As an Australian, the "completion" of the hull with painted timber in time for the launch ceremony is one of the most Aussie things I've ever heard, and I can guarantee that it was done under orders against the advice of the people actually building the thing so a bunch of politicians could keep their appointment with the TV cameras.
@John Fallon Lol, Aussies have been 'Magyvering' stuff since day 1. Have you heard of Ned Kelly? When an Aussie's back is against the wall he's at his most inventive and dangerous state. Look up the Owen gun. In 1938 a 24 year old civilian figured that submachine guns would be important and developed a prototype using .22 LR. Initially rejected by the army as unnecessary, in the Second World War we needed a submachine gun that was simple and reliable as US or British weapons were in short supply and unreliable in muddy jungle conditions. The army decided to develop Owen's design in 9mm, and when tested against the Sten and Thompson after being immersed in mud or covered in sand was the only gun that still operated. 45,000 were produced between 1942 and 1944 (by a nation with no large scale firearms manufacturers), and it was in use until the late '60's.
Yes I remember when we went online with Pelican Point Power Station with TV Cameras in the control room. We joked to simulate everything just for fun. Nobody could tell. Nowhere else in the world I had such an experience.
@@felixtheswiss Electrical/HV engineering is a field I'm very interested in, amusing to learn that the same kind of shenanigans sometimes go on there. I'm sure the same kind of thing happens all the time in other countries. But Aussies do seem to be particularly good at bunging it on for the cameras, especially when the choices are "make it look good or start working on your resumé". Cheers ;)
This one is special. It's the first 'Sub Brief' and was the beginning of my professional military contractor career even though I didn't know it at the time. Now, I develop systems for NAVSEA and do 'Sub Brief' as a hobby. Life is full of opportunities that you create.
Why did you keyword-stuff the description with a bunch of unrelated terms like "best meatball sub fort collins"? That's really dickish for a cool dude such as yourself.
It's really nice to see people transition from military careers with no civilian equivalents manage to turn them into good civilian employment. Gives a CP-140 Scope dope like me some hope
It's actually almost exactly the reverse. Many foreign defence contractors are used to saying 'close enough'. But the defence department in Australia is far more 'Nah, the contract said you would do X, you said it could do X, show me it doing it." Many of them just ticked all the boxes saying 'does X', but never expected to have to actually meet that, and when called out on it, were used to the more American system where the Government would pay them 'time and materials' to fix it. That's not how the Australian military contracts work. It's fixed price. You fix it at your expense. Anyway, the end result was a very good submarine.
Some interesting tidbits form development: The German competitor was embarrassing compared to the Swedish sub it only had 50% of required power, 2/3rds submerged time and 15% less range WITH hotel services disabled. The contract didn't include a noise requirement for above 10 knots, Sweden never operated fast so it wasn't even considered a problem for them. Signaal left Australia after they never received the style-guide so the brief(or something I cant remember) was basically ignored for the Rockwell system. they had to change the shape of the sonar dome and move the accessories but couldn't decide who would pay to test the new shape leading to the "Fangs" that would impact the screw and make a bunch of noise. America knew about the propeller cracking before we even started designing it, but due to the secrecy around your submarine program we were never told. An Australian Dr. Oldfield developed new anechoic tiles that got you guys interested and coupled with the work we did on the electronic system together led to signing an agreement in the pentagon on sharing sub technology the day before 9/11. There was a bunch of messing around with this project in the navy and parliament ie: There were a few people trying to get this project scrapped and get a new aircraft carrier with no submarines. When The opposition got in after running on a campaign that included scrapping the sub program they ran the numbers and came back with the idea that if we changed anything we should order the 12 that the contract would allow not just the 6. If anyone is interested in the design / local politics I would highly recommend the book "Collins class submarine story" by Peter Yule and Derek Woolner.
12 would of been such a waste of resources as in around 2007 the Navy for a short time only had 1 sub that was active out of 6 and no more than 2 which is terrible, this was similiar to the same problems the Canadian navy had. There is one sub base on the left of Australia and it seems just 3 but 4 in an emergency is the max crew your ever going to get.... if Australia had of picked the spanish s80 plus sub which i think was the best replacement for the collins other then building more collins it would of been fine as it has a 20 crew rather than 50. you could build 15 and still need need any more personell which would of been perfect for Australia... that 4.5 billion wasted on the french contract could of built 4 brand new almost 5 spanish s80 plus subs and you would save a huge amount of money by not having to life extend the collins or build a huge sub base near sydney on the right side of Australia... finially australia could of had sub numbers that would be similiar to korea or japan but that will not happen now ... the 300 million overbudget delay on the s80 made Australia pull out kind of ironic when they wasted 4.5 billion on french contract and got nothing for it , so that 300 miilllion that made the s80 plus the same size as collins is nothing in comparision
@@nic7048 S80 doesn't have the range or endurance of Collins. Also the original Collins class contract was for 6 subs with an option for 2 more - total of 8. Not 12. Many of the problems with Collins were self inflicted - government not putting up the cash for maintenance and crews.
I love these videos because it's great hearing a technical specialist talk about a subject he's passionate about. And because the host comes over as a thoroughly decent chap. The sort of person that I'd be proud to have as a friend.
Also a stealth feature. Absorbs active sonar and presents a non-threat target to passive receivers. Combined with the Accadacca screaming over the internal speakers and no one ever suspected it wasn't just Bazza out for a party in his fishing dingy.
Fun fact, the Australian Submarine Corp also made the laterite leach autoclave vessels for a mine in Western Australia. Explosion bonded titanium inside a card on steel shell, not a technology you find in most workshops.
I remember that job well, the grubby management would not provide supplied air masks for the welders inside the pressure vessels. Even though they were hanging in the store.
To our American friends when you are on exercise with the Aussie’s and you hear “land down under” by men at work, come across your sonar system. Consider yourself “sunk” as we say here tell ya story walking pal. (Ref to HMAS Rankin on exercise RIMPAC) Great video as always from Sub Brief. 👍🇦🇺🇺🇸
As an American submariner, I can totally see y'all doing that. Friend of mine rigged up a connection to wire a Walkman into the underwater telephone back in the late 1980s.
I love the Collins, great looking subs, sure they had their problems but by all accounts they are extremely good boats now. Also pause for a minute and think what a momentous task this must have been for Australia. To completely set up a new manufacturing base and tooling in an industry you had no experience in and on top of that to partner with Sweden, a country that designs submarines for shallow water Littoral operations (the furthest away from what you actually want). Hats off to them. The fact that they even got it done and still have them running well today is a great testament to the Australian Navy. Its just unfortunate that they don't seem to have heeded the hard earned lessons from it with regards to the Attack class.
As someone who was in Defence during this all I can say is there was a lot of smiles and back thumps to sailors after the Collins submarines' successes. We and especially the RAN had gone through a lot of pain and very cruel jokes from the media about the Collins. Problems have continued and finding enough crews to support full rotations have become challenges in the past decade but that is improving again. No doubt the same problems and cost blow outs will occur in the next class (your excellent if depressing video on that highlighted things to come) but as ever average Australian workers and sailors will find a way to make it good. Its what we do.
I wonder how much the attitude to the new subs is 'we've fixed worse designs,so we can make that one work too' Not the best way to run a procurement program!
Nice vid. Enjoyed a lot. Oddly enough, I got privilege of touring a Collins Class boat in '98 or '99...can't remember the exact year. They pulled into Pearl Harbor sub base for a port visit. Nice looking boat. As an A-ganger, I was particularly impressed with their atmosphere control equipment. Newer and more advanced than the rickety old CO/H2 burners and CO2 scrubbers on my 688-I boat.
@@shadow7037932 Drinking a 6er of VB, lighting up a Winnie Blue, and hopping in your Holden Monaro to drive from Coomera to Coombabah to bang some bushpig you met on the internet. So basically winging it
During WWII Aussies needed a tank. They built the Sentinel from scratch in three months. The Boomerang fighter was developed as quickly. There were only DC3 engines available, ok put this on a fighter. The Boomerang is one of the best sounding fighter of WWII if not the better one in a fight. For me the beginnings was painful (not your fault) but the end result ... tip of the hat. Good boats.
A big part of the problems with readiness and manning that the class experienced really had nothing to do with the ships or the service, but related to the mining industry targeting submariners in particular for head hunting.
Yes that and also then punish the sailors that kept those boats at sea by importing RN sailors and surface fleet sailors .Effectively denying promotion to those that kept the boats manned aka the direct entry professional submariner.
Mind you the mining industry was offering AUD$200k+ year for 2 weeks one and 1 week off. No wonder the sailors went that way, triple the salary and the ability to see friends/family easily in comparison to being on a sub. As an Australian it always got me wondering whether the Navy let the Collins have such a bad reputation so it would have a large advantage against a peer state in a conflict. On the whole, it seems a bit disingenius.
Well done on the info. As an Aussie and from WA where the subs are maintained along with SA where they were built, I've always had an interest and followed the Collins story closely. I do remember there was talk the an integrated bus type was planned / intended for the sub systems which no one, even the US had attempted before which was a little too ambitious at the time. US were using separate systems and I think we also scrapped the planned design and went for an more off-shelf system supplied by a US company. I also though Boeing was involved somewhere as well. Also, speaking to Navy commander friend, he also mentioned that during one of the war games, one of the pre-upgrade subs managed to get close enough to a US carrier to take a photo of it's keel. Not sure how factual that is but was what I was told along with alot of the problems associated with sub as you mentioned in the video. With all it's problems, it was likely the most advanced diesel electric for most of it's service though I assume there are some more advanced sub now.
I worked on these at ASC up to and including the 1st launch ceremony, under Hans Orff. Was a great experience and great honour. Even managed to pickup some new Swedish and Italian swear words over casual lunch breaks. Its a fair call that none of the more hair raising or impressive bits about this project ever made it to the press. The press were invited to the launch for the 1st Collins class as well - but the picture they published on the front page of the newspaper ... they kayaked to a spot across the river in the mangrove swamps, and took some fake ass "spy shots" from the mangroves on the telephoto. Typical press. Same deal with just about all the other information that ever made it to the public about the Collins Class. What I can say about working on these - Ive worked Army, Navy, and AirForce for the ADF ... and the Navy by far does the best XMas party catering of all the branches. The RAAF does seriously fucking good catering too, but the RAN catering is just next level.
I hope that the Collins is good, because it’s all we’ll have to fight the next war, which will be done and dusted before the Shortfin Barracuda is anywhere near ready.
Amuses me when I read the requirement about a long long service life of 20 years. Reality is they may end up doing closer to 40 by the time their replacements are built.
Why 6 billion dollars was spent on them so they can be used for the extended lifespan. They are a beast at the moment. For its age. It will still make many navies nervous a decade from now even. The US had ships serving 50 years. The Iowa class Battleship didn't get retired till 1996. That was built during ww2. They have had subs serving for 40 years before they was replaced too. Australia seems to replace equipment due to capabilities rather than age..thoughs Anzacs class frigates was only built from 1996. As where Australia replacing for more capability. The US would had used thoughs ships for petrol ships for its coastguard for another 15 or so year. Australia rather sinks them or sell them of. But loses numbers off a fleet. And limit its vessel strength. Especially when ships get deployed in other areas. They have nothing to patrol its sovereignty waters other than a few lightly armed OPV. And have to rely on air defence that is also limited in strength. Since the retired off the F111 fleet. Australia lost its long range stike capability. the problem with that. Who's to know China won't send submarines 2000km from Australia shores armed with long range ballistic missiles when Australia deployed its fleet in the south China sea.? What's going to protect Australia? I don't then thiughs new OPV or the F35 can they limited in range
When I did my Masters in strategy at ANU in 2009, the Collins boats were a big case study in the question of indigenous defence procurement. Very cool subs and of course the Australian submariners draw on a long legacy of success. Small world: my first job was at CSC (2010-13) but I was in the far less interesting B2B cloud stuff in the UK. We were not even allowed to know what most of the US part of the company did.
Thanks Jive! Nice to see these full briefs on CZcams, and I'm happy that, as a Crew Member, I had the opportunity to watch this a long time ago!! Edit: Best part: @8:50 - Australians are badass, so 70 days on a diesel boat is still a vacation from a continent where everything is trying to kill you (not a quote, but rather paraphrase)
Voice Recognition: ON. At that moment I was paying attention to a fact sheet, not listening attentively to the voice input. Then it hit me, I know that voice although I hadn't heard it for quite a long time. It was you! I knew it was you. You have a very voice that my active VR finally tuned in. haha. Nice seeing you. It's been a long time. Hope you are well. I was qualified in 1963, in San Diego, aboard the APSS -313, the Perch. DBF Any way, we were on a WestPac cruise and we're tied up in Caviti, in the PI, and tied up right in front of us was an Oberon class sub, and I got a tour. What an experience. I'm happy to see you again Best wishes!!
Thanks for doing our sub Aaron. I'd forgotten how many mistakes there were,and how they were fixed.I also wasnt aware how well it performed in war games. Memories are strange things.We forget most of the bad but remember the good. I cant help but wonder if the Collins experience has influenced our attitude to future purchases? - As in we're happy to take a risk because we've done it before 'and that worked out ok'
Cool channel! Not even really a sub guy but I guess I clicked enough military stuff to end up here. As an Australian with zero idea about our submarines that was really informative and interesting, thank you!
Yes. All that sovereign building capability has now retired. The same will happen with the current program. No one will get us to build submarines for them and when it comes time to replace the Barracuda variants, we will be back to square one .... again.
@@M3au i don't understand their desire to maintain their own naval ship building capability. they have a GDP smaller than canada yet they want to make their own toys like the big boys. they pay out the ass for that capability that really does nothing outside of these one off programs, when that money could've bought them significantly better subs for cheaper. they don't make their own aircraft or their own tanks, yet they want to make their own subs? i don't get it.
@@oldfrend it is all about getting votes in the mendicant state of South Australia. Both political parties do it. Spend billions of dollars to build warships very slowly so that they garner a few votes from a state that a market economy will not support.
@@oldfrend because we're a long way from allies shipbuilding capabilities (closest, usa, has no diesel boats, so we need to look elsewhere), many of which are likely to be involved in a future conflict which means logistics into a warzone to support our defence force. As recent events around vaccine exports have shown, there's doubts about how much we can rely on those allies if push came to shove.
I knew a guy working for Kockums and he was very frustrated by the software problems that they couldn´t control and he said that if we (Kockums) had built the boats, things would have been a lot easier. Having many different contractors for various systems is often problematic by nature:-) New to me was the vibration, leaks and hydrodynamic problems. I don´t know if the Swedish boats upon which the Collins class is based, have had the same issues. Thanks for a lot of interesting and openminded videos about these amazing machines!
Not same: Australia contracted swedish Type 471 from Kockums, owned by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft and German ThyssenKrupp. The Spanish are doing everything by themselves from scratch.
@@sapede Well, the Swedes, really did not get their say in some key matters of this submarine. From the get go there was changes that seemed more political than technical. And they wouldnt take no for an answer.
@@sapede there was no "real" type 471 from the Swedes. The 471 was a computer model based on a stretched Type A17. The government broke its own conditions of contract by buying a submarine that was a computer generated model, which is part of the reason why we had so many troubles with the class. The other problems were fabricated by ASC
@@sapede The swedish family Kockum started their business in the 1800s, but Kockums was a german owned company 1999 to 2014, so when Australia made a deal with the swedes in the 80´s Kockums was a swedish owned company. The Collin class sub can simply be said to be an enlarged version of Kockums' Västergötland class.
@@david19664 YEP, it was Australia always changing the design then blaming the designer for what they never agreed to in the first place. The same thing could happen to the new Hunter class frigate just look how different it is to the UK frigate it probably only has 55% comonality now, even the size is a lot bigger
Considering we had never built a Submarine and for all the detractors, the class was pretty good in terms of "bang for the buck". We did well and our sailors did really well with these boats, just ask the USN.
Thanks Capt'n. Great video. As an Aussie I'm proud of our Collins subs as they were the first ones built by us and as you stated the sailors are outstanding. The Collins to me is a bit like the F111. We will get better at building subs and ships as practice makes perfect and then next ones "should" be better. p.s, you got me onto Cold Waters and its a great game but the Soviets keep ganging up on me and sinking my sub.
I dont know if this is worth a video but what are your opinions on the indonesian subs? The nagapasa class and cakra class since both are/derived from the type 209 subs.
Thanks for this video. Tells much of the story that many Australians don't know. Our media has not been kind to Collins. Tight ass government were the cause of many a problem. And now were are about to repeat the process hopefully we learned from the mistakes of the past. Canning the French sub is a great start.
I'm Australian and I like to think that I know a lot about the ADF (Australian Defense Force), but §i learned more from this than I could have imagined. Thanks, mate.
Hey Aaron thank you very much for this brief. Lovley to see this from a non Australian perspective. @17:20 you mentioned the extended sail at the rear but I think that's actually the exhaust diffuser. It's identical to that on the Gotland class.
Those wacky submarine requirements is what happens when you have no domestic nuclear industry and are thousands of miles from anywhere you might want to patrol
The issues we had with the sub were a noisy shaft issue with the early boats and the combat management system was also delayed because we were stubborn with the harware/software installations and yes thankyou to our American friends for helping solve these issues and turn these boats into 1 of the best conventional attack subs in the world...also another fun fact as an Australian infantryman I was attached to the U.S marine expeditionary force in OPTandem thrust in 2001 when were sunk by the sub, it waited until we left Port, let us sail over top of her then attacked coming out of Mackay harbour!
I lived on the Port River a few clicks from the ASN at Osborne. It was just about a straight line view from my balcony to the dry dock and on a clear day you could see a Collins berthed. The same facility is making the Arleigh Burke variants currently. Thanks for the video, really appreciate it, from an Adelaidian 🤠
I work with an ex submariner who worked several years on collins subs. He says the chinese subs are noisy as hell. Maintenace and correct care of sub components have an enormous factor on how quiet subs can be. The collins do get a bad rap in the early days of development but they have matured today and the australian navy do impose an almost impossibly high standard on the subs specifications which can be interpreted as "troublesome" by some critics.
Awesome video mate! Glad to see you have Australia covered, now as a Australian/Portuguese it would be awesome to see a video on the Portuguese Tridente-class submarines :)
@@SubBrief :) From memory(dont qoute me, im not 100% sure) it caused alot of problems within the EU nations as we (portugal) were in so much debt but we were getting submarines.
I've said this before. The ferocity and lethality of the Australian wildlife is greatly overstated. On any given day you shouldn't have to deal with more than two of them.😁
The poor old Collins classed is considered one of our worst ever military procurements and a blue print of what not to do...kudos to those onboard who managed to do so much with what they were given... Ps new subscriber here, great video
I was on 'skimmers' over in Perth and i was always jealous how much shore time the submariners used to get. They were tied up alongside almost all the time.
Amazing how reasonably effective these Collins class subs ended up being, given they were customized and then the 'production run' was only six boats. 1/6th of the fleet was basically a prototype boat! Hopefully we've learned from the Collins and French contract and development issues and do a better job with the new SSNs. Perhaps first buy a couple of Virginia class subs made in the US while upskilling and preparing to build the remaining Virginia class subs (or possibly SSN(X)s) at Osborne (and doing maintenance at Osborne), or else buy a couple of new Astute's from the UK and then gear up to build a slightly customized version of the new UK dreadnaught subs (i.e. a variation of the UK version to meet Australian requirements). Not sure if maintaining a mix of Astute's and SSNRs / Virginias and SSN(X)s would be feasible though. Adding a couple more subs onto the tail end of the existing US or UK production runs of Virginia or Astute subs should make the cost reasonable? (Eventually producing similar SSNs at Osborne will invariable make the cost-per-boat a LOT higher). It's always tempting to wait for the great new features that are on the drawing board, rather than go with an existing design that is going to be quite 'old' by the time the first one would be delivered in Australia (although Virginia and Astute class subs are still 'current' technology). The selection process for the French subs was meant to only use 'existing technology' but that didn't stop the customization process delaying the final designs by years (and who knows what issues might have only been discovered during sea trials). The first Australian SSN is supposedly due in 2035, while the first SSN(X) is supposed to be done in 2031 and the first SSNR sometime around 2035. But waiting for either the SSN(X) or SSNR to become available could easily delay when the first replacement for the Collins class was available to Australia (and I don't imagine either the US or UK would be keen for Australia to get the second of either the SSN(X) or SSNR, unless by some miracle ACS could gain sufficient facilities and skilled workforce over the next decade to build them at Osborne...). I suppose in theory it should be possible to upgrade ASC to be able to produce an SSN over ten years, especially if Australia was involved in the design process for a variation of the SSN(X) or SSNR. A big issue for the Navy might be having crews for the new subs - Virginia's apparently have 134 per boat, and Astute's have 98. So the current 6 x 50ish crew from the Collins class subs would only be enough to crew 2-3 of the new Australian SSNs. The actual personnel will have changed a lot between now and 2035, but finding sufficient sub crew is supposed to be a problem already.
I would quite like to hear a summary of submarine tech before and during WW2. Not necessarily about a specific class but just how things were done back in the early days :)
And I have a JRC not a Raytheon, I was kinda making a joke in my first comment, it's an old tub, but they built them Chris's to last back in the early 70s, it crosses the ditch at a smooth 12 knots, even has a working original autopilot, that does not take into account for wind or drift due to current so really need to keep an eye on the heading and the gps. But she's sturdy, lol. Another thing, I have fuel filters that remove water and particles, they had to just been pumping water into those engines to have that large of proble Really would be interested in how far away a typical sub can detect a small boat like that? What civilian pleasure boat besides a snail boat makes the least noise? Thanks, and great content as always, this one made me chuckle with the issues they originally had, very glad our allies down under got um fixed and sounds like working very very well too.
@@thethirdman225 yeah sure... I'm sure that's why Australia bought them... But there were several years of ironing out bugs... Do we really want gaps in defence capability? I mean the French platform was simply back to the future, purchasing an untested platform... Good on Australia for stepping away from that.
@@transkryption Well, that’s always the problem when you build your own. It can even be a problem when you buy “off the shelf”. It’s all about developing the thing. The Collins is one of the most advanced diesel electric boats in the world. Only the Soryu is likely be much better and that’s next gen with Li batteries. *EDIT Don’t forget also that technology transfer was a major aim of that program. You don’t learn much if it is completely successful right off the bat.
The original combat data system never functioned well and was replaced by the Raytheon CSS Mk 2 which is based on the AN-BYG-1 that is used in the US Los Angeles class. As to the Stirling engines, I remember an Australian intelligence officer mentioning many years ago that the Collins was supposed to have 2 Stirling engines fitted and had space provided for this, but that this never occurred. They were purchased and were sitting in a warehouse in Australia.
People are somehow still convinced the Collins' are duds when they've proven time and time again that they are amongst the best diesel-electric submarines in the world, and the only non-nuclear type with the range and endurance to meet Australia's geographic requirements. The results they have achieved in wargames speak for themselves.
come on there nearly the same as all the sweedish subs since 1980 that they are based on, they are also very similiar to the 2 subs singapore has right now. Collins was just a lot better for long range as it had the biggest battery storage of any sub and highest recharge rate and still does... no sub can beat that 11 500 mile range and 70 day endurance to this day thats non nuclear. Makes you wonder why they wasted so much money on the french sub that has no real benefit over collins when they could of just build more collins with a better engine etc
We did war games against her in 2007, she was a hard boat to fight. Officer mindset is different too, they violated war game rules many times and we just got told " war isn't fair. " But the crew was great and surprisingly a lot where from Ireland. Worst part was we were supposed to have 10 days in Perth and Navy decided 18 hours liberty then war games because you know Navy.
The "misconception" that a diesel electric boat has its diesels turn the screw/s is, to be fair, easily explained. Those who know of diesel boats v nukes would know of diesels largely from WW2. The most famous subs are of course the U-boats in the Atlantic. They had a system where their diesels (2) DID drive the shaft directly via reduction gears. The electric motors were dual role, either providing power to turn the screws OR to act as a generator to 'fill' the batteries.Through a clutch system the diesel therefore could turn the screw OR turn the electric motor in its generator role. I can't remember if it was possible for the diesel to turn the screw AND run the electric motor as generator at the same time. The most efficient rate of charging batteries for given RPM of the diesel would be achieved without turning the screw, which is why the game Silent Hunter III shows the boat 'trailing' a screw when the batteries are being recharged. This arrangement largely had a diesel and electric motor/generator dedicated to one screw. Can't remember what crossover ability there may have been, if any. The USN fleet boats used indirect drive, the system you are rightly of course calling the standard today. Their diesels (4) could NOT turn the screws directly as all turning of the screws was via the electric motors, thus the diesels drove generators. Point is it was NOT the 'standard' of WW2 as there were several different arrangements plus varying amounts of electric motors etc. The famous Type XXI, for example, had an entirely different 'silent' electric motor for operating submerged at speeds up to 5 knots (from memory; I haven't double checked) v different motors for higher submerged speeds. The Brits did things a bit differently including some rather high speed underwater performance late in the war using something like 4 electric motors, and I'm not sure of the Japanese layout. The advantage of the 'indirect' system is flexibility and greater redundancy in case of damage. The disadvantage compared with the German system was greater complexity and, crucially, space and raw materials especially copper, something that was a chronic problem for the Germans. The German system was simple shifting from diesel to electric power on a dive as all they did was disengage the clutch of the diesel and shut it off while powering up the electric motor. They could do this very quickly (I've read perhaps within 15 seconds) which further assisted with their rapid dive time as they didn't really lose propulsion for any significant period. Both the German and USN systems proved very effective for their subs' different strategic and tactical realities, which ultimately is what counts. I'm sure you know all this, just thought I'd comment for anyone watching who may not be aware of the different arrangements of propulsion used in diesel boats of WW2. Cheers
Our Navy (Army and Airforce), do a pretty good job. Damn shame we can’t say the same about our pollies. History is repeating itself with the new French sub they selected - French nuclear sub, rip the reactor out, replace with, yep, a diesel. Sigh.
I'm curious since the Collins-class submarine are very effective SSK I wonder if it would be feasible for Australia to design an improved version of the Collins class instead partnering with a Foreign country again like current the Attack-class program.
Not really. You'd have to replace all the internal systems, and IIRC the Aussies wanted more range and endurance than the Collins-class, which makes for a bigger hull than the Collins-class entirely.
@@ScottKenny1978 Yes correct in every way but there are 2 things i thought in the collins that take up a huge amount of space. Those lead acid batteries , if they switched to Lithium batteries that would free up more space for fuel. Also the engine is kind of out of date based on a train engine from the 70's? engines have goten a lot lighter with more HP for the same size now just compare motorcycle power to weight from 70s to Now you think they could make space savings here to increase fuel and food storage even more .
@@nic7048 the US still uses the same diesel from ww2, believe it or not. Fairbanks-Morse 38D 8⅛ Yes, you can make diesel engines a little smaller and more efficient now. But Marine diesels are fairly well optimized as is. And the big supercharger that the FM diesel uses because it's a 2-stroke moves a crapton of air, which is good for clearing the air after a fire. The diesel moves 3x the air that the low pressure blowers do. Using lithium ion batteries instead of lead-acid gives you about 5x the power per volume and/or weight. So that's definitely an improvement to keep. The other part is the AIP. Even though the Japanese replaced their Sterling cycle engines and fuel tanks with lithium batteries, *I think that was a bad call.* Being able to travel 6000nmi without surfacing, or spending 900 hours submerged is really good. That's 5.5 _weeks_ submerged, 39 days! Giving that up seems beyond foolish to me, even if it did add 100 tons of batteries.
I doubt he's going to do ANYTHING even >close< to what he worked on. He signed an NDA and violating that can get him serious prison time. Even the appearance of impropriety will get a knock on the door from men in black suites.
I used to sail past and see the hulls being built back in 1998. I remember the incomplete software caused it to crash into the pier which became a big news issue in Australia.
What a disaster, I have DD 872's and have had a shaft leak before, on my boat I couldn't imagine hydra locking one of the diesels or have a "leak" of over 200 gpm or even gallons per hour. Oh and I have the Raytheon big display but no array on top, it's just for looks,lol. These guys would have been dead ducks right away it sounds, lol. Glad to hear they got it together though, great content Jive, pls keep um coming.
Thanks for making these, I'm not a submariner or naval guy by any means but am interested in the engineering, history and operations of these things. Any thoughts on the Norwegian "Ula-class" SSK boats?
As an Australian, the "completion" of the hull with painted timber in time for the launch ceremony is one of the most Aussie things I've ever heard, and I can guarantee that it was done under orders against the advice of the people actually building the thing so a bunch of politicians could keep their appointment with the TV cameras.
It could only be more australian if they'd used corrugated iron instead of wood and baling twine to hold it together
@@lancerd4934 as the old timers used to say, "if you can't fix it with #2 fencing wire, it probably can't be fixed".
@John Fallon Lol, Aussies have been 'Magyvering' stuff since day 1. Have you heard of Ned Kelly? When an Aussie's back is against the wall he's at his most inventive and dangerous state. Look up the Owen gun. In 1938 a 24 year old civilian figured that submachine guns would be important and developed a prototype using .22 LR. Initially rejected by the army as unnecessary, in the Second World War we needed a submachine gun that was simple and reliable as US or British weapons were in short supply and unreliable in muddy jungle conditions. The army decided to develop Owen's design in 9mm, and when tested against the Sten and Thompson after being immersed in mud or covered in sand was the only gun that still operated. 45,000 were produced between 1942 and 1944 (by a nation with no large scale firearms manufacturers), and it was in use until the late '60's.
Yes I remember when we went online with Pelican Point Power Station with TV Cameras in the control room. We joked to simulate everything just for fun. Nobody could tell. Nowhere else in the world I had such an experience.
@@felixtheswiss Electrical/HV engineering is a field I'm very interested in, amusing to learn that the same kind of shenanigans sometimes go on there. I'm sure the same kind of thing happens all the time in other countries. But Aussies do seem to be particularly good at bunging it on for the cameras, especially when the choices are "make it look good or start working on your resumé". Cheers ;)
This one is special. It's the first 'Sub Brief' and was the beginning of my professional military contractor career even though I didn't know it at the time. Now, I develop systems for NAVSEA and do 'Sub Brief' as a hobby. Life is full of opportunities that you create.
Brilliant video... 👌🏼 thank you. 😊
Why did you keyword-stuff the description with a bunch of unrelated terms like "best meatball sub fort collins"? That's really dickish for a cool dude such as yourself.
@@buckstarchaser2376 I think that's a bit of a joke/meme or something
It's really nice to see people transition from military careers with no civilian equivalents manage to turn them into good civilian employment. Gives a CP-140 Scope dope like me some hope
As an Australian Sailor I've been waiting for this one to come up for a while. Great to see an outside perspective
Hope you enjoyed it!
This whole project is just the epitome of the Aussie saying, “she’ll be right”.
And she is!
The public wasn't quite so forgiving.
It's easy to say "yeah nah, she'll be right mate" when you're spending public money. :)
Someone else was paying the bill... the taxpayer.
It's actually almost exactly the reverse.
Many foreign defence contractors are used to saying 'close enough'. But the defence department in Australia is far more 'Nah, the contract said you would do X, you said it could do X, show me it doing it." Many of them just ticked all the boxes saying 'does X', but never expected to have to actually meet that, and when called out on it, were used to the more American system where the Government would pay them 'time and materials' to fix it. That's not how the Australian military contracts work. It's fixed price. You fix it at your expense.
Anyway, the end result was a very good submarine.
From a guy that lives in Australia.
Thank you.
Some interesting tidbits form development: The German competitor was embarrassing compared to the Swedish sub it only had 50% of required power, 2/3rds submerged time and 15% less range WITH hotel services disabled.
The contract didn't include a noise requirement for above 10 knots, Sweden never operated fast so it wasn't even considered a problem for them.
Signaal left Australia after they never received the style-guide so the brief(or something I cant remember) was basically ignored for the Rockwell system.
they had to change the shape of the sonar dome and move the accessories but couldn't decide who would pay to test the new shape leading to the "Fangs" that would impact the screw and make a bunch of noise.
America knew about the propeller cracking before we even started designing it, but due to the secrecy around your submarine program we were never told. An Australian Dr. Oldfield developed new anechoic tiles that got you guys interested and coupled with the work we did on the electronic system together led to signing an agreement in the pentagon on sharing sub technology the day before 9/11.
There was a bunch of messing around with this project in the navy and parliament ie: There were a few people trying to get this project scrapped and get a new aircraft carrier with no submarines. When The opposition got in after running on a campaign that included scrapping the sub program they ran the numbers and came back with the idea that if we changed anything we should order the 12 that the contract would allow not just the 6.
If anyone is interested in the design / local politics I would highly recommend the book "Collins class submarine story" by Peter Yule and Derek Woolner.
I highly recommend this book
I need to get this book.
12 would of been such a waste of resources as in around 2007 the Navy for a short time only had 1 sub that was active out of 6 and no more than 2 which is terrible, this was similiar to the same problems the Canadian navy had. There is one sub base on the left of Australia and it seems just 3 but 4 in an emergency is the max crew your ever going to get.... if Australia had of picked the spanish s80 plus sub which i think was the best replacement for the collins other then building more collins it would of been fine as it has a 20 crew rather than 50. you could build 15 and still need need any more personell which would of been perfect for Australia... that 4.5 billion wasted on the french contract could of built 4 brand new almost 5 spanish s80 plus subs and you would save a huge amount of money by not having to life extend the collins or build a huge sub base near sydney on the right side of Australia... finially australia could of had sub numbers that would be similiar to korea or japan but that will not happen now ... the 300 million overbudget delay on the s80 made Australia pull out kind of ironic when they wasted 4.5 billion on french contract and got nothing for it , so that 300 miilllion that made the s80 plus the same size as collins is nothing in comparision
The original contract was for 6 submarines with option for 2 more. Eight - not twelve.
@@nic7048 S80 doesn't have the range or endurance of Collins. Also the original Collins class contract was for 6 subs with an option for 2 more - total of 8. Not 12.
Many of the problems with Collins were self inflicted - government not putting up the cash for maintenance and crews.
I love these videos because it's great hearing a technical specialist talk about a subject he's passionate about. And because the host comes over as a thoroughly decent chap. The sort of person that I'd be proud to have as a friend.
Agree 100%.
As an Australian Submariner this was very entertaining and well researched/presented 🤙
Jive thanks for the praise, as a serving member, it is pleasing to see someone notice the hard work we have done to make this a formidable platform.
Nah mate, woods non-ferrous. Mine countermeasures, mate.
-Aussie shipyard worker (probably)
Also a stealth feature. Absorbs active sonar and presents a non-threat target to passive receivers. Combined with the Accadacca screaming over the internal speakers and no one ever suspected it wasn't just Bazza out for a party in his fishing dingy.
Fun fact, the Australian Submarine Corp also made the laterite leach autoclave vessels for a mine in Western Australia. Explosion bonded titanium inside a card on steel shell, not a technology you find in most workshops.
Well umm monodelphous made the largest cyclonic uranium inrichment system in the southern hemisphere.
Australian mining tech in general is impressive. No other country can produce a tonne of iron ore as efficiently.
I remember that job well, the grubby management would not provide supplied air masks for the welders inside the pressure vessels. Even though they were hanging in the store.
@@mortified776 Huh! just about ALL the tech and equipment is imported
That 45-58 crew compliment is how they get the 70 day crew endurance. They go out with 58, they come back with 45. :)
That made me snort my beer out my nose
To our American friends when you are on exercise with the Aussie’s and you hear “land down under” by men at work, come across your sonar system. Consider yourself “sunk” as we say here tell ya story walking pal. (Ref to HMAS Rankin on exercise RIMPAC) Great video as always from Sub Brief. 👍🇦🇺🇺🇸
As an American submariner, I can totally see y'all doing that. Friend of mine rigged up a connection to wire a Walkman into the underwater telephone back in the late 1980s.
@willl 77 kids these days... 😜
"Thats not a knife...thats a Knife."
I love the Collins, great looking subs, sure they had their problems but by all accounts they are extremely good boats now. Also pause for a minute and think what a momentous task this must have been for Australia. To completely set up a new manufacturing base and tooling in an industry you had no experience in and on top of that to partner with Sweden, a country that designs submarines for shallow water Littoral operations (the furthest away from what you actually want). Hats off to them. The fact that they even got it done and still have them running well today is a great testament to the Australian Navy. Its just unfortunate that they don't seem to have heeded the hard earned lessons from it with regards to the Attack class.
As someone who was in Defence during this all I can say is there was a lot of smiles and back thumps to sailors after the Collins submarines' successes. We and especially the RAN had gone through a lot of pain and very cruel jokes from the media about the Collins. Problems have continued and finding enough crews to support full rotations have become challenges in the past decade but that is improving again. No doubt the same problems and cost blow outs will occur in the next class (your excellent if depressing video on that highlighted things to come) but as ever average Australian workers and sailors will find a way to make it good. Its what we do.
Sounds like some people in the Australian Navy will have lots of déjà vu with the new subs lmao
I wonder how much the attitude to the new subs is 'we've fixed worse designs,so we can make that one work too'
Not the best way to run a procurement program!
All is well.
Move along, citizen.
:P
By the time the new subs come in to service everyone that saw the introduction of the Collins class will have already retired.
Nice vid. Enjoyed a lot. Oddly enough, I got privilege of touring a Collins Class boat in '98 or '99...can't remember the exact year. They pulled into Pearl Harbor sub base for a port visit. Nice looking boat. As an A-ganger, I was particularly impressed with their atmosphere control equipment. Newer and more advanced than the rickety old CO/H2 burners and CO2 scrubbers on my 688-I boat.
Very cool!
Cant wait, love your videos
These Aussie's run a sub program like I run my school projects... winging it the whole way.
That's the Australian way mate
What could be more Australian than winging it???
Winging it & waving debt that's owed by other countries...
That's the Australian way.
@@shadow7037932 Drinking a 6er of VB, lighting up a Winnie Blue, and hopping in your Holden Monaro to drive from Coomera to Coombabah to bang some bushpig you met on the internet. So basically winging it
During WWII Aussies needed a tank. They built the Sentinel from scratch in three months. The Boomerang fighter was developed as quickly. There were only DC3 engines available, ok put this on a fighter. The Boomerang is one of the best sounding fighter of WWII if not the better one in a fight. For me the beginnings was painful (not your fault) but the end result ... tip of the hat. Good boats.
A big part of the problems with readiness and manning that the class experienced really had nothing to do with the ships or the service, but related to the mining industry targeting submariners in particular for head hunting.
Yes that and also then punish the sailors that kept those boats at sea by importing RN sailors and surface fleet sailors .Effectively denying promotion to those that kept the boats manned aka the direct entry professional submariner.
Mind you the mining industry was offering AUD$200k+ year for 2 weeks one and 1 week off. No wonder the sailors went that way, triple the salary and the ability to see friends/family easily in comparison to being on a sub.
As an Australian it always got me wondering whether the Navy let the Collins have such a bad reputation so it would have a large advantage against a peer state in a conflict. On the whole, it seems a bit disingenius.
Well done on the info. As an Aussie and from WA where the subs are maintained along with SA where they were built, I've always had an interest and followed the Collins story closely. I do remember there was talk the an integrated bus type was planned / intended for the sub systems which no one, even the US had attempted before which was a little too ambitious at the time. US were using separate systems and I think we also scrapped the planned design and went for an more off-shelf system supplied by a US company. I also though Boeing was involved somewhere as well.
Also, speaking to Navy commander friend, he also mentioned that during one of the war games, one of the pre-upgrade subs managed to get close enough to a US carrier to take a photo of it's keel. Not sure how factual that is but was what I was told along with alot of the problems associated with sub as you mentioned in the video. With all it's problems, it was likely the most advanced diesel electric for most of it's service though I assume there are some more advanced sub now.
Another great piece ! Thank you man, you are THE best !
I worked on these at ASC up to and including the 1st launch ceremony, under Hans Orff. Was a great experience and great honour. Even managed to pickup some new Swedish and Italian swear words over casual lunch breaks. Its a fair call that none of the more hair raising or impressive bits about this project ever made it to the press.
The press were invited to the launch for the 1st Collins class as well - but the picture they published on the front page of the newspaper ... they kayaked to a spot across the river in the mangrove swamps, and took some fake ass "spy shots" from the mangroves on the telephoto. Typical press.
Same deal with just about all the other information that ever made it to the public about the Collins Class.
What I can say about working on these - Ive worked Army, Navy, and AirForce for the ADF ... and the Navy by far does the best XMas party catering of all the branches. The RAAF does seriously fucking good catering too, but the RAN catering is just next level.
Your analysis is thoroughly enjoyable. You're knowledgeable and there's always a laugh in your voice. Keep up the good work!
1 tonne of water a minute-"nah mate, nothing to worry about, just a leak"
Yay! Another Sub Brief video!
It's an old Sub Brief, but it checks.
Inserting a submarine into East Timor is the naval equivalent of throwing a hot dog down a hallway
Got there in the end - ask any noob to build something for the first time and it will suck. But at least they learned and fixed it.
I found your channel because of this video and i'm sure glad I did. Great content, i'm going ot be here for hours :D
Welcome aboard!
I hope that the Collins is good, because it’s all we’ll have to fight the next war, which will be done and dusted before the Shortfin Barracuda is anywhere near ready.
Amuses me when I read the requirement about a long long service life of 20 years. Reality is they may end up doing closer to 40 by the time their replacements are built.
Why 6 billion dollars was spent on them so they can be used for the extended lifespan. They are a beast at the moment. For its age. It will still make many navies nervous a decade from now even. The US had ships serving 50 years. The Iowa class Battleship didn't get retired till 1996. That was built during ww2. They have had subs serving for 40 years before they was replaced too.
Australia seems to replace equipment due to capabilities rather than age..thoughs Anzacs class frigates was only built from 1996. As where Australia replacing for more capability. The US would had used thoughs ships for petrol ships for its coastguard for another 15 or so year. Australia rather sinks them or sell them of. But loses numbers off a fleet. And limit its vessel strength. Especially when ships get deployed in other areas. They have nothing to patrol its sovereignty waters other than a few lightly armed OPV. And have to rely on air defence that is also limited in strength. Since the retired off the F111 fleet. Australia lost its long range stike capability. the problem with that. Who's to know China won't send submarines 2000km from Australia shores armed with long range ballistic missiles when Australia deployed its fleet in the south China sea.? What's going to protect Australia? I don't then thiughs new OPV or the F35 can they limited in range
When I did my Masters in strategy at ANU in 2009, the Collins boats were a big case study in the question of indigenous defence procurement. Very cool subs and of course the Australian submariners draw on a long legacy of success.
Small world: my first job was at CSC (2010-13) but I was in the far less interesting B2B cloud stuff in the UK. We were not even allowed to know what most of the US part of the company did.
Thanks Jive! Nice to see these full briefs on CZcams, and I'm happy that, as a Crew Member, I had the opportunity to watch this a long time ago!!
Edit: Best part: @8:50 - Australians are badass, so 70 days on a diesel boat is still a vacation from a continent where everything is trying to kill you (not a quote, but rather paraphrase)
I’m an Australian and your description of us was not to bad. Keep up the good work jive 😄👍🏻
I Agree, not bad at all mate
That's Mr Turkey to you. 😉
In Australia that old saying applies...what doesn't kill you, better start running.😄
Great stuff. Makes me proud of Australia even with the design issues. Had no idea they took on 688s
Nicely done video and interesting commentary.
Well done mate, regards from AUS :)
Voice Recognition: ON. At that moment I was paying attention to a fact sheet, not listening attentively to the voice input. Then it hit me, I know that voice although I hadn't heard it for quite a long time. It was you! I knew it was you. You have a very voice that my active VR finally tuned in. haha. Nice seeing you. It's been a long time. Hope you are well. I was qualified in 1963, in San Diego, aboard the APSS -313, the Perch. DBF Any way, we were on a WestPac cruise and we're tied up in Caviti, in the PI, and tied up right in front of us was an Oberon class sub, and I got a tour. What an experience. I'm happy to see you again Best wishes!!
Fascinating 🖖🏼
Thanks for doing our sub Aaron. I'd forgotten how many mistakes there were,and how they were fixed.I also wasnt aware how well it performed in war games.
Memories are strange things.We forget most of the bad but remember the good.
I cant help but wonder if the Collins experience has influenced our attitude to future purchases?
- As in we're happy to take a risk because we've done it before 'and that worked out ok'
🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩 love it! found you on a playlist
Cool channel! Not even really a sub guy but I guess I clicked enough military stuff to end up here. As an Australian with zero idea about our submarines that was really informative and interesting, thank you!
Welcome aboard.
A lot of lessons were learned in this program. There's value in that. Such a shame we didn't have a other crack at building our own subs.
Yes. All that sovereign building capability has now retired. The same will happen with the current program. No one will get us to build submarines for them and when it comes time to replace the Barracuda variants, we will be back to square one .... again.
@@M3au i don't understand their desire to maintain their own naval ship building capability. they have a GDP smaller than canada yet they want to make their own toys like the big boys. they pay out the ass for that capability that really does nothing outside of these one off programs, when that money could've bought them significantly better subs for cheaper. they don't make their own aircraft or their own tanks, yet they want to make their own subs? i don't get it.
@@oldfrend it is all about getting votes in the mendicant state of South Australia. Both political parties do it. Spend billions of dollars to build warships very slowly so that they garner a few votes from a state that a market economy will not support.
@@oldfrend because we're a long way from allies shipbuilding capabilities (closest, usa, has no diesel boats, so we need to look elsewhere), many of which are likely to be involved in a future conflict which means logistics into a warzone to support our defence force. As recent events around vaccine exports have shown, there's doubts about how much we can rely on those allies if push came to shove.
@@oldfrend We build most of our own ships. It's all about jobs and learning current technologies. Mainly it's about jobs and politics.
Man you have no idea how badly I want a pod cast with C.W. Leimone and yourself where I get to listen to y'all just talk about military tech
As an Aussie, I totally love your commentary mate and your channel. Keep it up!
Thanks a ton!
Although the Collins Class subs had a lot problems in the beginning they are now one of the best diesel subs going around.
I knew a guy working for Kockums and he was very frustrated by the software problems that they couldn´t control and he said that if we (Kockums) had built the boats, things would have been a lot easier. Having many different contractors for various systems is often problematic by nature:-) New to me was the vibration, leaks and hydrodynamic problems. I don´t know if the Swedish boats upon which the Collins class is based, have had the same issues. Thanks for a lot of interesting and openminded videos about these amazing machines!
Underwater orchestra
The Västergötland-class to my knowledge did not suffer such extensive problems.
Actually not too bad-for a nation that never built subs before. Ask the Spanish Navy how their S-80 design is going.
Not same: Australia contracted swedish Type 471 from Kockums, owned by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft and German ThyssenKrupp. The Spanish are doing everything by themselves from scratch.
@@sapede Well, the Swedes, really did not get their say in some key matters of this submarine. From the get go there was changes that seemed more political than technical. And they wouldnt take no for an answer.
@@sapede there was no "real" type 471 from the Swedes. The 471 was a computer model based on a stretched Type A17. The government broke its own conditions of contract by buying a submarine that was a computer generated model, which is part of the reason why we had so many troubles with the class. The other problems were fabricated by ASC
@@sapede The swedish family Kockum started their business in the 1800s, but Kockums was a german owned company 1999 to 2014, so when Australia made a deal with the swedes in the 80´s Kockums was a swedish owned company. The Collin class sub can simply be said to be an enlarged version of Kockums' Västergötland class.
@@david19664 YEP, it was Australia always changing the design then blaming the designer for what they never agreed to in the first place. The same thing could happen to the new Hunter class frigate just look how different it is to the UK frigate it probably only has 55% comonality now, even the size is a lot bigger
I think this Sub Brief should be renamed:
Collins SSK "She'll be right, Mate"
"From Crikey to Struth: Australia's Collins SSK"
Considering we had never built a Submarine and for all the detractors, the class was pretty good in terms of "bang for the buck". We did well and our sailors did really well with these boats, just ask the USN.
When you consider that 6 boats and an industry was built for about the cost of a Sea Wolf, they're not too bad.
It was a nice video. Thank you
Thanks Capt'n. Great video. As an Aussie I'm proud of our Collins subs as they were the first ones built by us and as you stated the sailors are outstanding. The Collins to me is a bit like the F111.
We will get better at building subs and ships as practice makes perfect and then next ones "should" be better.
p.s, you got me onto Cold Waters and its a great game but the Soviets keep ganging up on me and sinking my sub.
Well said
Great video mate 👍🏻🇦🇺🇺🇸
Regards and respect to you from Australia, mate.
Keep up the great work...
I dont know if this is worth a video but what are your opinions on the indonesian subs? The nagapasa class and cakra class since both are/derived from the type 209 subs.
Thanks for this video. Tells much of the story that many Australians don't know.
Our media has not been kind to Collins.
Tight ass government were the cause of many a problem.
And now were are about to repeat the process hopefully we learned from the mistakes of the past.
Canning the French sub is a great start.
I'm Australian and I like to think that I know a lot about the ADF (Australian Defense Force), but §i learned more from this than I could have imagined. Thanks, mate.
You should do some sub briefs on the Swedish AIP subs(Gotland class and previous classes)
Hey Aaron thank you very much for this brief. Lovley to see this from a non Australian perspective. @17:20 you mentioned the extended sail at the rear but I think that's actually the exhaust diffuser. It's identical to that on the Gotland class.
LET'S GOOOOO
Love it you say, 'Aussies are Bad Ass'. Got it right there bud. Don't mess with an Aussie...
Those wacky submarine requirements is what happens when you have no domestic nuclear industry and are thousands of miles from anywhere you might want to patrol
i did enjoy this.
The issues we had with the sub were a noisy shaft issue with the early boats and the combat management system was also delayed because we were stubborn with the harware/software installations and yes thankyou to our American friends for helping solve these issues and turn these boats into 1 of the best conventional attack subs in the world...also another fun fact as an Australian infantryman I was attached to the U.S marine expeditionary force in OPTandem thrust in 2001 when were sunk by the sub, it waited until we left Port, let us sail over top of her then attacked coming out of Mackay harbour!
I lived on the Port River a few clicks from the ASN at Osborne. It was just about a straight line view from my balcony to the dry dock and on a clear day you could see a Collins berthed. The same facility is making the Arleigh Burke variants currently. Thanks for the video, really appreciate it, from an Adelaidian 🤠
What do you mean Arleigh Burke variants?
@@robman2095 I meant to say the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán variant. Thanks for noticing 😏
I work with an ex submariner who worked several years on collins subs. He says the chinese subs are noisy as hell. Maintenace and correct care of sub components have an enormous factor on how quiet subs can be. The collins do get a bad rap in the early days of development but they have matured today and the australian navy do impose an almost impossibly high standard on the subs specifications which can be interpreted as "troublesome" by some critics.
We just cancelled our baguette order, we're buying Astutes or Virginias!
this video is awesome
Took my kids to see the hull of Otway in Holbrook this week... very weird to see a submarine in a park, so far from the coast.
3:55 Tiny little thing; 'Signaal' (pronounced 'Sin-y'all) is actually a Dutch company. Most well known for developing the 'goalkeeper' CWIS.
Also now known as Thales Nederland.
Awesome video mate!
Glad to see you have Australia covered, now as a Australian/Portuguese it would be awesome to see a video on the Portuguese Tridente-class submarines :)
Thanks for the idea!
@@SubBrief :)
From memory(dont qoute me, im not 100% sure) it caused alot of problems within the EU nations as we (portugal) were in so much debt but we were getting submarines.
There was a spiral wrap put around the periscopes ages ago that fixed vibration problems.
How about a sub brief someday about non-acoustic sensors? What is mounted on Trafalgar sub, and the Akula and Yassen class
I've said this before. The ferocity and lethality of the Australian wildlife is greatly overstated.
On any given day you shouldn't have to deal with more than two of them.😁
But then there's the godsdamned plant life. Gympie-gympie is a scary goddam thing.
The poor old Collins classed is considered one of our worst ever military procurements and a blue print of what not to do...kudos to those onboard who managed to do so much with what they were given...
Ps new subscriber here, great video
I was on 'skimmers' over in Perth and i was always jealous how much shore time the submariners used to get. They were tied up alongside almost all the time.
SIGNAAL is a Dutch combat-systems company. We have a lot of their gear on USN warships.
Amazing how reasonably effective these Collins class subs ended up being, given they were customized and then the 'production run' was only six boats. 1/6th of the fleet was basically a prototype boat!
Hopefully we've learned from the Collins and French contract and development issues and do a better job with the new SSNs. Perhaps first buy a couple of Virginia class subs made in the US while upskilling and preparing to build the remaining Virginia class subs (or possibly SSN(X)s) at Osborne (and doing maintenance at Osborne), or else buy a couple of new Astute's from the UK and then gear up to build a slightly customized version of the new UK dreadnaught subs (i.e. a variation of the UK version to meet Australian requirements). Not sure if maintaining a mix of Astute's and SSNRs / Virginias and SSN(X)s would be feasible though. Adding a couple more subs onto the tail end of the existing US or UK production runs of Virginia or Astute subs should make the cost reasonable? (Eventually producing similar SSNs at Osborne will invariable make the cost-per-boat a LOT higher).
It's always tempting to wait for the great new features that are on the drawing board, rather than go with an existing design that is going to be quite 'old' by the time the first one would be delivered in Australia (although Virginia and Astute class subs are still 'current' technology). The selection process for the French subs was meant to only use 'existing technology' but that didn't stop the customization process delaying the final designs by years (and who knows what issues might have only been discovered during sea trials).
The first Australian SSN is supposedly due in 2035, while the first SSN(X) is supposed to be done in 2031 and the first SSNR sometime around 2035. But waiting for either the SSN(X) or SSNR to become available could easily delay when the first replacement for the Collins class was available to Australia (and I don't imagine either the US or UK would be keen for Australia to get the second of either the SSN(X) or SSNR, unless by some miracle ACS could gain sufficient facilities and skilled workforce over the next decade to build them at Osborne...). I suppose in theory it should be possible to upgrade ASC to be able to produce an SSN over ten years, especially if Australia was involved in the design process for a variation of the SSN(X) or SSNR.
A big issue for the Navy might be having crews for the new subs - Virginia's apparently have 134 per boat, and Astute's have 98. So the current 6 x 50ish crew from the Collins class subs would only be enough to crew 2-3 of the new Australian SSNs. The actual personnel will have changed a lot between now and 2035, but finding sufficient sub crew is supposed to be a problem already.
I would quite like to hear a summary of submarine tech before and during WW2. Not necessarily about a specific class but just how things were done back in the early days :)
And I have a JRC not a Raytheon, I was kinda making a joke in my first comment, it's an old tub, but they built them Chris's to last back in the early 70s, it crosses the ditch at a smooth 12 knots, even has a working original autopilot, that does not take into account for wind or drift due to current so really need to keep an eye on the heading and the gps. But she's sturdy, lol. Another thing, I have fuel filters that remove water and particles, they had to just been pumping water into those engines to have that large of proble Really would be interested in how far away a typical sub can detect a small boat like that? What civilian pleasure boat besides a snail boat makes the least noise? Thanks, and great content as always, this one made me chuckle with the issues they originally had, very glad our allies down under got um fixed and sounds like working very very well too.
I feel like this was very positive given the issues with the Collins class.
It's a good submarine now. Has been for some time.
@@thethirdman225 yeah sure... I'm sure that's why Australia bought them... But there were several years of ironing out bugs... Do we really want gaps in defence capability?
I mean the French platform was simply back to the future, purchasing an untested platform... Good on Australia for stepping away from that.
@@transkryption Well, that’s always the problem when you build your own. It can even be a problem when you buy “off the shelf”. It’s all about developing the thing. The Collins is one of the most advanced diesel electric boats in the world. Only the Soryu is likely be much better and that’s next gen with Li batteries.
*EDIT Don’t forget also that technology transfer was a major aim of that program. You don’t learn much if it is completely successful right off the bat.
The original combat data system never functioned well and was replaced by the Raytheon CSS Mk 2 which is based on the AN-BYG-1 that is used in the US Los Angeles class. As to the Stirling engines, I remember an Australian intelligence officer mentioning many years ago that the Collins was supposed to have 2 Stirling engines fitted and had space provided for this, but that this never occurred. They were purchased and were sitting in a warehouse in Australia.
People are somehow still convinced the Collins' are duds when they've proven time and time again that they are amongst the best diesel-electric submarines in the world, and the only non-nuclear type with the range and endurance to meet Australia's geographic requirements. The results they have achieved in wargames speak for themselves.
come on there nearly the same as all the sweedish subs since 1980 that they are based on, they are also very similiar to the 2 subs singapore has right now. Collins was just a lot better for long range as it had the biggest battery storage of any sub and highest recharge rate and still does... no sub can beat that 11 500 mile range and 70 day endurance to this day thats non nuclear. Makes you wonder why they wasted so much money on the french sub that has no real benefit over collins when they could of just build more collins with a better engine etc
Love hearing about our Aussie Friends! They scare the bejeepers outta me!! Crazy buggers!
Regards and respect to you from Australia, mate.
@RedTSquared ~ We make solid allies ... OK yeah, we are a bit crazy.
Nice to see something besides the O-Boats. Also, the Aussie's eternal battle with nature made me LOL...
Glad you enjoyed it
We did war games against her in 2007, she was a hard boat to fight. Officer mindset is different too, they violated war game rules many times and we just got told " war isn't fair. " But the crew was great and surprisingly a lot where from Ireland. Worst part was we were supposed to have 10 days in Perth and Navy decided 18 hours liberty then war games because you know Navy.
The "misconception" that a diesel electric boat has its diesels turn the screw/s is, to be fair, easily explained.
Those who know of diesel boats v nukes would know of diesels largely from WW2. The most famous subs are of course the U-boats in the Atlantic.
They had a system where their diesels (2) DID drive the shaft directly via reduction gears. The electric motors were dual role, either providing power to turn the screws OR to act as a generator to 'fill' the batteries.Through a clutch system the diesel therefore could turn the screw OR turn the electric motor in its generator role.
I can't remember if it was possible for the diesel to turn the screw AND run the electric motor as generator at the same time.
The most efficient rate of charging batteries for given RPM of the diesel would be achieved without turning the screw, which is why the game Silent Hunter III shows the boat 'trailing' a screw when the batteries are being recharged.
This arrangement largely had a diesel and electric motor/generator dedicated to one screw. Can't remember what crossover ability there may have been, if any.
The USN fleet boats used indirect drive, the system you are rightly of course calling the standard today.
Their diesels (4) could NOT turn the screws directly as all turning of the screws was via the electric motors, thus the diesels drove generators.
Point is it was NOT the 'standard' of WW2 as there were several different arrangements plus varying amounts of electric motors etc. The famous Type XXI, for example, had an entirely different 'silent' electric motor for operating submerged at speeds up to 5 knots (from memory; I haven't double checked) v different motors for higher submerged speeds. The Brits did things a bit differently including some rather high speed underwater performance late in the war using something like 4 electric motors, and I'm not sure of the Japanese layout.
The advantage of the 'indirect' system is flexibility and greater redundancy in case of damage. The disadvantage compared with the German system was greater complexity and, crucially, space and raw materials especially copper, something that was a chronic problem for the Germans.
The German system was simple shifting from diesel to electric power on a dive as all they did was disengage the clutch of the diesel and shut it off while powering up the electric motor. They could do this very quickly (I've read perhaps within 15 seconds) which further assisted with their rapid dive time as they didn't really lose propulsion for any significant period.
Both the German and USN systems proved very effective for their subs' different strategic and tactical realities, which ultimately is what counts.
I'm sure you know all this, just thought I'd comment for anyone watching who may not be aware of the different arrangements of propulsion used in diesel boats of WW2.
Cheers
Should be noted that almost all diesel locomotives uses the indirect drive as well.
hahaha I loved this sub brief
Our Navy (Army and Airforce), do a pretty good job. Damn shame we can’t say the same about our pollies. History is repeating itself with the new French sub they selected - French nuclear sub, rip the reactor out, replace with, yep, a diesel. Sigh.
What were they supposed to do, buy nuclear subs. Yeah, that wouldn't a logistical nightmare at all....
I'm a fan for life
I'm curious since the Collins-class submarine are very effective SSK I wonder if it would be feasible for Australia to design an improved version of the Collins class instead partnering with a Foreign country again like current the Attack-class program.
Not really. You'd have to replace all the internal systems, and IIRC the Aussies wanted more range and endurance than the Collins-class, which makes for a bigger hull than the Collins-class entirely.
@@ScottKenny1978 Yes correct in every way but there are 2 things i thought in the collins that take up a huge amount of space. Those lead acid batteries , if they switched to Lithium batteries that would free up more space for fuel. Also the engine is kind of out of date based on a train engine from the 70's? engines have goten a lot lighter with more HP for the same size now just compare motorcycle power to weight from 70s to Now you think they could make space savings here to increase fuel and food storage even more .
@@nic7048 the US still uses the same diesel from ww2, believe it or not. Fairbanks-Morse 38D 8⅛
Yes, you can make diesel engines a little smaller and more efficient now. But Marine diesels are fairly well optimized as is. And the big supercharger that the FM diesel uses because it's a 2-stroke moves a crapton of air, which is good for clearing the air after a fire. The diesel moves 3x the air that the low pressure blowers do.
Using lithium ion batteries instead of lead-acid gives you about 5x the power per volume and/or weight. So that's definitely an improvement to keep.
The other part is the AIP.
Even though the Japanese replaced their Sterling cycle engines and fuel tanks with lithium batteries, *I think that was a bad call.* Being able to travel 6000nmi without surfacing, or spending 900 hours submerged is really good. That's 5.5 _weeks_ submerged, 39 days! Giving that up seems beyond foolish to me, even if it did add 100 tons of batteries.
Have you done any videos on the US Navy Seahunter program?
I doubt he's going to do ANYTHING even >close< to what he worked on. He signed an NDA and violating that can get him serious prison time. Even the appearance of impropriety will get a knock on the door from men in black suites.
That intro music, is there a name for the song or artist??
That's not a submarine... THIS is a submarine!
Also did you really work on a submarine and how was it
adding U to my playlist too
I used to sail past and see the hulls being built back in 1998. I remember the incomplete software caused it to crash into the pier which became a big news issue in Australia.
It's the last of the big V8s, Max!
So when do we get to take a drive?
What a disaster, I have DD 872's and have had a shaft leak before, on my boat I couldn't imagine hydra locking one of the diesels or have a "leak" of over 200 gpm or even gallons per hour. Oh and I have the Raytheon big display but no array on top, it's just for looks,lol. These guys would have been dead ducks right away it sounds, lol. Glad to hear they got it together though, great content Jive, pls keep um coming.
Thanks for making these, I'm not a submariner or naval guy by any means but am interested in the engineering, history and operations of these things. Any thoughts on the Norwegian "Ula-class" SSK boats?