Talk:Collins-class submarine

Boeing/Rockwell Weapons Combat System

Does anyone know the name of the Boeing/Rockwell Weapons Combat System originally installed in the Collins class?

wrong flag ?

This page, the class, has the Aussie flag whereas each of the boat pages has the navy flag. Brettr 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SinkEx Results

Please see additional comments in Operational History section

I think we would be well advised to remove claims that a succesful sinking of USN capital ships in a SinkEx is proof that the Collins is a credible sub. These exercises are designed to train ALL particiapating crews in ALL phases of an operation, therefore that includes taking a shot. In the real world it is quite possible that the sub would have been sunk, or avoided, long before getting into a firing position, especially given the sub's short range at high speed underwater, and the high transit speed of a USN CVN group. Greglocock 12:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

THis guys obviously an american holding a grudge, if you where there youd know better. THe US BELEIVED that its carrier could survive with little escorts (it wanted to test this theory because of the Russian carrier can do it - but lets not get into that)...the US WAS NOT EXPECTING the aussies to sink their capital ship, but it happened...and if this was just letting the aussies get a shot in, why did the next war games have a huge carrier battle group sourounding the ship? BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WANT TO REPEAT THE MISTAKE...go cry more that we sunk your carrier asshole.

Fair use rationale for Image:Diving and Safety Station on HMAS Collins.jpeg

Image:Diving and Safety Station on HMAS Collins.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed material

I have removed the following materials from the article:

As a comparison, the Indian Navy signed an agreement in 2005 to purchase and build six brand new Scorpene submarines from France for USD $3.5 billion. That agreement stated all six submarines would be built in India and provided substantial technology transfer. Collins' construction cost overruns were also cited as a primary reason of the Canadian Department of National Defence's decision to buy its submarines from a foreign supplier rather than build indigenously (Australia and Canada were both in the process of retiring their Oberon-class submarines). The Canadians said Collins submarines were 4 times the cost of comparable submarines available from the United Kingdom. However, this study did not factor the indirect benefits to the Australian economy and the construction experience gained through domestic construction. Similarly, labour costs are considerably cheaper in India than in Australia. The Indians had also agreed to purchase 34 submarine missiles from France and hinted on purchasing additional submarines later.

These comparisons don't seem valid as Indian shipyards have different cost structures to Australian shipyards and the Canadians bought their submarines second-hand, and seem to have gotten a bad deal anyway (all the Victoria class boats are yet to enter service). The link to the Canadian Government's rationales does not state that the Australian experiance was a "primary reason" fir the Government's decision. --Nick Dowling 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nick,

so why did you remove the following material as well?

"Also the very capable German Type 209 submarine cost in the mid-1990s between USD $370 and 500 million and, quite differently than the Collins class subs, became an export hit: 13 nations plus a modified version for Israel (Dolphin class submarine) began to use this weapon system."

I think that at least one comparable example (though with a slightly better sub) should be included to put the Collins class boats' cost problems in context.

Enrico, 20:36, 2 November 2007

As I said in the edit summary, this doesn't seem like a resonable comparison as the Type 209s are quite different to the Collins class boats (eg, they're about half the displacement, are optimised for inshore work and have only been sold to developing countries). Moreover, there was no citation linking the Collins with the Type 209s and without a citation this seems to violate the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Just because the Type 209s have proven a successful design doesn't mean that they're relevant to the Collins Class and that material should only be restored if a reference comparing the two designs can be found and cited. --Nick Dowling 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits seem reasonable to me. Comparing a shallow water, short range, craft to a long range, deep water, one is a bit odd. Cost wise, well, no-one's built a conventional sub recently that really is equivalent. Nearest I know of is Upholder. Greglocock 10:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think that neither Israel, Greece nor South Korea are developing countries. Have a look at their GDP, per capita income etc. during the 1990s. However, I guess there must be a reason why 14 nations use the U 209 (and the Dolphin class version). The sub is attractive for poorer nations because of its price. Secondly, the U 209 may have less displacement than the Collins, but it is not a 1960s shallow-water sub. The Latin American countries, SK and Israel bought it particularly because it can both operate close to shores and in blue water (and TNI that works in the same region like the ADF thinks its appropriate, too). Third, the range of the U 209 is just 3% less than those of the Collins class (11,000 nm versus 11,500 nm), while providing 10% more speed (22 versus 20 knots) and deeper dive capabilities (500 versus 350m). As Hugh White used to point out defence decisions should consider money AND gained operative capabilities. Fourth, today there are conventional subs available that are equivalent and better than the Collins, have a look at the U 212A or the U 214 - why do you think SK decided for the latter and not for the Collins class? Cheaper, faster, more silent, better sensors and fire power. Its seems to me you simply want to avoid comparison with other subs (just like Europeans get pissed when you show them why the JSF will be better than the Typhoon). Finally, the ridiculous high price of 1 billion AUD per boat should be compared with prices for other subs. The Indian-French Scorpene business deal was too complex, so I fully agree with your point on that. But having a look at the U 209 with its capabilities and the price that was paid for it in the 1990s should be fine (of course one can argue that all Collins class subs were only full deployable since 2007 due to system improvement and mending, but that would mean a construction time of almost 20 years). There are no available source that compare any kind subs, but facts about the capabilities are available in Open Source. Enrico, 03 November, 15:01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.155.53 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the developing countries jibe. Type 209 submarine for those who struggle to find it any other way. OK, so you tell us, why wasn't the 209 selected? My guess is lack of size for long voyages and small crew. But that's only a guess. By definition every cruise is a long one in Oz. Greglocock 06:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For background material see [1] Greglocock 06:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My basic point remains: unless you can find a source which compares the Type 209 and Collins Class designs and construction program, this is just your personal opinion. The Parliamentary Library paper makes it clear that the German design lost after a long and fairly well run selection process. I stand by the use of the words 'developing country' as all of the Type 209s customers have been countries with much lower GDP/Capita than Australia (including Greece, South Korea and Israel). I'm not motivated by a desire to defend the Collins class as I regard them as being a national embarrasment and an unsuccessful design given the time its taken to bring them into service. --Nick Dowling 07:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I struggle to recognise Israel as a developing country, and I don't see that it adds much to the argument. However, you are right, unless the 209 comparison can be referenced then it is OR and should not be in the article. I find that policy rather silly myself, but them's the rules. (eg Michael Jackson is 1.8m tall (cite). Magic Johnson is 2.1m tall(cite). Therefore Magic is taller than Michael (no cite) (Not allowed, that's OR)). FWIW the Collins project is fairly typical of the procurement process in a Western democracy (eg, in no order, Clansman, F22, Charles de Gaulle). Greglocock 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you'd need a citation for that basket ball comparison. However, if you wrote that the height difference made one of the two men a better player then that would probably need to be cited. --Nick Dowling 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, I stand corrected on Israel and Greece: Israel's GDP/capita is only US$1000 lower than Australia's and Greece's is about the same. --Nick Dowling 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sinking Nimitz

Please see additional comments in Operational History section

Does this article talk about how one of the collins sunk a a Nimitz class super carrier during war games? I didnt get time to read it through but I know for sure that it occured because A) I know some of the people who designed the sub and they told me and B) It was on a doco about the Subs. I think this info is extremely important because it proves that the strongest ship in the world is vunerable to a non nuclear powered sub.

Thanks,

Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't read much into these sub X sinks CV Y type stories - the purpose of the exercise is to train both sides, so at least one attack by each side will be pursued through to simulating weapons launch, otherwise the training is incomplete. Having said that a CVN is vulnerable to a SS, but only if the SS is in the right place at the right time, which the CV group would try strenuously to avoid. Nonnuclear subs are more like mobile minefields than anything else. As it happens I can't find any reliable on line source that agrees with your claim, based on a google search for collins class sub sinks nimitz Greg Locock (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few news reports over the last few years about Collins class boats 'sinking' US carriers during exercises. As Greg notes, this isn't particularly notable given that it's not uncommon and the number of times the sub gets sunk during exercises doesn't seem to get the same publicity. This isn't restricted to Australian subs either - Canadian subs have aparently also 'sunk' US carriers and one of South Africa's new subs was recently reported to have sunk several NATO ships during an exercise. It's not that big a deal. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NOT A BIG DEAL? An SA non nuclear sub sunk one the most powerful ship in existance. Im pretty sure it was the Abraham lincoln that was 'sunk'. Iv been on a tour and seen the subs and the guys who designed it bragged about how it sunk the us carrier and the next year the americans cheated at war games because of this (the Aussies still escaped - big suprise) Also on the show submariners that is a doco about the subs also verified that it sunk a Nimitz. This not only is a huge success but it should be included because if there ever is another huge scale war and a sub sinks a nimitz it would be vital to compare it to this event because the US could have prevented it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "at least one attack by each side will be pursued through to simulating weapons launch, otherwise the training is incomplete" don't you understand? Greg Locock (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but i think you're failing to realise that these games are simulated as real as possible. Sure there are moments where "every side gets a shot", but the idea behind an exercise is to realistically employ platform against platform, tactics against tactics and team against team. You don't achieve this aim when you tell a certain ship to be in a certain place so that another ship can have a hit. In the above mentioned event, i can confirm through sources that it is true. In fact the comments of the captain of the submarine in question was something along the lines of "We should have just surfaced next to the carrier and waved at them". The US had no idea that there was a sub in the area and the successful employment of its weapon systems is a tribute to the effectiveness of what is touted in military circles as the most capable and quiet diesel electro sub. I think this article portrays the Collins class in a negative image, one that although is well researched, somewhat biased. I am not in the navy, i do not work in anything to do with the marine industry, but i have mates and colleagues who are as reliable as they come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.98.36 (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Collins Class Submarine Retirement Date Announced

I have recently (30 Dec 2007) read several newspapers articles and articles in online sites that indicate an Australian Defence Force think tank has come to the conclusion that the Collins Class should be retired in 2025 and replaced by a new as yet undesigned 'super sub'. This idea has apparently got support from Australia's new defence minister, whose name eludes me, and is apparently in the process of being ratified by cabinet which is obviously wanting to look 'strong' viz a vie matters of defence since taking power last month. Although various aspects of the article were unsubstantial, such as whether the new submarines should be nuclear or conventional for example, the date of retirement of the 'old' subs seemed quite conclusive. Perhaps a mention of at least the anticipated date of decommission would be appropriate for this article? Just a thought. 58.145.148.3 (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Walt X.

Yeah, the Navy plans to retire HMAS Collins in 2025, and the remainder of the class will presumably follow at itervals after this. The project won't be put to Cabinet until about 2011, after the Navy has worked out want it wants, and the subs won't be ordered until a few years after this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Prescott report

So what's wrong with this section? I read through it and thought it wasn't great, but it didn't seem biased to me. The report was very damning. ASC and kockums did an appalling job, if the intention was to build a safe submarine that could attack other vessels, soon after it was launched. Which i think is what we paid for. Greglocock (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. See below section. -- saberwyn 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"McIntosh-Prescott report" section and other article issues

Looking at the article, I see a number of problems that need to be addressed, both overall and specifically in the "McIntosh-Prescott report", which appears to cop the worst of it. Some of the problems are:

• The content in the article is poorly organised. For example: most of the construction and engineering information split up and farmed out across multiple sections.
• The "report" section is not entirely about the report, but instead uses the need for the report to launch into a description of the various problems that have plagued the submarine class.
• There is a lot of non-neutral and peacock-y phrasing in the article, for example: Swedish welding of the bow section of the first submarine turned out to be a major issue. Leading-edge research, including painstaking steel-alloy analysis led by DSTO, eventually^{as opposed to giving a point in time} solved the problem. The entire paragraph (and to a lesser extent, most of the section) goes on in simiar tones and gives the impression of Australians Tarzan-beating their chests and shouting "We're better than the people who built this!".
• Two entire sections are uncited, whilst a third relies on only a single citation.
• Some of the citations, instead of linking directly to the news article in question, only link to the website of the responsible newspaper.

When I get some time over the next day or two, I will have a crack at improving the article to solve some or all of these problems. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. -- saberwyn 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

there are numerous problems with this page, if you want help i would suggest PM'ing GF at this link, a read of this thread will show he knows what he is talking about http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3875 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.9 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think that material was added by an IP editor and it reads as if they were an ASC employee. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long to get around to this, and thank you to all the editors who made contributions in the meantime. I've expanded the article by adding in more information about the development and design process, the capabilities, etc. I will admit there hasn't been much expansion in regards to the problems of the class, because the majority of the sources I'm finding are either the Media saying "the Navy subs are pieces of junk" or the Navy saying "the Media don't have a clue what they're on about". I'll continue to look into it, (I've got about thirty journal articles and several hundred newspaper articles to chew through, and I want to find a copy of that 'Steel, Spies, and Spin' book) and try to compile something that is both comprehensive and fairly neutral. I've also attempted to tone down the chest-beating, but there is a chance I've swung past neturality and become POV from the other perspective, so I've left the tags (which I've moved to the top because its a whole-article problem now) on for the moment.

I had to elimiate a lot of material from the "Delays..." and "McIntosh Prescott Report" sections, because it was either a word-for-word copyvio of one of the sources, or was close enough to be better safe than sorry by removing it. I think all the problems should go into the first section, and the report section be about the report, but the fine-tuning of the content organisation will come as I go through the information on the problems.

Thoughts? -- saberwyn 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Much better - well done! I think you might have lost a few of the last changes I made, but they are minor, so no worries. Was trying to psyche myself up to attack this properly, but you've beaten me to it. Did you want to keep going and try to get GA? Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it until after I've chewed through the pile of sources I have and made the relevant expansions, but while we're heading in this general direction...why not? -- saberwyn 08:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read 'Steel, Spies, and Spin' (borrowed from the library where it's in high rotation I'm afraid), and it was quite good and would make an excellent reference. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My local library has a copy, which I just borrowed. There goes my weekend :P -- saberwyn 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting read: I read it over a weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Content expansion

The massive content expansion promised in the above section has been dumped into mainspace. Just a few notes regarding this

1. I'm leaving that cleanup tag on the article for the moment... I'll leave it for someone less involved to make the call if the issues have been solved. Any pro-Aussie POV I've introduced (or introduced back) into the article needs to be beaten out as well.
2. The "Characteristics" section is meant to have a "Sensors and systems" section, where the technical info of the radar, sonars, combat system, other systems, etc is elaborated on. However, the information I have at the moment is quite patchy and a series of "one-liners", so I'm leaving it in my rewrite sandbox for now. Help expanding and integrating this information back into the article is appreciated.

That's about it for now. Thoughs? Comments? Flames? -- saberwyn 07:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The sensors sandbox article is good enough as is, IMO. I've got some generic non-classified info on Kariwara and Mulloka, but it isn't especially accurate (I did a little bit of work on kariwara, and a lot of the design of its civilian equivalent), and I'm not sure you really need more detail. Greglocock (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just have an aversion to single-sentance paragraphs, particularly in the case of the combat system, when we spend a lot of time on the problems with the system, but less than three lines on the system itself. Also, is the current sandbox layout acceptable in articlespace? -- saberwyn 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Grins well that's the engineer in me, if it looks like a list make it bulletpoints! I'll have a look around for more details on the combat system, but specs and so on will be hard to find. Greglocock (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

burst hose

Saberwyn undid addition because he considered it overly-detalied, newsarticle-type content
i feel deleting isnt the right thing as the information gets lost, editing is the sensible way and i have edited it to its minimum info

A prototype hose will be tested extensively in 2008 and certified for use before full production of replacement hoses occurs for fitting to submarines http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21285627-31477,00.html

That story is badly dated. As written, it's pretty much useless to us now, in late 2009. Saberwynn ws right to delete it. - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

3 active?

I think it is misleading to say that only half the submarine fleet is active. It seems inconsistent with the treatment of other submarine classes. Submarines go in and out of intermediate and deep maintenance, training, workup, etc...that does not mean they are not 'active'. The term is not official Navy language and so should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by thefunnelweb (talk • contribs)

The reason the "Active" field is marked as 3 is because the RAN only has enough personnel to operate three of the submarines as of mid-2009 (as discussed in the "Ship's company" section of the article). This figure is not related to factors like dockings, workups, etc (if it were, the figure would be 1). -- saberwyn 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Operational History section

(This relates to several other comments on this page.)

I would respectfully suggest that the majority of the "Operational History" section be deleted. It reads like a government PR campaign to try to convince the reader of the "worthiness" of the submarine.

For the uninitiated, let me point out that war games exercises are designed to expose flaws. They are rarely created as "fair fights". If you want to know how a US Navy carrier group will respond to a surprise attack by a diesel-electric sub, you create a situation in which the sub has an advantage and the carrier group a decided disadvantage. Then you wait to see how much damage the sub will do.

This is why the endless, carefully itemized examples in the "Operation History" section are NOT RELEVANT. You could make similar arguments for ANY piece of modern military equipment. I have heard all about Swedish subs, Canadian subs, German subs, etc. sinking US navy carriers. Who cares? You can't just pick and choose which examples to relate to the reader out of dozens of lopsided exercises. These kinds of factoids are really overstated, overused and utterly misunderstood by a lot of people. They only serve to mislead the reading public in an encyclopedia.

The Collins class is effective. That's all that needs be said. The article has clearly been influenced by the obviously hostile political debate taking place in Australia.67.68.47.151 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)