Talk:Collins-class submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 12, 2009 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
November 10, 2009 WikiProject A-class review Approved

Boeing/Rockwell Weapons Combat System[edit]

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

wrong flag ?[edit]

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[edit]

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?

I'm not surprised you don't have the guts to sign this, I suggest you get an account with the username drongo or preferably wuss. Cheers Greglocock (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Nuvola apps important.svg

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[edit]

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[1]. 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[2]. 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 (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[edit]

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.


Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (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 (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
While it certainly is true that certain exercises contain mandatory fire windows, one should keep in mind that the U.S. Navy was impressed enough to lease a Swedish Gotland-class submarine for over a year to develop new anti-submarine tactics after it managed to penetrate the protecting screen and make a simulated sinking of the carrier during such an exercise. It seem doubtful planned training would justify that cost. (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Collins Class Submarine Retirement Date Announced[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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, eventuallyas 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]

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[edit]

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,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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

3 is currently correct though the RAN is on track to make this 4 submarines with 4 crews by the end of 2011 Longinus007 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously do you even understand how the cycle works ? of course the navy only have enough crews to operate 3 subs, how many do you think you can have operational at any given time in a 6 sub fleet ? And BTW, active normally means "commissioned" so if you look at the majority of "information" on Wiki regarding military equipment, especially naval ships, the active equates to commissioned ships of a particular class — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree - saying that only 3 are active is not really accurate. 6 are still in commission, with the number of "operational" boats really being the question (which apparently fluctuates due to the maintenance cycle and crewing). This is fairly standard as the entire fleet could never be operational at any one time (of any ship / submarine type) for these very reasons. Anotherclown (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
My understanding of the intended Collins cycle was 2 subs away (long-range patrols, spying, foreign exercises), 2 subs at home (workups, training, short-range patrols, RAN exercises), sub 5 down for minor maintenance (full or near-full complement for reactivation at short notice), and sub 6 in deep maintenance (nil or skeleton complement). That said, I've altered the figure to 6 and deleted the footnote. -- saberwyn 03:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
From memory, news reports stated that one or two of the boats were effectively laid up a few years ago due to a combination of crew shortages and maintenance work taking much longer than expected to complete. More recent reports have stated that the force is back to the cycle noted above, with all boats being technically active. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

6 active boats as in operational? Not including the 2 that are always in maint? So out of service. Then 2 are only ever in service as there is ONLY FOUR CREWS, 2 on and 2 off. So 2 are pointless and have been since the day launched. So even if theres no boats being serviced and not usable, that makes 2 active, with 4 in war.--Thelawlollol (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Article itself states there is 4 crews and only 2 in service! so in all real situations only 2 are currently active and 4 possibly, which will be interesting when theres 12 additional outdated and pointless subs and still only 4 crews for them.--Thelawlollol (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No I don't think "active" in this context means "operational" (as in capable of being deployed on operations etc), but more generally in commission / in use / not placed in reserve etc. At any rate like all complex equipment types a certain percentage of any submarine fleet will always be in regular programmed or unscheduled reactive maintenance or involved in training activities, and one assumes that when they were being acquired the normal availability rate of such things and the capability effect req'd from the fleet (i.e. the number of boats needed to be "operational" at any one time) would have been considered and would have informed the total number acquired. This is the basis of the force generation cycle of "reset, readying and ready" which is the model currently used by Army at least (and I'd assume the Force Generation Plan used by Navy would be fairly similar - but open to being corrected of cse). This model assumes that of a force one third will be in reset, one third will be readying, and one third will be ready to be deployed (or actually deployed). With this in mind I doubt Navy would ever plan to have all six Collins "operational" at any one time, indeed probably 2-3 "operational" at any one time would sound about right with the rest either in maintenance or training (activities which are hardly "pointless"). Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Operational History section[edit]

(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 a tactical advantage and the carrier group is disadvantaged. Then you wait to see how much damage the sub will do before the carrier's defenses kick in. Put differently, exercises seek to identify the weak spots in each vessel, not to determine which vessel is superior.

This is why the endless, carefully itemized examples in the "Operation History" section are irrelevant. All they prove is that the Collins sub is a modern military machine. Well... we knew that to begin with. The Collins class is effective. That's all that needs be said. (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Operational history" section is full of both 'good' news and 'bad' news: along with the successes in war games, it details the near loss of one of the submarines and the fact that at least half the class was out of commission for the late 2000s and early 2010s. You say that "The Collins class is effective. That's all that needs be said.", but would any ship class article be considered 'complete' without indicating the events that show the successes and failures of the ships in the class. And until Australia becomes involved in a shooting war with a maritime nation, war games and training exercises (which I understand in the case of the ones listed in the article are less "point a submarine at the target and see how they react" and more "can the submarine successfully point herself at the target?" ) are the only events where the combat capabilities (or lack thereof) of the class are going to be demonstrated and reported in reliable published sources. Besides that, considering all the problems and dramas experieced during the design, construction, and early operating history, is some good news that says "Yes, they are working as intended" a bad thing. -- saberwyn 23:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Updates on Sonar system[edit]

I work for Thales, the Sonar provider on Collins and cleaned up a few errors recently. Someone threatened them for deletion so wanted to clear it up. I spend 9 years on the submarines so hoped to have helped out.

The intercept array was previously listed as an Argo EW system - this is a Thales Intercept (Paris Pylon) is the generic family name.

The periscopes are a new addition, the boats have had them classwide since launch

The completion of the rollout of the new Combat system was incorrectly listed as 2010, this wont happen until the last submarine receives it during FCD

The Sonar hasnt even begun to be upgraded yet, reference for the upgrade is the Defence DCP on the DMO website - earliest commencement of the program is 2017


Longinus007 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if I came across as threatening. Personal experience is brilliant in identifying errors (as you have done). However, under the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies, information has to be attributable to reliable published sources. Hopefully, your personal experience will be able to help locate such sources, like books, trade/industry journals or newsletters, or government/company websites.
  • There is no problem with the periscope info, as the information was already cited in the body of the article to an industry website. I've updated the body of the article to reflect that Pilkington Optronics has become now Thales Optronics.
  • You changed the towed array from "Karriwarra or Namara" to "SHORT-TAS", and the intercept array from "ArgoPhoenix AR-740-US" to "Thales". The original information is backed up by Combat Fleets of the World, a publication by the United States Naval Institute equivalent to Jane's Fighting Ships. However, the 2007-published book is four years out of date, and upgrades have probably been made since 2007, and a reliable published source that indicates the new sonars is required.
  • The 2010 planned competion date of the combat system rollout is cited to a 2006 Navy Engineering Bulletin article, and the 2008 book The Collins Class Submarine Story. Its understandable that the dramas with the class over the past few years have pushed iths date back, but a source needs to be provided backing up your new 2014 date. In the meantime, I've tweaked the language in the body relating to the rollout to reflect this, but marked my additons with a {{citation needed}} tag until sources can be found.
  • You refer to the Defence Materiel Organisation website when mentioning the sonar upgrade. Any chance you can supply a specific web address...I'm having trouble finding it on my own, and imagine I could mine some info from it to expand the article's section on "Sensors and systems".
Let me know if you find anything, or have any questions. -- saberwyn 02:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent essay style additions[edit]

This diff shows some recent additions. I am loathe to get rid of interesting content but at the same time it sounds a bit like OR or opinion to me. Greglocock (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Material like that needs strong citations to be included, so I've just removed it. I think that there was some interest from NZ in the project, but it didn't go very far. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So what's wrong with [citation needed] tags, rather than removing it wholesale? If i were a new contributor who put some interesting stuff into an article and it then got removed completely that would be my last contribution to wiki. Greglocock (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The removal was explained in the edit summary in both instances -- I removed it with an explanation the first time, and didn't argue with you putting it back with a fact tag, but that was before I realised it was an A-Class article, which is expected to adhere to higher standards than the average article. So I agree with Nick's action, and I don't think anyone is trying to scare off a new editor. If a reliable citation for this material was forthcoming, I'd even copyedit it for formatting and expression. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I agree that what you have done adheres to wiki policy yada yada yada. Don't you think that the new stuff was (a) moderately interesting (b) improved the content of the article? If so it is far more likely to get cites added if it is in mainspace instead of being in the bit bucket. If cites aren't added within a month, sure, kill it. As it is I suspect the motivation for the original editor to add cites has now vanished. In my opinion potentially good content that expands an article is worth far more than ensuring that a page is nice and tidy. Greglocock (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've just removed the 'surviving' block of uncited text, as after almost two months, nobody appears to have been able to find supporting sources. Most of the material added by the IP(s) was fairly extreme, and I think that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In case anyone can provide sources for the information, I've linked the original insertion diffs and attempted to summarise the claims made:

  • That the United States provided massive material support for the project, so that they could be used as targets for USN anti-submarine training and as spy-boats to gather intelligence for the Americans. However, the US provided very limited material support for the project, because they thought that the Collins' would be capable of little more than this, based on the opinion that the defence policy Labor and the ANU(? Australian National University?) had concocted was seriously flawed.
  • That New Zealand became involved early in the project (1982) after the RNZN failed to get its way in regards to frigate acquisitions, so decided to replace the lot with cheap subs. They pulled out during 1984-85, apparently because of rising costs, decreasing numbers of first-world diesel-electric sub operators, and the voices of a few politicians and pundits saying "Dude, wtf?"
  • That the Swedish military saw the Collins project as an opportunity to strengthen ties with the United States. The differences in stance between Swedish polities and the Swedish military has confused the poor Australian intellectuals, and any incidents that hampered the submarines' construction was because of Australian inexperience, regardless of what the intellectuals claim. (p.s. Julian Assange is a gullible idiot)

-- saberwyn 12:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Shame really, it /sounded/ interesting. Greglocock (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Collins or Collins?[edit]

Should this article be moved to Collins-class submarine per MOS:TITLE? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Italicisiation of part of all of a title cannot be modified by moving the page. it instead has to be configured using the Displaytitle magic word (see Wikipedia:Page_name#Changing_the_displayed_title), which was unable to apply its wikimagic following the recent pagemove. I've fixed it here. -- saberwyn 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Rex Patrick notable?[edit]

As notable as Goon? Hcobb (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hcobb:, a little more context would be appreciated, seeing (as per recent Oz proceedures), the link was paywalled after a sparrow's fart's duration. -- saberwyn 03:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, more links:

Each of the six boats costs twice as much to sustain and operate as an American nuclear submarine, while falling far short

The chief executive officer of the DMO, Warren King, has previously acknowledged, publicly, issues with Collins sustainment

A state-of-the-art, highly capable MOTS submarine providing perhaps 90 per cent of the required capability and saving $26 billion to be spent on other vital Defence capability is the only option this Government should contemplate, Mr Patrick said.

It's not like Rex is particularity shy on barking at the sub program. Hcobb (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Collins-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)