Posted on 06/09/2011 8:57:21 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Not a single submarine seaworthy
Cameron Stewart
From: The Australian June 10, 2011 12:00AM
EXCLUSIVE: For the first time in a generation, Australia does not have a single submarine available to defend the nation today.
The Australian understands the entire fleet of six Collins-class submarines cannot be put to sea despite the navy's claim that two of them remain officially "operational".
The situation is so dire the navy is believed to have deferred major scheduled maintenance work on its most seaworthy submarine, HMAS Waller, in the hope that at least one submarine will be available in the coming weeks.
Not having a single task-ready submarine is an embarrassment for the navy, whose attempts to improve the performance of the $10 billion fleet have been stymied by breakdowns, accidents and the growing unreliability of the ageing vessels.
The navy claims two of its submarines, HMAS Waller and HMAS Dechaineux, are available, but insiders say the reality is that neither vessel could be put to sea today if required because each is undergoing detailed inspections for mechanical problems.
HMAS Dechaineux is in dock at HMAS Stirling in Perth for an intrusive inspection of its main motor after limping home from Singapore, where defects were found in its propulsion system.
It is understood Dechaineux will be unable to sail for at least several weeks.
HMAS Waller is also in dock at HMAS Stirling after engineers found signs of the same propulsion system problems that last month forced Dechaineux to withdraw from a five-nation defence exercise in the South China Sea.
It is understood that HMAS Waller will be unable to leave port until next week.
The other four subs are
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
Didn’t Canada’s 4th sub hit an underwater mountain this week and its entire fleet is out as well?
After all, in a war submarines are best employed against enemy merchant shipping.
If we are talking about the defense of Australia, it would seem to me that the money would be better spent on land-based aircraft.
I believe the same is true of Canada. Their only operational sub ran aground last week and had to limp home.
Well, the underwater terrorists will have a golden opportunity now.
Hmmm...and a Labour government is in power in Canberra.
In related news, it is reported that the RAN is selling its subs to the Muslim Brotherhood in order to shorten the period before the Australian Caliphate can be established.
Or enemy surface ships. China has the world’s fastest growing navy.
The problems with the Collins class subs started long before the current government came in.
Yeah, you are right actually. I don’t think that I ever read a complimentary article about them.
If I were an Australian, I’d have to ask if Australia needed a submarine force in the first place.
After all, in a war submarines are best employed against enemy merchant shipping.
If we are talking about the defense of Australia, it would seem to me that the money would be better spent on land-based aircraft.
No, no, and again NO!
Your best defense against a hostile enemy submarine fleet is enough nuclear powered subs operating on their coasts to prevent enemy subs from getting to your coast and isolating your country. You really should sink their subs in their harbors before their subs leave their harbors .... but that requires political guts to act before their subs leave their harbors. Often, this will require your action before their declaration of war . 8<)
A poor second is using your nuclear subs to intercept their subs enroute. But that’s very hard.
Your next best choice is using your nuclear subs operating near your own coast to hear, intercept and sink their subs before their subs sink your merchant traffice and lay mines in your harbors.
Next best is conventional subs near your own coasts to do the same thing
But no subs can stop their spies/paramilitary/un-uniformed warriors/terrorists/Spetznaz operators from mining your harbors with fishing boats and small craft before war breaks out. Oopsie! You’re dead.
After all, in a war submarines are best employed against enemy merchant shipping.
If we are talking about the defense of Australia, it would seem to me that the money would be better spent on land-based aircraft.
No, no, and again NO!
Your best defense against a hostile enemy submarine fleet is enough nuclear powered subs operating on their coasts to prevent enemy subs from getting to your coast and isolating your country. You really should sink their subs in their harbors before their subs leave their harbors .... but that requires political guts to act before their subs leave their harbors. Often, this will require your action before their declaration of war . 8<)
A poor second is using your nuclear subs to intercept their subs enroute. But that's very hard.
Your next best choice is using your nuclear subs operating near your own coast to hear, intercept and sink their subs before their subs sink your merchant traffic and lay mines in your harbors.
Next best is conventional subs near your own coasts to do the same thing
But no subs can stop their spies/paramilitary/un-uniformed warriors/terrorists/Spetznaz operators from mining your harbors with fishing boats and small craft before war breaks out. Oopsie! You're dead.
Maybe they should let them get married?
“No, no, and again NO!”
And Australia still remembers Japanese mini-subs in Sydney Harbour, among other places. Australia has a territory almost the size of America’s contiguous 48 states, but without the population distributed throughout or on all coasts (in very large part due to limited water resources). Much of its economy is based on shipping its resources overseas, as well, which would be difficult to protect with landed airbases.
No worries, mate! Here’s the good thing about submarines: there’s *never* a problem getting them submerged. OK, getting back up to the surface can be a problem at times.
The problem at the moment is, again, being somewhat overstated. Two of the submarines are in a position where they could deploy if they had to. They are seaworthy. However, they are in need of maintenance, and it's better to do maintenance before your vessels reach the stage that they are unseaworthy, and so that is being done now at a time when there is no urgent need for them to be at sea.
Drip.
Drip.
Drip.
As the Western World slowly loses it’s ability and will to defend itself.
Thanks Robert A. Cook, PE.
Availability of submarines
The article in The Australian, 10 June 2011, by Cameron Stewart – ‘Not a single submarine seaworthy’ – appears to misunderstand how Navy and Defence maintain and operate the submarine fleet to meet operational requirements.
As part of the regular ongoing management of the submarine fleet, all submarines are in various stages of their docking, maintenance and operational cycles.
Two submarines are currently in their operational cycle, and it is incorrect that there are no seaworthy submarines.
Navy is presently able to meet the Government’s standing requirement for submarine availability to respond to operational needs.
Maintaining the Collins Class is one of the most challenging tasks Defence has. It is one of the most complex and important capabilities operated by the Australian Defence Force.
Navy, the Defence Materiel Organisation and industry continue to work closely on a program to improve reliability across the entire submarine fleet.
Navy remains committed to maintaining a submarine capability that is operated effectively and safely to protect Australia’s national interests.
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=11966
Translation of the bureaucratese: Yes, we have a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.