Pauline Hanson is her name. I am unsure how the rear admiral didn't piss himself laughing.

@@lolcanoable Hanson was ignorant of many things. An embarrassment to all dedicated hardworking gov't members.

She also tried to break the secrets act and collect information for CCP

​@@janwitts2688well that escalated quickly

The greatest enemy of any navy is always the government they work for.

The Colin’s is fantastic class. I am a bit concerned about the life extension required. I had hoped a few Japanese subs would be purchased to bridge the gap. Even being sent back to Japan for major refits etc. fingers crossed it works out ok.

I understand that Australian submariners have already started training at HMNB Clyde, at Faslane here in Scotland, as part of the AUKUS programme. I imagine it would be something to do with reactor operations. 👍

I think it was just smoke and mirrors to underrate its capabilities so any adversary would not count on it being a threat.

@@ianmcsherry5254 I believe RAN personel are being trained in the UK and the US and some press reports indicate that some personel have finished their courses in the US and maybe crewing on US boats. I believe a US SSN tender has arrived in Fleet Base West (just outside of Perth) and we will see a US boat(s) essentially operating out of Fleet Base West later in the year with RAN members assisting/undertaking servicing etc. I think all 3 AUKUS members are going to be seeing some very interesting years ahead, but right now it is very very interesting for Australia and the RAN.

A number of the Collins class have visited the Philippines, and the best route would be right up the middle of the South China Sea. And most of them were in the mid 2010s. Underrated indeed.

Sub Brief has a video that is appears reasonably balanced to this non naval civillian.

Thanks You're GOATED

It’s the other way around mate

In the case of murdoch... australians can't cast enough contempt in his direction.

Rupert Murdoch and his consequences have been a disaster for Australia

Pointing out that the military has screwed up EVERY procurement programme since the MEKO's AND Australian industry has failed to produce ANYTHING within spec and within budget as well is not being harsh about them. It's simply stating the truth. Christ, they couldn't manage to get the MRE order right and had to buy from outside Australia in an emergency move, which in the end cost them less overall and delivered a better product than the original plans.

@@iatsd are you the ex minister johnson of "couldn't build a canoe" fame? Could you give me a broad indication of how many procurement projects for any major government contract in all countries in the world go? You know... civilian like snowy mountains current project, military like abrams, F11, F35, etc etc etc.

@@annpeerkat2020 What a terrible piece of reasoning and pathetic attempt at deflection. It isn't relevant in the slightest if other countries also fvck it all up. That bears not one iota on whether the Australians are pathologically incapable of managing programme management. The fact that you attempted a bit of "whatabout-sim" deflection says everything we need to know about your own ability to consider a subject rationally and objectively.

Not for history. If the culture shifts too much then you lose generational knowledge by favoring popular designs and forgetting innovations.

You have to read his online articles. He is prolific,lol

+1 vontent is good

@@Syndr1 I don't like reading I'm lazy

My issue is my screen. This phone makes reading anything on his site incredibly challenging and frustrating

Correction, Rickover was a Vice Admiral at this time....

@@SingMineshaftGapInAFlatMinor Interesting tag name, gave me a chuckle. A vice Admiral that barely had any vices... I interviewed with him in 1982.

Thanks for serving, RC! Officer or enlisted?

@@SingMineshaftGapInAFlatMinor I was a Junior Officer. I had never heard that enlisted personnel were given the "pleasure" of interviewing with Admiral Rickover. He had what it took to run a lot of nuclear reactors safely. There is a good book about some earlier issues and what he did about them called AGAINST THE TIDE by Oliver if interested.

@@rcwagon Nice! My dad's interview was around 1962, plus or minus. Snook 592 threaded the disaster needle between Scorpion and Thresher. I was just a hull number or two away from having never existed....

"After all was sorted" It's a pity though that there were so much troubles early on, because more than half of them were just silly. Australians made it look like they WANTED a freshwater build because of badly formulated spec reqs. And beyond that, a lot of mostly minor scaling and measuring/precision issues. Nothing that couldn't have been easily solved before construction started but instead, noone bothered to check properly and mistakes were made...

He's right about the pack of bitches sometimes known as the Australian media though.

Basic seamanship skills? Yup. They had those 20+ years ago. But not now. They've largely lost them.

Kockums wasn't blame free. They were a bit myopic in their outlook. Just remember, Kockums sent over the first hull to Adelaide, that was nearly unusable.

Kockums were unhappy that they werent allowed to tender, and Im sure we all remember how that so called process worked out. Screw you Macron. Really the RAN are terrible customers, the swinging doors of parliament are incubators for morons, and the media should be spit roasted. The pigs got really quite admirable submarines but nobody thanked Kockums for it. Its a shame but it is what it is.

Like the other person commented, Kockums did contribute to some of the problems with the Collins class. The propellers didn't meet the required noise standards so the RAN had to source them from the US Navy. Also the first hull had to be redone because it too didn't meet the RAN standards.

​@@tomnewham1269 those things are true, but there were reasons screws are notoriously difficult and depend on where the boats operate. Im still not sure about my own boat which varies from time to time, such a black art it is. Cold sub surface sea water such as you might find around Sweden or in the southern ocean is more dense than the warmer shallower waters in the choke points to our north where operational silence is essential. That difference in density radically reforms the ideal profiles you should have produced, and sadly its not possible to have a screw thats the jack of all trades, just close. The Americans, who wanted to learn things about Collins such as the noise signature offered to help and they had software that made it worthwhile, it was an offer Australia wasnt to refuse. In my younger years I thought we could manage noise better with synthesised noise, but pressures on other matters were such we never got to experiment with it. Its also true that there were significant laminations in the steel sent from Sweden, for which I dont think Kockums were responsible but they should have checked. All that and those 6 forward tubes were a bugger that was to come back and haunt the RAN decisions again and again. The fairings that were expected to be used anyway did the trick in that case, but issues kept appearing that ASC were too slow or too underresourced to investigate. The vibrating masts and the spiral wrap are a good example. We were all a little out of our depth. At the end of the day however, the concept for Collins which at the time was quite different was better than good, it is still probably the best diesel e sub in the world, and they are managed by competent well trained and dedicated crews. Australia should not have stopped building them but gone on at something like half speed to maintain the skill base, and another half dozen younger boats for a constant fleet strength around 12 would be useful. But then here we are.

@@z_actual I agree with you that we should have built more of them to keep our skill set. A real shame that Canada didn't see the potential in the Collins class and purchased some for their own use. Both countries would have benefited if they did had done that.

It would be a waste of money. Very few missiles per boat for significant integration cost. It is also not clear what use the RAN would have for land attack missiles anyway.

@@soulsphere9242 They are buying 200 Tomahawks for the Hobarts though, so they do see some requirement for land attack capability in addition to the NSM purchased for the ANZAC and Hobarts.

@@watcherzero5256 There is very little if any legitimate requirement, they just need to be seen to be doing something whilst the fleet continues to shrink, recruitment is declining, and both of our supply/oilers are long term unavailable due to machinery issues. Tomahawk for the RAN has been debated for a decade at least and there are still plenty of detractors. The fact the RAAF no longer has JASSM in service and has no stand-off capability at all now, but the RAN is getting Tomahawks for a few surface ships should tell you all you need to know. There is no strategy behind procurement at all. "Something has to be done...this is something...so we must do it!"

new cost / advantage measures have scene a decreasing in the initial up grade plans. Although we will need these subs on the front line for more than a decade, the scope of the new work has recently been changed. It will be a bare minimum to keep them afloat, little than effective war fighting vessels into the near, needed, near future potential conflict zones. It is a much talked about lost opportunity/ capability, that wasn't taken seriously by either political party. The next gen of Australian subs should have started a decade before it did. And all the bullshit, sort of choices, should have been investigated better & sooner. I welcome the decade late, idea of Nuclear powered subs for Australia, but it is still, a decade late. And unlikely to see fruition in time. The flat out refusal of both parties to consider interim options just leaves us, and our allies at a dis-advantage. The failure of Government on both sides to engage the public in the debate is just mind blown stupidity. The non refund payment to both the US and Great Briton,( for maybe something to do with Nuc subs but no specifics?) without clauses is just beyond belief. This is by no small means, a small sum. It could easily cover 4-6 interim conventional subs, quickly. But this "payment/ gift to foreign industry" Has No clauses? Can you imagine , either Briton, or the US saying yes to any of this, if it was them?

@@michaelpowell6023 When Julia Gillard was PM she wanted a "Son of Collins" class to replace the Collins class. You are right, the governments have been sticking their head in the sand on the issue of replacing the Collins class. We could have easily built the replacement submarines here with our own design as we have the capability. I don't believe we should go down the nuclear path for one simple fact, cost. I cannot see why we couldn't set up a forward operating base say in Singapore or another ally country to allow conventional powered submarines to stay in a patrol zone for a lot longer than what can be achieved by just using HMAS Stirling.

Great suggestion!

The US did fix the propellers after the original Kockums design turned out to be faulty.

they should, but they wont. An extended Collins would have included the LOTE (Life of Type Extension) improvements and might have allowed for a larger magazine, a new both larger and heavier battery over the existing 400 tonnes of improved chemistry, but really its not to be. For the price of AUKUS we could have had hundreds of Collins II, not that we would but it highlights that we dont really need ocean capable submarines to fight Americas wars for this nations defence.

@@z_actual Yes but how would we crew hundreds Colins? We have enough trouble crewing the 6 we already have.

@@dbooth2008 I think I said "not that we would " the thesis of my argument is that we could have more boats deployed at any one time regionally, including some 6 grounds to our near north We cant do that with 6 boats, we still cant do it with 8 boats, you need more like 14 to 18 boats, but less could be made to work The entire Collins program was completed on A$5.1 billion on 2003 money, we are spending A$368 billion on AUKUS

@@dbooth2008 He didn't say we would have hundreds of Collins II subs, only that we could afford hundreds for the same price as AUKUS. We certainly could afford several dozen.

The Upholders came 30 years after the US Navy's Barbel Class.

It’s getting long in the tooth & maintenance is a huge issue. Not a bad design for its time, though.

I participated for many years in US "special" submarine programs. The capabilities will no doubt remain sensitive until completely superceded by newer technologies. Such was the case of declassifying project Azorian and project Ivy Bells.

Who is the cheerleader that you are referring too? That is interesting to know that it is in the tanks and not the actual hull that is affected. I sort of read that it was around the torpedo tubes that was the problem however everyone seems to be vague in what the issue is.

Might I recommend 'Hypohystericalhistory's guide to the Collins Class Submarine' (just posting the title, as posts with links seem to get deleted). At approximately 7min, it is one of his shortest videos. He also has 2 other videos on recent RAN submarine programs that together run for 3.5 hrs.

Happens to almost every boat out there, especially if they have long deployments. Take a look at pics of Trafalgars or Sierras if you want to see lots of tiles gone.

The title of this video is "5 Underrated Submarines". I'm pretty sure that if you asked anyone who knows ANYTHING about submarine history, the Gato class would be mentioned???

The UB series was the template for the later Type VII - to be more precise, the UBIII series.

@christophkluxen5559 true, but the UB-III was based off the UC-II.

@@ErichZornerzfun looking a bit furtther back, the first UB boat, UB 1 was commissioned 29. January 1915 under Oberleutnant z.S. Wägner, the first UC boat UC 1 was commissioned 7. May 1915 under Oberleutnant z.S. von Werner. The experiences of both designs influenced later designs. The task was different. UB designs were build to use torpedoes and UC designs were build to mainly use mines with torpedoes as a weapon of opportunity. Therefore Type VII was more a successor of the different UB types than of the different UC types.

@christophkluxen5559 The type VIIs were also hybrid torpedo and mine armed vessels and by the time of the UC-III they were also intended as hybrids that regularly torpedoed targets. While there was cross influence on the designs, the UB-III was directly based off the UC-II as a torpedo only version of that design rather than an update to the UB-II.

@@ErichZornerzfun The development line was a bit more complicated. First there was UB I class (Projekt 34)and the aft part of UB I class was used for UC I class (Projekt 35a) too. Experience showed that these boats were too small. So UB II (Projekt 39) was developed - a saddle-tank boat with two propellers. This led to the development of UC II class (Projekt 41). Due to shortages at the large dockyards a requirement was formulated that UC II class must be mass production capable by smaller dockyards too, which had no experience in Uboat construction. This was successful. The UB III class (Project 44) was defined as a simplified Ms-boat (large U-Boats with long construction time) capable for trade war (armament like a large U-Boat) but build according to the mass production principles of the UC II class including short construction time. This worked very well. UB III was a double hull design and was developed into Type VII, which was a saddle tank design. The mines used by Type VII were launched through the torpedo tubes and based on a WW1 development of similar mines (T-Mine) launched through torpedo tubes too. Nevertheless the assignment of Type VII and UB III class was trade war, not mine laying. Between UB III class and Type VII there was an interim design named G-Type, developed in 1928 by Friedrich Schürer as there was a possibility of a new war. In this case the League of Nations worked and the gathering war clouds disappeared - as well as the G-Type design.

Wrong month…