reading especially page 317 of chapter 26.
By: Ja Worsley - 11th May 2010 at 21:50
DJ what are you on mate?
Firstly, The RN don’t have the Collins Class- the RAN does!
The changes made to our boats were to enhance the vessel and enable it to fire weapons not in Swedish service (Mk 48’s and Harpoons), the FC computer was originally going to be from one company but it went belly up so we had to find another suitable to handle our requirements and quick.
ASC has done a great job given the circumstances, it’s when you get buffoons like Transfield involved who use Cheap and nasty products to fix a serious problem we start having problems (yes I have issues with Transfield- they killed a friend of mine). ASC never pressured anyone for anything (well except more money for proper technicians which was denied all the time by the Howard Government who in the end struck a deal with Bush to have the USN help out- that is where the money went)!
Telling Industry we want this and we are only paying that will not get us what we want nor need, why do you think we have tender processes? We take what is on offer, match the requirements to the best vessel then work out how much we can pay and go back to the company with that offer, if the company agrees, then the deal is penned!
The F-35 has yet to enter service anywhere, so calling it a failure is very harsh indeed- I agree that it’s had it’s problems, but so far it’s not a failure! The SH-2(A) is a failure and a major one in terms of contracts, the RAN lost out big on that one!
As for the issue at hand- Collins, though flawed in many areas, is actually getting the job done, the RAN aren’t as they have no one to crew the vessels!
Sign In
March 30, 2010 at 11:03 pm