Backing for 'evolved Collins' (Australian sub)

The Australian ^ | May 15, 2013 | Brendan Nicholson

[sukhoi-30mki]

Backing for 'evolved Collins'

by:Brendan Nicholson

TAKING the best elements from the Collins-class submarines to design and build a new hi-tech class in Australia is a spectacular opportunity, says the engineer in charge of their maintenance.

Mark Stephens, the general manager in charge of Collins-class submarine maintenance with ASC in Adelaide, served for 10 years in the navy in surface warships, then worked his way through university to become an engineer.

He has worked on the Collins in various capacities since 1998.

Mr Stephens welcomed the government's decision to speed up the selection of a design for the promised 12 submarines to replace the navy's six Collins-class subs by cutting the number of options from four to two.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith ruled out buying an off-the-shelf submarine to opt for an "enhanced Collins" or new design.

Mr Stephens told The Australian that to build an evolved Collins, the designers would take the very best from the existing design. He said most of the Collins's early problems had been resolved during the past three years.

. . . "You're building on a good base with a world-class performance," he said. "You're not building from a train wreck . . . it's irresponsible for people to say that you are."

Mr Stephens said a submarine had more systems and parts than a space shuttle.

"It's a very complex system and making use of the lessons learned can only be done by someone who's gone through the pains to understand how it works," he said.

"Some systems were chosen that haven't performed as well as people would have liked.

"But we are using what we have learned over the years from the Collins-class to deliver now and that will become instrumental in developing the future submarine.

"We understand it very well

[sukhoi-30mki]

Collins-class submarines HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Waller on exercise off the Western Australia coast. Picture: Department Defence Source: Supplied

[ken5050]

Jason Collins namesake..also evolving..coming out..

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“Mark Stephens”.....

never served on submarines and now is a genius designer of submarines.

Pardon my doubt.

[MHalblaub]

All Commonwealth submarine projects are not well off. The Canadian Victoria-class (”The Victorious”) fired this year its first torpedo after bought from the UK in 1998. Just one submarine of this class is “ready”. Another suffered problems with an English diesel engine.

The Royal Navy Astute-class is better off but Collins-class is down under.

Then Mr. Mark Stephens says, “But we are using what we have learned over the years from the Collins-class to deliver now and that will become instrumental in developing the future submarine”, he should mention, that within the last years out of 6 submarines non was operational. The Australian Submarine Company (ASC) is incapable maintaining the Collins-class and now they want to “evolve” this catastrophe?

All submarines of the original Västergötland-class no got an air-independent-propulsion system. Two were sold by Sweden to Singapore as Archer-class. The Collins-class is an enlarged Västergötland-class with an US combat system for nuclear powered submarines.

Australia just has 3 crews to man the submarines. The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) never got more than 3 seaworthy submarines at once. “Seaworthy” doesn’t imply submersible or operational. Germany has 6 submarines and 8 crews. So they can change the whole crew on 4 operational submarines without the need of a submarine to travel back. These electric submarines are not as fast as nuclear powered submarines but more quit: http://seefahrer.blog.de/2013/04/24/manoevertagebuch-westlant-deployment-u-32-15-20-15785812/ (there is a Microsoft-Translator on the right side)

At the moment Australia pays in one year more money for maintenance of 6 unworthy submarines then one new Dolphin-class submarine costs - $600 million. The price tag of $1 billion includes several nukes and other stuff for Israel Navy.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“These electric submarines are not as fast as nuclear powered submarines”

Yes, I know. I’m an ex-boat sailor. ;-)

[MHalblaub]

Fast or slow boat:-]

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“Fast or slow boat:-]”

Both. ;-)

[MHalblaub]

“Both.”?

So you’re from Russia or China!

Well, Royal Navy also operated both types a while ago and US Navy leased one diesel from Sweden to find out that their ASW performance against diesel submarines is not so well off. US Navy should have known that earlier. ROKS submarines caused havoc several times during exercises: http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/244/SEA-1000-THE-LESSONS-OF-COLLINS

US Navy is still no way better today:
http://seefahrer.blog.de/2013/04/03/manoevertagebuch-westlant-deployment-28-29-15713453/
http://seefahrer.blog.de/2013/04/03/manoevertagebuch-westlant-deployment-30-15713582/
Microsoft Translator is available on these pages but a true Russian should speak German;-)

Music for diesel:
http://seefahrer.blog.de/2013/04/11/manoevertagebuch-westlant-deployment-07-08-15746059/

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Russia or China? LOL

When you asked slow or fast I thought that you were referring to old, WWII diesel boats or fast attack nukes.

I qualified on an old, WWII diesel boat. ( We used to call them ‘slow ambush’. ) The day after qualifying I was immediately transferred to fast attack nukes. I have absolutley no idea why the Navy chose to do that, but they did. I do know that at the time my rating was ‘critical’ in that there weren’t enough of us in that rating. I got transferred around a lot.

All of the fast attack nukes that I rode have already been decommissioned.

Sorry for the confusion. ;-)

[MHalblaub]

New diesel u-boat was christened:
http://sundodgers.com/2013/05/17/u36-another-fuel-cell-submarine-for-the-german-navy/

And here you can see the strange screw on picture 3:
http://www.ndr.de/regional/schleswig-holstein/uboottaufe137.html

MTU 396 must be very solid engine. All Type 212 just got one diesel engine.

I guess that’ll be the next step: http://www.sfc.com
Direct methanol fuel cells. There is still an efficiency gap between diesel generator and methanol fuel cells but the gap is closing. That is interesting due to the fact diesel stores two twice as much energy as methanol.

The use of ethanol fuel cells on submarines or other equipment was canceled due to tax related problems and system leakage due to unknown causes. “Einlaufbier” or “Wachblase” is still tolerated and in most cases spend by the commanding officer.