Fórum Defesa Brasil

Not a single submarine seaworthy

* EXCLUSIVE Cameron Stewart
* From: The Australian
* June 10, 2011 12:00AM

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 unavailable. HMAS Farncomb is out of the water at the submarine repair facility at Henderson near Perth as workers seek to replace a broken emergency propulsion unit.

HMAS Collins is undergoing scheduled maintenance at Henderson and is due out later this month, while HMAS Sheean and HMAS Rankin are both in long-term maintenance at the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide.

The navy's plans to improve the reliability of the fleet are being undermined by the discovery of unexpected defects, especially with the propulsion system, as the submarines begin to age.

There is also a shortage of spare parts.

The navy has become increasingly evasive about the state of its submarine fleet and is restricting its public comments on the issue, citing national security.

However, critics say the navy has in the past been open about the availability of its submarines and that it is hiding behind claims of national security to avoid public scrutiny.

Defence declined to answer detailed questions from The Australian about submarine availability, saying only that two boats were in deep maintenance, two were in mid-level maintenance and two "are in the water in Western Australia".

The Australian understands HMAS Waller was originally scheduled to begin a mid-cycle docking maintenance for 12 months today, but that the navy has now deferred this plan for several months because so many other boats are out of action.

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston criticised navy chiefs for being evasive about submarine availability during Senate estimates hearings in Canberra last week.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6072631716

A Austrália não consegue manter nem o submarinos atuais, quem dirá os futuros super-subs que tanto sonham...

Uma pena, sempre ví com bons olhos a Austrália.

Isso é o velho problema de junta! "Junta tudo e joga fora!"

[]´s

old escreveu:Australia define su futuro programa para Submarinos.

Quiere unos 12 SSK AIP Oceanicos de ultima generacion con capacidad de ataque a tierra

Menciona los S80 como candidatos.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Aus ... nes-05917/

Se forem realmente baseados no S80 como mensionado no artigo, seriam algo parecido com nosso SBR correto???

J.Ricardo escreveu:

old escreveu:Australia define su futuro programa para Submarinos.

Quiere unos 12 SSK AIP Oceanicos de ultima generacion con capacidad de ataque a tierra

Menciona los S80 como candidatos.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Aus ... nes-05917/

Se forem realmente baseados no S80 como mensionado no artigo, seriam algo parecido com nosso SBR correto???

Sim... O S-80 espanhol é o Scórpene com sistemas americanos.
O interessante é ver o fracasso do projeto sueco.

P. K. Liulba escreveu:

Se forem realmente baseados no S80 como mensionado no artigo, seriam algo parecido com nosso SBR correto???

Sim... O S-80 espanhol é o Scórpene com sistemas americanos.
O interessante é ver o fracasso do projeto sueco.

Pelo que andei lendo o problema não foi exatamente o projeto sueco, mas a execução australiana. De qualquer forma os australianos erraram feio ao encomedar e construir uma nova classe toda de uma única vez. O último barco foi lançado antes que o primeiro fosse entregue e pudesse ser testado, não se deve fazer isso com navios. Os ingleses cometeram o mesmo erro com os Upholder, depois tiveram sorte de vender o problema para o Canadá .

Não se constrói uma marinha grande, poderosa e eficiente com pressa, isto tem que ser um processo lento e contínuo. Por isso fico bastante feliz com o anunciado abandono do PROSUP como havia sido idealizado (podem me crucificar por isso, mas acho minhas razões muito boas).


Leandro G. Card

P44 escreveu:Not a single submarine seaworthy

* EXCLUSIVE Cameron Stewart
* From: The Australian
* June 10, 2011 12:00AM

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 unavailable. HMAS Farncomb is out of the water at the submarine repair facility at Henderson near Perth as workers seek to replace a broken emergency propulsion unit.

HMAS Collins is undergoing scheduled maintenance at Henderson and is due out later this month, while HMAS Sheean and HMAS Rankin are both in long-term maintenance at the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide.

The navy's plans to improve the reliability of the fleet are being undermined by the discovery of unexpected defects, especially with the propulsion system, as the submarines begin to age.

There is also a shortage of spare parts.

The navy has become increasingly evasive about the state of its submarine fleet and is restricting its public comments on the issue, citing national security.

However, critics say the navy has in the past been open about the availability of its submarines and that it is hiding behind claims of national security to avoid public scrutiny.

Defence declined to answer detailed questions from The Australian about submarine availability, saying only that two boats were in deep maintenance, two were in mid-level maintenance and two "are in the water in Western Australia".

The Australian understands HMAS Waller was originally scheduled to begin a mid-cycle docking maintenance for 12 months today, but that the navy has now deferred this plan for several months because so many other boats are out of action.

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston criticised navy chiefs for being evasive about submarine availability during Senate estimates hearings in Canberra last week.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6072631716

Australian DoD Denies Report on Submarine Availability
Availability of Submarines


(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued June 10, 2011)



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.

P. K. Liulba escreveu:

J.Ricardo escreveu: Se forem realmente baseados no S80 como mensionado no artigo, seriam algo parecido com nosso SBR correto???

Sim... O S-80 espanhol é o Scórpene com sistemas americanos.
O interessante é ver o fracasso do projeto sueco.

O S80 é maior que o Scorpene original, assim com será o SBR.

O novo submarino sueco é o Kockums A26:

http://www.kockums.se/en/products-servi ... ckums-a26/


The way ahead for Kockums A26
The Swedish Government has approved initiation of the design phase for a new generation submarines for the Royal Swedish Navy.



Next generation submarine type A26

The new generation, Kockums denomination A26, will be designed for mainly littoral operations but will also possess ocean-going capabilities. It will be powered by a conventional diesel-electric propulsion machinery, and equipped with Kockums Stirling AIP system (air-independent propulsion). The Stirling system, together with a set of balanced underwater signature properties, will make the A26 submarine very stealthy and difficult to detect. It will also be highly invulnerable to underwater explosions through a verified shock resistance.
The A26 design includes a new innovative flexible payload capability with a flexible payload lock system in addition to its conventional torpedo tubes. Furthermore it will be prepared for network connectivity. A highly modular design facilitates efficient through-life upgrades and adaptations.

LeandroGCard escreveu: Sim... O S-80 espanhol é o Scórpene com sistemas americanos.
O interessante é ver o fracasso do projeto sueco.

Pelo que andei lendo o problema não foi exatamente o projeto sueco, mas a execução australiana. De qualquer forma os australianos erraram feio ao encomedar e construir uma nova classe toda de uma única vez. O último barco foi lançado antes que o primeiro fosse entregue e pudesse ser testado, não se deve fazer isso com navios. Os ingleses cometeram o mesmo erro com os Upholder, depois tiveram sorte de vender o problema para o Canadá .

Não se constrói uma marinha grande, poderosa e eficiente com pressa, isto tem que ser um processo lento e contínuo. Por isso fico bastante feliz com o anunciado abandono do PROSSUB como havia sido idealizado (podem me crucificar por isso, mas acho minhas razões muito boas).


Leandro G. Card

Abandono do PROSSUB !?!? QUÊ abandono do PROSSUB ???

crubens escreveu:Abandono do PROSSUB !?!? QUÊ abandono do PROSSUB ???

Erro de digitação meu, eu quis dizer PROSUP .

Já editei meu post .


Leandro G. Card

Penguin escreveu:
Australian DoD Denies Report on Submarine Availability
Availability of Submarines


(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued June 10, 2011)
.

Mas alguma vez o DoD deles iria dizer o contrário??????

P. K. Liulba escreveu:

J.Ricardo escreveu: Se forem realmente baseados no S80 como mensionado no artigo, seriam algo parecido com nosso SBR correto???

Sim... O S-80 espanhol é o Scórpene com sistemas americanos.
O interessante é ver o fracasso do projeto sueco.

Segun Navantia el S80 es radicalmente diferente al Scorpene, otra clase. En ambitos militares se cita al Scorpene como una version "low cost" de exportacion

En otro orden de cosas, parece ser que se desvia carga de trabajo a los astilleros de Espanha para cumplir con los plazos de entrega de sus F100

http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/ferrol/201 ... 8C7994.htm

http://www.diariodesevilla.es/article/e ... abajo.html

Navantia Signs Two Contracts in Australia


(Source: Navantia; issued Dec. 16, 2011)


(Issued in Spanish only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)



Navantia has signed two contracts in Australia.

On Dec. 15, in Adelaide, it signed the contract for the construction of the five blocks for the second Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) for the Royal Australian Navy. On Dec. 16, in Canberra, it signed a contract for the construction of 12 LCM-1E fast landing craft, also for the Royal Australian Navy.

The five blocks for the destroyer will be n° 109, 103 and 101 that will be built in the Ferrol facility, while blocks n° 107 and 105 will be built in the Fene facility.

In addition, and under a previous contract for the three destroyers, Navantia will also build block n° 603, which will include the ship’s dome. Construction of these blocks will represent a workload of 410,000 man-hours.

The 12 landing craft, identical to those delivered to the Spanish Navy between 2007 and 2008, will be built entirely in Navantia, and will represent a substantial work-load for the Bay of Cadiz over coming years, estimated at about 350,000 man-hours.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ralia.html

HMAS Choules (L100) is a Bay class landing ship dock that served with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) from 2006 to 2011, before being transferred to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). The vessel was built as RFA Largs Bay (L3006) by Swan Hunter in Wallsend, Tyne and Wear. She was named after Largs Bay in Ayrshire, Scotland, and entered service in November 2006. During her career with the RFA, Largs Bay served as the British ship assigned to patrol the Falkland Islands in 2008, and delivered relief supplies to Haiti following the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

At the end of 2010, Largs Bay was marked as one of the vessels to be removed from service under the Strategic Defence and Security Review. She was offered for sale, with the RAN announced as the successful bidder in April 2011. After modifications to make her more suited for Australian operating conditions, the vessel was commissioned in December 2011 as HMAS Choules, named after Chief Petty Officer Claude Choules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Choules_%28L100%29