"I am very proud of what we achieved [with Collins] but if one of those went up against a modern submarine such as a German HDW 209 or 214, I would rather be in them,'' he said. ''By 2035 you might just as well stay in port - you'd get blown out of the water [if you put to sea]."
Mr Ohff backs a "military-off-the-shelf solution" to be developed in partnership with a European submarine company. If the future submarines can't be built in Adelaide for less than $1.5 billion each they should be built overseas.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Original Collins project boss would rather be in off-the-shelf sub design
One of the team leaders that brought the Collins-class sub into this world has some different views compared to some the entrenched defence and industry bureaucracy. Hans Ohff says the Collins class is not survivable against modern threats from the 2020's onward. He also has a different view from the locals on how the Collins should be replaced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hopefully something along the lines of the U216. Ref http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=264
Agreed Graeme, the U-216 is almost perfect for the kind of needs that the RAN says it requires. Range seems to be marginally less than the current Collins but it depends on how you count it. Plus there is no mention I have seen so far of whether that includes AIP or not, if it doesnt then range may be greater. There is no mention of whether the optional AIP would be built into the existing hull or if a stretch would be needed, if it is then you can assume around an 8-10m stretch which will add roughly 4-500 tons to displacement, some of which might allow for an increase in fuel storage.
If you truly can run it for periods of up to 80 days (10 longer than stated for Collins) with a crew of only 33 as opposed to the up to 54 on Collins then that will help reduce the training and operating costs greatly. It will also make them with a 12m longer hull a lot more comfortable.
Just two things to bare in mind.
One, DONT let the RAN or DMO play with it or take the lead in project managing.
Two, if you do want to build it in SA then allow HDW to oversee and manage the project directly. They will have an incentive to get it right if they want to sell more of them in the region.
A 216 would be nice.
Re AIP: Certainly better than legacy acid batteries, but with advanced batteries the situation is less clear I think. And I never liked the explosive stuff that comes with AIP.
Distiller,
I think it comes down to which AIP system you go for. I seem to remember reading that the French DCNS MESMA system was the most promising in terms of reliability and energy density as well as safety. Something like this would be a favourable solution for a notional Type 216.
Post a Comment