Collins-class submarine - Extremely Powerful Submarines From Australia

[@rodneymiddleton1044]

Thanks Dung Tran for this video of our subs.

[@videowilliams]

It took us 20 years to get them working right, and they look like something patched together by committee, yet I hear they do extremely well in war games, and such war games might get real before too long. Thanks for this thorough and respectful video, Dung!

[@Sq12Sq22u22]

it did not take 20 years and i suggest you look at the stats of other subs for an accurate comparison, these were extremely good subs and still are.

[@videowilliams]

@@Sq12Sq22u22 I don't deny they're good subs now.

[@videowilliams]

@roger that Including finding sufficient full-time crews for all 6 of the boats. Prove me wrong with a timeline of their progress, don't just LOL.

[@videowilliams]

@roger that Well, that's a lot of information and of course I can respect the fact you worked on the actual project for 10 years. As for where I got my figure of "20 years to get them right", that came from Wikipedia, in the 3rd paragraph of their intro on the "Collins-class submarine": "The submarines have been the subject of many incidents and technical problems since the design phase, including accusations of foul play and bias during the design selection, improper handling of design changes during construction, major capability deficiencies in the first submarines, and ongoing technical problems throughout the early life of the class. These problems have been compounded by the inability of the RAN to retain sufficient personnel to operate the submarines-by 2008, only three could be manned, and between 2009 and 2012, on average two or fewer were fully operational. The resulting negative press has led to a poor public perception of the Collins class. After 20 years of service issues, the boats have finally provided high availability to the RAN since 2016."

[@Skippy-id9yt]

@@videowilliams considering it was our first foray into submarine building, and no ally helped with the acoustic tiles (quite important) I think they're pretty damn good and now the swedes and Dutch are using what was learnt to make their own 3400 tonne sub (euro subs are tiny normally ) we should be quite proud ,

[@PeterEdwards45]

Thanks Tran We had a lot of problems with the Collins Class in the first few years of operation but that has all been sorted out and now hopefully they are up for the task as the Chinese get closer every day.

[@YaMumsSpecialFriend]

Nice work, a deep dive into Australia’s sub deterrence👌🏻

[@tombrown6628]

Thanks Tran 👍👍. Very interesting!

[@grizzly6699]

You say the combined power output of the submarine is 2.4MW but the captions show 4.2MW. ???

[@DungTranMilitaryBlog]

It’s 4.2. Sorry my bad.

[@montys420-]

Great video again!💯

[@lordtemplar9274]

Was always under the impression Australians were not happy with them.

[@Hierachy]

for a moment we were, some faults here and there, then we fixed them and now were happy with them

[@lordtemplar9274]

@@Hierachy ok thx

[@montys420-]

Yeah the propeller were overly noisy because of vibration in the shafts but was fixed sometime early 2000's

[@alanhughes1262]

all good now should've just kept building them would of had 20 now .

[@nicolasdurand8048]

I think that there is a confusion with this program since finally the barracuda french program is going to replace the australian submarine fleet, also there was a Big problem with Collin class submarine, reason why australia didnt renew this program

[@montys420-]

Yeah the collins had issues at the beginning which all new ships do but have proven to be 1 of the best conventionally powered subs in the world, has sunken nimitz class subs on excercise!

[@nicolasdurand8048]

In the video it appears that the Collin class will be on service till 2030 - 40 but its wrong right ? I thought that they were replacing them soon

[@montys420-]

@@nicolasdurand8048 they have chosen the replacement, and will begin building them in a few yrs but we will not get the 1st until 2030 and the last by 2050 hence why the collins class will stay in service until then that will only make them 40-50yrs old at retirement

[@nicolasdurand8048]

Thanks !

[@seansoraghan3245]

Why did they chose the Barrcuda ,it’s a nuclear design Redesigning costs are going to be huge

[@hanseriksson7633]

The problems Australia had with the Collins Class Submarines is caused by changing the plans without contacting the designer Kockums before the implementation of the changes! It was never Kockums fault that they had problems in the beginning! If the designers would have been contacted they never would have had these issues! The Collins Class was based from the Swedish Type 471 that has been extremely successful! The big problems is that the Australian Submarine Corporation did not have the expertise to do the design changes and that caused the issues with Collins Class in Australia! Unfortunately!!

[@aaronkelly5103]

I fully agree with what you said , We should of been building 12 advanced collin subs had RAN done R&D since they have had the original 6 , RAN should of made them collins the best subs in the world and improved on it over the years. I notice the Australian defense force don't like doing R&D with anything and would rather buy from overseas and that's good short term. But long term it's going to get very expensive, it's going to put Australia back 100 years and our future generation are the ones most at risk because we ain't doing R&D so we can build anything from the ground up. I don't have anything against the new subs expect for how expensive they are going to be, we could of put half that money into R&D with the collins class subs and still had the best subs, we could of built 20 collins for half of what we spent on the new subs, we could have had 20 brand new collins class subs for the front line and the 6 we already had could of been used only for R&D purposes only.

[@paulbaker9277]

The RAN should Ask the US for the sea wolf class, its has been said the US would look favourably if we did , damn the French deal.

[@montys420-]

Theres no way the u.s would give us sea wolf class they may have considered giving us los angeles class or vaginia class

[@paulbaker9277]

@@montys420- Okay, I watched a US us senator speak favourably when I was reading a military paper that had a video speaking about if the Australian government asked the US, the seawolf class would be seen as an option for a close ally.

[@montys420-]

@@paulbaker9277 they only ever built a few of them for there use, where as the vaginia and l.a are being upgraded and lengthened i just dont see us having the money or them giving us that technology! But maybe your right it, we would need a civilian nuclear industry before we could field nuclear attack subs the technicians needed to sustain them need training in a civilian setting aswell.

[@paulbaker9277]

@N.W. Jonkhart Who said it is illegal to buy a nuclear sub , Australia would not place nukes on them, if we did have them at all they would come under an a agreement if we did with the United States ,if that was the case . We would have to set all the infrastructure before we bought them and so on and I think we could set it all up in partnership and we would get our subs quicker than would with the French .

[@paulbaker9277]

@@montys420- Yes that is true they only built a few of them, they are still an advance sub. I understand that the RAN do like Diesel in that they are quieter and many times have suck up ion the us cv . If you had read up on Australian plans years ago you would have noticed Jervis Bay as it still has the foundation work for a nuclear power station as they were lining up to use it . This is why we bought the sky hawks and F111 and also purchased missiles from the UK when we were rocket testing , but at the time as it it was pointed out , information coming out of Canberra like a sieve...the UK was okay with it but the yanks were not at the time.

[@HMASBarbette]

Based on What?

[@suryowirawanwibisono]

Australian loved overpriced subs..👍👍

[@paulbaker9277]

The Collins had their problems but they are all good now , we should have just asked the US with the new contract .

[@montys420-]

@roger that the collins wasnt over priced it had to be redesigned and stretched for Australian use and because we dont haveour own sovereign civilian nuclear industry we bought the best design and adapted it, just like we did with the collins.

[@montys420-]

@roger that they probably could build a nuclear industry i public opinion is against nuclear energy so until fusion reactors are reality i dont think itll happen in australia and fusion engines are a long way from being in subs

[@montys420-]

@roger that and the reason i think we paid $ like that was to take our subs into the next generation with pump jet technolagy no other country offered that tech on a conventional powered sub.

[@montys420-]

@UCfaCJ-FYIcQEfO3Qj7nnhew the "son of collins" would have had to go through the same redesign process, and where and whom were we getting pump tech from and designing that into the collins ER would of costed how much and talking vaginia class is never going to happen without our own sovereign nuclear industry!!

[@geoffreyreeks2422]

These subs are an embarrassment. We need to produce a modern nuclear powered submarine and destroyer every year. Regards, Geoff. Reeks

[@seanhunt138]

Your information is so out of date.

[@hardyanpajero69]

👍😎🍺🍩🚢🚢