Collins Class fire control systems controversy

[kookaburra]

An article in the widely read Crikey.com news website today argues that - in yet another acquisition blunder - Australia's Defence Materials Organisation (DMO) neglected a working and vastly cheaper Australian developed fire control system for the Collins Class submarines, and bowed to US pressure to install the American AN/BYG-1 system, which is experiencing severe teething problems.

Here's the piece:


Collins subs blackmailed into overpriced US weapons system
Defence and security writer, Eric L. Palmer, writes:



There are more horrors to tell from the murky depths of under-performing defence programs. It is pretty much understood that the Navy can only get a few of its six submarines to sea for want of crew. There are many sub-sets of sad stories for the Collins class subs, what follows is just one of the scarier -- and costlier -- ones.

A report done in 1999 by two fellows named McIntosh and Prescott put down recommendations on how to best fix the ill-fated Collins class submarines. Nearly 10 years and many billions of dollars later, serious questions need to be asked about these submersible money pits.


The Defence Material Organisation or DMO is the focus. The DMO is a 7000-strong bureaucracy charged with cradle to grave management of weapons systems for the Australian Defence Force. The part that the DMO played in hobbling the Navy's sub force is significant.


Two fire-control systems were up for consideration to help fix the Collins class subs. One was an American developed AN/BYG-1 system. Australian Industry offered to incorporate the far more advanced and working TDMS system for around $1.5 million a boat.


In the end, the American kit was selected to be the primary fire-control system. One boat is equipped with the AN/BYG-1 combat system while the another is in the process of having this system fitted. The Australian developed TDMS did make it on to two of the boats as a back up system.


In comparative trials with the American AN/BYG-1 system, both in manual and automatic modes, the Australian designed and developed TDMS system worked flawlessly. The same cannot be said for the AN/BYG-1 system. At the next upgrade of the AN/BYG-1 combat system, the automatic features which have been demonstrated by Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) trials not to work, will be deactivated. The taxpayer is being asked to pay for this.


The American system came with a high price and implied threat: use the US system or get pushed out of super secret technology sharing. The price of the American system? About 250 times more than the Australian one. Costs so far are over $3 million invested in the Australian system and around $750 million invested in the American system.


As with other Defence projects, DMOs cradle-to-grave management of programs is not only expensive, but potentially risky to the men and women who have to use them. Torpedoing effective Australian home industry and poor spending of taxpayer cash makes the DMO the enemy below. It's time the public forced its politicians to have DMO management surface and answer for their misdeeds.

[mik43]

Oh dear, sounds familiar here in the UK!!!
Mik

[astraltrader]

It sounds like the DMO have American cousins!

I have a feeling that another agenda was at work here, something to do with Australian/US relations. This is a difficult road to walk.

Spare a thought too for the need of allies to have compatible systems.

[battlestar]

G'Day All

Sounds like contract negotiations time at DMO again.

[kookaburra]

One thing I meant to say is that the Collins Class boats seem to me to have proved very effective in exercises, and to have valuable in-shore capabilities now lacking in the several big navies with mostly/all nuclear sub fleets.

There was all that talk about the Collins Class being noisey - but I think HMAS Waller 'took out' the 'Big E' on a joint Aust-US exercise once, didn't she - one of the big carriers anyway.

As someone who spent decades in it, I know how once the media gets a negative bone in their mouth they never let it go. The Collins Class started with a bad press because of huge cost over-runs, and that opened the way for endless follow-up stories of how bad they were proving to be in service. Not true, I think.

One of the main problems now is manning, and last year there was a story of the R.A.N. looking at procedures for bringing women sailors into the submarine service.
Defence Minister Fitzgibbon also announced almost immediately on taking office a study for Australia's next generation submarine to maintain the country's regional strategic advantage.

PS: The first pic here is worth looking at up big size. Amazing angle.

[battlestar]

G'Day All

In answer to your post Kookaburra.

Ok, where to begin.

I've had the oppotunity to talk to USN Submarine Commanders, and their crews, about the COLLINS class. The verdict. If a COLLINS gets you in the Littoral Zone, up to the continental shelf, and you're driving an LA class sub, you're toast. In the deep ocean, its 50/50. Most USN Submariners are very impressed by the upgraded COLLINS class subs.

During RIMPAC 2000 an stock standard COLLINS, HMAS WALLER, got through and 'sank' the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN-72), shocking the critics back home that said that WALLER's trip was a waste of time, as she was not ready.

The first three of the COLLINS class, COLLINS, FARNCOMB, WALLER, had major noise issues, along with a list of others, but after the improvements on the next three submarines were successful, the first three got those same upgrades. DECHAINEUX and SHEEAN were the first subs to get the FASTTRACK upgrades, and in a ceremony in December 2000, were introduced to the Australian public before commissioning in 2001.

Part of the reason IMHO, was that they built all of the class one after the other, instead of building COLLINS, then testing her for a year before construction began on the others, the lessons learnt passed onto the next sub built, ans so on. I hope with the new submarines planned, this is they way they will go.

Manning is now the BIGGEST issue. Out of that, Women in subs is THE BIGGEST bugbear. This was forced on the RAN by a PC government wanting the womens vote. The all male crew sure as hell did not want it, and their wives weren't impressed either. This, the mining boom, and an apparent lack of leadership in the higher ranks of both the submarine service, and the RAN itself, are enough for submariners to go back into the surface fleet.

One other issue. When the OBERON subs were in service, the training and the eliteness of the submarine arm was more than enough to attract the best to serve. When COLLINS entered service, the O boat crews were suddenly 2nd class sailors. Higher Ranks in the RAN sub group stated that if it wasn't COLLINS related, they didn't care. This, along with women crews and relocating the subs from Sydney to Rockingham (Mixing with a surface ship base, not a base for subs), was the last straw. Many qualified submariners either left, or transfered to the surface fleet based in Sydney. When HMAS OTAMA arrived back from her final exersize 'Lungfish 99' and the last cruise by an RAN OBERON,not one member of the high command of the RAN submarine squadron was their to greet it. For those OBERON submariners, this was another insult.

This elite feeling NO LONGER EXISTS in the RAN submarine service. And it has a direct bearing on the fleet's operations. When they deal with manning, this must be addressed as well, but the way things stand, don't look for a quick fix. The RAN have lost nearly 50% of submariners that have served between 6-15 years of service. All that vital experience gone, and the newer sailors have to take up the slack!

IMO, this will take ten + years to fix, if they do at all.

[kookaburra]

Thanks Ian. Truly excellent post and very informative. Your knowledge on things submarine clearly stands at stratospheric levels above my own scrappy and scant general knowledge.

[battlestar]

G'Day All

Thanks Kookaburra, I hang out with way too many submariners here, man, they know how to tell a story...or ten!

Check out this thread

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forum...?t=2398&page=3

Post 53.

Yes, the ENTERPRISE incident (No, not the Star Trek Episode) of 1976.

Enjoy

[John Odom]

Faithful are stripes from a friend, said the Apostle Paul! Better it from the Aussies than the Ruskies! I think some of our current naval officers who have never seen real naval warfare, tend to get overconfident. Good Job, RAN