|
Teresa, no doubt you are talking about the McIntosh-Prescott 'Report to the Minister for Defence on the Collins Class Submarine and Related Matters' which indeed found that the submarines were not fit for combat until several technical issues were resolved. The problems were not surprising given that the project was the most technically complex industrial endeavour in Australian manufacturing history. Similarly, F111s experienced several technical hurdles and a similar level of uninformed and short sighted bashing from the media. Expect much of the same with the Lightning.
From the mouths of her crew Criticising Beazley for buying the subs is a bit rich given their capability today supports the decision. As for buying them from Sweden, why should that matter Tio540? You infer they (Kockums) had no experience in subs when in fact the Collins was the culmination of five or six generations of very successful Kockum's designed and built subs. Once again, the capability of the subs stands as testimony to the acquisition decision. Of course Tio540, if you maintain a masters degree in defence acquisition or have some relevant experience in what you're talking about, I'd be happy to defer to your opinion. |
Tibbsy, you appear passionate about them which is great. On one of the first exercises to demonstrate the stealth Collins Class capability, the sub was found visually, without technical aids, within 30 mins of the exercise beginning.
|
sub was found visually, without technical aids, within 30 mins of the exercise beginning |
Well they are back in the news today, sadly called "dud subs" problems once more, (if you can believe the sunday papers). I am all for anything built in Australia with Australian tradesmen (and women) getting the work and experience but gee they have become a headache Tibbsy for all concerned.
|
At least when they are bashing collins the Sea Sprite is off the front page....:E
B Abraham- Once had the embarrassment during an exercise of a harrier pilot find the sub in the opposite direction to where all the ASW sea kings and Frigates were looking:O |
"A common fallacy" spreads
I previously posted that:
While emphasising emphatically that I have no sympathy whatever for their objectives, I notice that the Afghan Taliban have no requirement for any sort of helicopters, nor F-whatever fighter aircraft nor Abrams A-something tanks nor aircraft large enough to hold a sitting of federal parliament inside to ferry the tanks around because they are too heavy to travel by rail or road anywhere in the region. Yet the Taliban seem to be holding their own perfectly well without any of these. A common fallacy that if we aren't deploying tanks/fighters we don't need them. If the Taliban could win in open battle they would, they can't because of the high end war fighting assets deployed by the US and others. The Air Force allows only those officially rated as pilots to sit at the remote-controls of its unmanned reconnaissance vehicles, a policy that Mr. Gates says has limited how many of these aircraft it can deploy. The Army allows enlisted personnel and noncommissioned officers to apply for those jobs. The push to add surveillance to the war zones also may require a rethinking of how the current crop of jet-fighters are outfitted for war, as well as whether to look at low-tech fixes, such as using off-the-lot Cessnas outfitted with surveillance gear. |
Collins Class subs are in fact the most advanced SSK's in the world. Period.
The media always blows all the "alleged" facts out of all proportion. They dont report the actual facts if they don't make a good story. One thing that is never printed or reported anywhere but is true none the less is that designing and building a modern submarine, such as the Collins class from scratch required the same level of engineering expertise as designing and building the B-2 bomber from scratch!!! That is , an extremely advanced stealth platform, after all that is what a submarine is!! Point I am making is that subs are one of the most complex type of vehicles made,along with advanced aircraft and spacecraft. Obviously such an enormous and complex task will run into problems. Some of the problems on Collins should certainly not have occurred as the technology in the problem areas in many cases was already extremely mature, eg periscope design. Flow noise from poor design of sail/hull join and other places would hopefully have been pretty much eleminated at earlier hydrodynamic design phases but for various reasons was obviously not. Then again with all the wind tunnel and CAD models etc with aircraft design similar minor aerodynamic flaws are still discovered later during flight testing on occasion that then require tweaking. That is what flight testing and test pilots/engineers get paid for. Collins class subs have achieved a remarkable level of success over the years in international exercises and I have seen reports from naval officers saying they are damn glad we will be allies in any future conflict as they would hate to be fighting our subs. RAN crews are top notch and can kick major nuclear powered butt.:ok: |
So why does no one else buy them?
|
Tio540,
No one else probably wants them due to cost and the fact that they are the largest non nuclear subs afloat. They were designed specifically for Australia's requirements. All other non nuke SSK's were too small in size anyway for the RANs enormous 2 ocean patrol zones, Indian and Pacific and other areas of interest in times of conflict. Most other navies in Asia and sub continent are using other smaller Western designs or Russian Kilo class versions. Besides, for security and too ensure a capability gap we shouldn't want anyone else operating them.:E |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.