Thread: Which is best non-AIP diesel submarine in world??

How about the upholder class, Type 2,400 (Thats its displacement).

Originally Posted by Chaobam Armour

How about the upholder class, Type 2,400 (Thats its displacement).

I believe I've commented before - but briefly.

In 1999 at the Defence Procurement Conf, the then Chief of Navy in front of 400+ delegates responded to a "cleared" journalist who asked the same question:

in short:

no - the boats were seen even then as more problematic than persevering with Collins. We considered the upholders as a second squadron, 1st as an interim while Collins was sorted, and then as a second squadron when Collins was cleared.

Much of the conf details are restricted, but we ended up with about 15 minutes of detail on known problems with the Class

Nice boats if they'd been attended to by their former owners, but they were handcuffed by a lack of commitment by UKGovt and a decision to save money by going to an all nuke fleet.

If you have a military address I'm happy to discuss some of it further if you PM me with it. I'll respond from mine for obvious reasons. But I'm on leave and won't be back on the job for another week.

Originally Posted by avon1944

Fgf0012-aust, for those of us who are not subscribers, what is the gist of the article please? -Adrian

Am currently on Leave and at home so don't have it with me.

basically it was an article by a USN exchange officer who had just done a 2 year rotation with RAN as an acoustic warfare officer, and a compressed history of how he did his Perisher training on Collins. There are over 12 USN sailors attached to the Sub squadron and all are doing diesel qualification at the acoustic warfare level. IIRC (not in the article) we have 6 fulltime serving USN staff on the boats, another 6 are doing desk jobs.

RAN Dolphins are apparently "keepsakes".

Originally Posted by Rodinga

The Collins class according to an ASC financial report also have facilities for the insertion of special forces squads

also the subs have been upgraded with the AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System with mark 48 ADCAP Torpedos which are a match for US AIP subs

supplementary to prev:

small issues here that are a bit incorrect.

The specwarries have always been catered for on RAN subs - even the Oberons. On the Collins they also have the untilised space that was allocated for the AIP (which was never purchased as the trial units didn't show any great advantage. AIP for Collins provided minimal benefit.) The AIP test engines are sitting in the shed.

They've always had Mk-48's, the CBASS is designed to kill subs in the littorals and was co-developed with the USN using the tech and datasets that both navies have gathered over time.

Lastly, the US only have nukes, they don't have conventionals, and thus zero chance for AIP subs. The only conventional they had that was struck off years ago was non AIP anyway.

Originally Posted by Baaper

Special on the Dutch ships are the X-rudders. Most countries have + rudders. X rudders are significantly more difficult to build, but better capable of dealing with damage. There are less rudders needed to maintain steering capability.

It is however meaningless when taken out of context. eg Collins uses a st george configuration but also has a significant difference compared to other st george cross configured subs - ie it's FBW and uses less crew to drive due to a systems config change. A "car"' is not always a "car" just because they're both fitted with multiple doors and can go from "a to b"

Originally Posted by Baaper

Diving depths are not right btw. The real depths are usually classified.

The real depths are always classified. The USN still doesn't release absolute sub performance parameters from it's first generation nukes.

The only data that is useful are the external empirical measurements. All combat related specs are vague enough to seem sensiible but don't reflect actual capability by any margin (and thats for all the subs)

Originally Posted by gunnut

Can these SSKs do the same type of job that the old ocean going subs like Gatos and U-boats did in WW2? For example spending weeks on patrol on the open ocean.

eg the original requirements for Collins were to be able to run blue and gold crews (now we can't even get half manned up!) In their case they were always designed as long range blue water and had to surpass the perforrmance specs of the Oberons. If you consider the fact that RAN Oberons used to deploy right up the top of the northern east coast of the old soviet union, then autonomy had to be as good at a minimum. They can and have deployed on the same mission cycles as US nukes.

Originally Posted by Rodinga

A recent innovation by Australian Submarine Corporation in maintenance allows the diesel engine to undergo maintenance inside the Collins class submarine which is an improvement over having to cut the hull open to do so.

Not entirely true. All marine diesels are designed to be worked on at sea. If its busted then you don't have the luxury of ringing up your local sub tender (maritime road side service) for spare parts. . If you want to see how easy it is, then a cursory look at an MTU or Guascor (spanish) maritime diesel engine will show you how big and frequent those inspection and service plates are. Guascor have some impressive (real) availability rates.

The difference in Collins was not that repairs could be done at sea (as all submarine diesels have that ability), it was that the build requirements selected an engine that was not expected and used in a complex military naval veessel. ASC had nothing to do with that process.