Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs

last SG · 2008-08-16T11:51:47+00:00

Since when was the Aelgis system, with all it's powerful active radars and the like, as well as operating near other fleet ships which will show up on radar...

maurizio13 SG

lionnoisy,

With the 1 year Full Docking Cycle, what you mistakenly thought to be docking time.

The US would be able to build One Nuclear Submarine per shipyard.

Surely the Australians aren't so stupid, or is it you that is stupid.

Hahahaha.......

1 year docking time for submarine repairs.

Targeting Nuclear Submarines

Why, then, is the future of a vibrant and busier-than-ever submarine force, supported by efficiently produced and operationally capable platforms of the Virginia class, threatened by stretched-out production schedules and a weakened industrial base? The reason, as is so often the case, is money—and short-range solutions to near-term fiscal shortfalls are now seriously undermining the nation's long-term capability to build and sustain a dominant undersea force. U.S. submarine roles and missions, alternative force levels, and the various options on how to reach and maintain them were the focus of a recent Congressional Research Service report. 2 In that study, the present method—where the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard in Groton and the Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard co-produce Virginia hulls then alternate final assembly, test, and delivery—was compared to alternate schemes. The present arrangement was deemed optimum for what was to be initially a one ship per year buy, but planned to increase to two ships per year (one for each yard) construction rate as early as 2002.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_0605_Shipyards,00.html

lionnoisy SG

UK has a 2.5 year docking cycle, which means that the ship is docked for 2.5 years for repairs?

No?

Hahaha........

"The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is the specialist front-line support force for the Royal Navy which replenishes warships at sea with fuel, stores, weapons equipment and munitions. The fast fleet tankers are able to operate in support of amphibious forces, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare operations and protection of vital sea areas and shipping. The tankers support general purpose task groups, the CVSG groups and the Amphibious Task Group and may be deployed away from the United Kingdom for the complete period of its docking cycle, which at present is every 2.5 years. All the maintenance activities are being undertaken in theatre."

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wave/

i alreday answer u similiar question in the USN example.

12 years in dock looks strange.

1 year for Oz looks normal.U have to see how much works they have to do,

my fren.

maurizio13 SG

i alreday answer u similiar question in the USN example.

12 years in dock looks strange.

1 year for Oz looks normal.U have to see how much works they have to do,

my fren.

First you tell us that the submarines were less than 10 years old, then it was shown that the submarines were in operation since 1993.

Then you tell us that Full Docking Cycle means time in dock, which actually means the cycle before it goes in for maintenance repairs.

lionnoisy SG

HMAS Dechaineux has also been docked
at our South Australian facility as she
undergoes her full-cycle docking which
commenced in April 2006.

access today 18.08.2008

HMAS Dechaineux is currently decommissioned and undergoing a docking period at the Australian Submarine Corporation facility in Adelaide. Dechaineux is the fourth Collins Class Submarine built for the Royal Australian Navy.

lionnoisy SG

wow

so know why all subs have to spend so much time in dock--

work in progress

http://www.abc.net.au/nt/stories/s1358827.htm

Tuesday, 3 May 2005

Reporter: (online story) Nicholas Kittel

Presenter: Leon Compton

lionnoisy SG

this is damn interesting

pl get the full thesis here.

http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/pubfiles/adt-MU20070918.160435/05Chapter4.pdf

lionnoisy SG

u have salute to the eagerness of Oz to upgrade subs.

They decided to upgrade even the new sub still under construction!!

so u know why so many sit in dock.

Australian Minister for Defence John Moore and Sen. Nick Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science, and Resources, have announced a decision to modify two more Collins-class diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) and to approve other submarine-related work, at a total cost of $72 million.

The two submarines, HMAS Farncomb and the as-yet unlaunched Rankin, sixth and last of the class, will be upgraded with the same modifications approved last year for HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Sheean. Changes to the submarines include modified propellers, modified casing sections, improved hydraulics components, and reliability improvements to the diesel engine system.....

maurizio13 SG

i alreday answer u similiar question in the USN example.

12 years in dock looks strange.

1 year for Oz looks normal.U have to see how much works they have to do,

my fren.

Hahaha......

If you look at the launch date of HMAS Waller and HMAS Dechaineux, they are both 1 year apart. (If both construction were taken consectively)

Each submarine takes 2.5 million hours to assemble. It's not an impossible task.

If you have 856 staffs a day working 3 shifts for a year, your submarine would be complete in a year.

Hahaha.......

1 year docking time to repair a submarine.

lionnoisy SG

Oz DMO gave a worse figure in 2006/07 report----583 days for sub.

also,other naval ships look not so good.

http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/314188?page=3

lionnoisy SG

Hahaha......

If you look at the launch date of HMAS Waller and HMAS Dechaineux, they are both 1 year apart. (If both construction were taken consectively)

Each submarine takes 2.5 million hours to assemble. It's not an impossible task.

If you have 856 staffs a day working 3 shifts for a year, your submarine would be complete in a year.

Hahaha.......

1 year docking time to repair a submarine.

If u dunt believe Oz sub spent one year in dock,i get worse news

to tell you which i also overlooked.

look at these again.

Eg HMAS Collins spent at least 2 years continouisly in dock.

2005

Materiel control of HMAS Collins was transferred to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) on 29 July 2005, concluding HMAS Collins’ Full-Cycle Docking, which included repairs to sections 300/600 and special forces’ modifications.

http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_history.aspx

To be fair,it need so long becos,among other things,

special forces’ modifications was done!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_class_submarine

Pl note HMAS Collins was delivered in 1996.Read the history.

u can see HMAS Collins spent good 2 years in the charts below.

See to believe.But it is ok.Many stuff need to be done.

I think reports usually cover the period 1 April to 31 March.

pl read to find out .

In 2004/05,60 % of 6 subs on average spent in docks.

2003/04,55 % of 6 subs on average spent in docks.

I insist 52 weeks Full Cycle Docking mean the sub spends

all 52 weeks in docks .

u may think the 52 weeks Full Cycle Docking just involveed sometimes

in dock,much less than 52 weeks spending in dock.U think 52

weeks is a cycle.

If it is a cycle,then other maintenances/repairs cycle spans from 2 to 14

weeks .Is it acceptable for a 2 weeks cycle?

Dig out some more valid info then talk.OK?

Face the reality.Oz need a sub in dock for so long,or longer.

Different country may have different terms.

2.Oz sub Decommissioned during service

u choose to overlook my today 's posting.

access today 18.08.2008

Hey fren.It is not a Tom Dick Harry site.This is a official site

of HMAS Dechaineux!!Can u tell me if this great Oz sub just spend

few weeks or few months in dock,do u think they need to declare

currently decommissioned?

May be his English not so good.May be this is Oz customs

to declare naval ship decommissioned even out of sea for short

period of time.

naval ship get commissioned and decommissioned each

once in their service life.I never heard decommissioned and commissioned

again.Oz is a former British Colony.

I think her navy 's customs close to RSN.

maurizio13 SG

If u dunt believe Oz sub spent one year in dock,i get worse news

to tell you which i also overlooked.

look at these again.

Eg HMAS Collins spent at least 2 years continouisly in dock.

http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_history.aspx

To be fair,it need so long becos,among other things,

special forces’ modifications was done!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_class_submarine

Pl note HMAS Collins was delivered in 1996.Read the history.

u can see HMAS Collins spent good 2 years in the charts below.

See to believe.But it is ok.Many stuff need to be done.

I think reports usually cover the period 1 April to 31 March.

pl read to find out .

In 2004/05,60 % of 6 subs on average spent in docks.

2003/04,55 % of 6 subs on average spent in docks.

I insist 52 weeks Full Cycle Docking mean the sub spends

all 52 weeks in docks .

u may think the 52 weeks Full Cycle Docking just involveed sometimes

in dock,much less than 52 weeks spending in dock.U think 52

weeks is a cycle.

If it is a cycle,then other maintenances/repairs cycle spans from 2 to 14

weeks .Is it acceptable for a 2 weeks cycle?

Dig out some more valid info then talk.OK?

Face the reality.Oz need a sub in dock for so long,or longer.

Different country may have different terms.

2.Oz sub Decommissioned during service

u choose to overlook my today 's posting.

access today 18.08.2008

Hey fren.It is not a Tom Dick Harry site.This is a official site

of HMAS Dechaineux!!Can u tell me if this great Oz sub just spend

few weeks or few months in dock,do u think they need to declare

currently decommissioned?

May be his English not so good.May be this is Oz customs

to declare naval ship decommissioned even out of sea for short

period of time.

naval ship get commissioned and decommissioned each

once in their service life.I never heard decommissioned and commissioned

again.Oz is a former British Colony.

I think her navy 's customs close to RSN.

Yes yes!!!

If your car manual says 6 months full maintenance cycle, it means your car stay in workshop for 6 months.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I don't know why lionnoisy likes to make noise about the Collins class being upgraded, if he really did his homework he would have chosen to keep very quiet about it.

The Collins are recieving upgrades from the USN which is the same as the suite being used in the ultramodern Virgina class SSNs, this is an incredible leap to the warfighting capabilities of the Collins class which is already amongst the best in SSKs in the world.

Additionally they are also getting ADCAP torpedos under the deal to add that all, as well as plans to

Hey fren.It is not a Tom Dick Harry site.This is a official site

of HMAS Dechaineux!!Can u tell me if this great Oz sub just spend

few weeks or few months in dock,do u think they need to declare

currently decommissioned?

Not tom dick harry site you use tom dick harry logic to read what's the point?

You still make nonsense and mistakes.

You don't understand the meaning of currently decommisionned don't roar around and make noise about it.

You made a vital mistake in reading that site before you decided to make noise in here.

Here's what, I'll be nice for once and give you time to discover your mistake, if you think you still want to make noise about this

Go and do your homework before you make more noise.

Only up to 10 naval cambtant platform defend Oz a day

What is cambtant?

Try spellcheck, it works

LOL.

lionnoisy SG

which one do u like?

below:Navantia’s F100 ‘Existing Design’

above:Gibbs & Cox’s ‘Evolved Design’

http://www.gibbscox.com/index.htm

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

The Collins Class Submarines are an engineering marvel, but have not been without their problems, which included:

How come you like to harp on the issues and not on the fact that by standards of SSKs anywhere in the world that it is an engineering marvel?

Your selective Tom, Dick and Harry reasoning?

I think even Tom, Dick and Harry has more sense and intergity then you.

Design faults: The metal that had been selected for use in the propeller had not been thoroughly tested and was brittle and inadequate.

The issue with the propellers have long been fixed. Trying to raise old problems that don't exist anymore?

Sound signature faults: The vessel's sound signature was not correct and could not adequately avoid detection (it was a noisy sub).

Also long since fixed, in fact the Collins became so silent that it was able to take on a USN 688I submarine as well as penetrate their ASW dragnet, the most efficent in the world

Water ingress problems: Initially the Collins Class had water ingress in excess of 300 litres per hour, flooding into the sub. This was eventually corrected to only 3 litres.

The problem has been corrected, raise it for what?

Most of the problems the Collins Class faced were the result of the fact that the vessel was different to anything else that the engineers had tried to achieve before. The army of engineers used during the construction of the Collins Class included:

You answered your own post with the last paragraph, the fact that the Collins was so innovative and different from anything ever tried before, and the fact that they actually suceeded in building, and troubleshooting the class plus a new one planned goes to show that by any means, the entire project is actually a coup for the Australian Navy, given they now have far more experience in the field then any nation in the region.

Our own submarine force spends a lot of time docked as well, this is the nature of SSK operations, but apparently you didn't know this before you decided to raise noise in here.

BTW, how come you stopped talking about stealth and Aegis systems after learning that the Aussies can easily find our Formidible frigates?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

More amazingly the article you quoted selectively actually PRAISED the Collins as an engineering wonder of Australia. Instead you sneakly tried to post just a bit of it and think that nobody will notice?

Here's the article in full and the important parts lionnoisy left out that showed that the conclusions of the article were totally different from what he was trying to say, so he decided not to use it in full:

Tuesday, 3 May 2005

Reporter: (online story) Nicholas Kittel

Presenter: Leon Compton

Over the next 14 weeks we're going to look at the 7 Engineering Wonders of Australia. Last week we visited the Ord River Scheme, this week it's the Collins Class Submarine.

Submarines (subs) are different from all other naval vessels in that they are the only ship capable of submerging and operating under water.

Subs can do this by harnessing the property of buoyancy or relative density. This relative density is controlled through the use of ballast tanks, which act as a balance between water and air and keep the sub either submerged or afloat.

The Collins Class Submarines were part of an ambitious plan to take Australia's Navy well into the next century, replacing the Oberon class submarines. The first of the subs (HMAS Collins) was commissioned on 27 July 1996, with HMAS Dechaineux, HMAS Farncomb, HMAS Rankin, HMAS Sheean and HMAS Waller all following in the years after.

The Collins Class Submarines are all powered by Diesel engines, which only operate on the surface, charging batteries which power the sub when it is submerged.

The Collins Class Submarines are an engineering marvel, but have not been without their problems, which included:

Design faults: The metal that had been selected for use in the propeller had not been thoroughly tested and was brittle and inadequate.

Sound signature faults: The vessel's sound signature was not correct and could not adequately avoid detection (it was a noisy sub).

Water ingress problems: Initially the Collins Class had water ingress in excess of 300 litres per hour, flooding into the sub. This was eventually corrected to only 3 litres.

Most of the problems the Collins Class faced were the result of the fact that the vessel was different to anything else that the engineers had tried to achieve before. The army of engineers used during the construction of the Collins Class included:

Electrical engineers
Logistics engineers
Materials engineers
Mechanical engineers
Acoustic engineers
Structural engineers
Project engineers
Software engineers
System engineers
Welding engineers

Despite the problems the Collins' encountered it did have some very impressive design features, not least of which is the combat system. The system aimed to take all the different inputs from the sub's environment (via infra red, sonar or otherwise) and combine them to build up a complete three-dimensional picture of exactly what the ships imediate environment looked like. This system is still under construction (and is estimated to have used as much as 40 per cent of the budget) but is an amazing advance in underwater navigation if it can be completed.

Collins Class; Facts and Figures:
Displacement: 3350 tonnes (submerged)
Length: 77.8 metres
Diameter: 7.8 metres
Draught: 6.8 metres
Diving Depth: 180+ metres

As usual, this is just like your cloning incident, acting without intergity and selectively leaking data to suit your case and dropping whatever that does not agree with you.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Collins sub shines in US war game

One of Australia's Collins class submarines has hunted down and "killed" a state-of-the-art United States nuclear submarine in a series of mock attacks during an underwater warfare exercise off Hawaii.

Officers in the exercise told The Sunday Age HMAS Sheean had held its own during two rigorous weeks of combat trials with the Los Angeles class attack sub, USS Olympia. The subs had swapped roles as hunter and prey and scored roughly equal numbers of hits.

The role of seeking and destroying an enemy submarine is one of the most difficult faced by Australia's six new Collins class submarines. The success off Hawaii in August has boosted morale dramatically among submarine crews who have had to endure years of hearing their boats condemned as noisy and vulnerable.

A 1999 report by the then CSIRO chief, Malcolm McIntosh, and former BHP managing director John Prescott said the Collins' combat system should be junked, the vessels were noisy and vulnerable to attack, their engines broke down regularly, a badly shaped hull and fin made too much disturbance when they moved at speed under water, the view from the periscope was blurry, the communications system outdated and the propellers were likely to crack.

Commander Steve Davies, chief-of-staff in the navy's submarine force, said that during the past three years those problems had been fixed to the point where the submarines were able to match the best of the US Navy's giant underwater fleet.

During its mock attacks on the Olympia and on two US destroyers, the Sheean fired 28 torpedoes. Commander Davies said "a respectable percentage" of shots Sheean fired at Olympia were hits that would have destroyed the powerful US vessel.

Commodore Davies, Australia's most experienced Collins commander, said the two vessels were very evenly matched. The submarines also practised landing special forces.

The exercises provided a crucial test for the Australian submarine, which has been as much criticised at home as it has been feted abroad.

The Olympia, 110 metres long and 12 metres across the beam, is twice the displacement of the Sheean, at 80 metres by eight metres. The Olympia carries up to 120 crew; the Sheean 45. Many of the Americans are engineers caring for their reactor.

The Collins is powered by diesel and electric motors and its roles include undersea warfare - finding and destroying other submarines - destroying enemy warships and merchant ships, surveillance and intelligence collection, support for special forces and covert transport.

Commander Davies said the US sub's size was not an advantage: "It just means you make more noise when you go faster."

He said cooperation with the US submarine force had increased significantly recently. "That has come about because they're interested in the Collins class and in our submarine force generally."

While the Americans run the world's most powerful submarine arm, they acknowledge that changes in international conditions in the past decade and new priorities have left them with tactics to learn from the small Australian submarine arm.

Commander Davies said Australian submariners were used to operating in shallow water. "That's one of the things the Americans are looking towards us for experience in.

"Ten years ago their submarine force was chasing Russian submarines around the deep ocean. Now, as with all submarine forces, it's more focused on closer inshore operations, intelligence collection or working with special forces. They're looking to us as a submarine force which has a long experience in that sort of thing."

The six Collins' combat systems are to be upgraded further and they will get more modern torpedoes. Those the Sheean used in its clashes with the Olympia were developed in the 1970s; the Americans used a far more sophisticated generation.

While smaller than the US nuclear boats, the Collins is one of the world's biggest conventional submarines. It was designed to cover long distances and the Sheean easily reached Hawaii without refuelling.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Note that when the Collins performed that feat it was using the old combat system, following the upgrades it's combat abilities will be even more amplified.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Do our own submarines boast this loadout?

Sensors and
processing systems: Thales underwater systems scylla bow sonar
Thales Underwater Systems GEC-Marconi Kariwara, Thomson Marconi Narama towed array or Allied Signal TB 23
Kelvin Hughes I-band navigation radar
Thales optronics CK043 search and CH093 attack periscopes
Anechoic tiles fitted Armament: Boeing/Rockwell integrated system
McDonnell Douglas UGM-84 Harpoon
6 × 21 in (533 mm) tubes for sub harpoon and Gould Mark 48 torpedo - total of 22 carried
44 mines in lieu of torpedoes
Fitted for but not with Land Attack Cruise missiles with combat system AN/BYG 1

To be fitted :
US Mk 48 ADCAP
Combat System AN/BYG 1 based on Raytheon's CCS Mk 2

Unfotunately...

no.

In 2005, the Collins submarines underwent a major AUD $857 million capability boost^[14], as integration & testing of the same tactical combat system present in the USA's most modern attack submarines commences. Weapon control development was changed to the AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System, which is also fitted to the newly developed SSN Virginia class submarine for the USN. The AN/BYG-1 is a derivative of the CCS Mk 2 combat system. The fitting of the AN/BYG-1 has gained the Collins class submarine the ability to support the Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo

maurizio13 SG

Please!!!

We don't even have the capability to build a submarine, Australia is still ahead of us in Submarine technoloby.

maurizio13 SG

Oz DMO gave a worse figure in 2006/07 report----583 days for sub.

also,other naval ships look not so good.

http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/314188?page=3

Your source also said 98% for the 6 Collins Class Submarines. 802 URD out of 817 URD achieved.

On the other hand, I think our subs perform at below 50%, find source to proof me wrong.

« Previous Page Next Page »