Collins-class submarine
The Collins-class submarines are Australian-built diesel-electric submarines operated by the Royal Australian Navy. The Collins class takes its name from Australian Vice Admiral John Augustine Collins; each of the six submarines is named after significant RAN personnel who distinguished themselves in action during. The six vessels were the first submarines built in Australia, prompting widespread improvements in Australian industry and delivering a sovereign sustainment/maintenance capability.
Planning for a new design to replace the RAN's submarines began in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Proposals were received from seven companies; two were selected for a funded study to determine the winning design, which was announced in mid-1987. The submarines, enlarged versions of Swedish shipbuilder Kockums' and originally referred to as the Type 471, were constructed between 1990 and 2003 in South Australia by the Australian Submarine Corporation.
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.
The Collins class was expected to be retired about 2026, however, the 2016 Defence White Paper extended this into the 2030s. The Collins class life will now be extended and will receive an unplanned capability upgrade, including sonar and communications.
The initial replacement for the Collins-class was to be a conventionally-powered version of the SSN, the, proposed by Naval Group of France and dubbed the. On 15 September 2021, in the face of growing delays and cost increases, the Australian government announced the cancellation of the contract with Naval Group, and that the replacement will be a nuclear-powered submarine fleet made in partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States.
Development and design
The proposal for a new type of submarine to replace the Oberon class of diesel-electric submarines began in July 1978, when the RAN director of submarine policy prepared a paper detailing the need to start considering a replacement for the ageing Oberons. The paper also raised the suggestion that the majority of the submarines be constructed in Australia and that the number of submarines be increased beyond the six Oberons. Building the submarines in Australia was initially met with reactions predicting an impossible task because of the poor state of the Australian shipbuilding industry, and Australian industry in general, although campaigning by several figures in Australian industry who thought it could be done came to the attention of those spearheading the project to design the Oberon-class replacement, and led to the view that it was both possible and feasible. The campaign to build submarines in Australia was also met with support from the Australian Labor Party and several trade unions.The proposal was accepted by the defence operational requirements committee in August 1978, and the project was given the procurement designation of SEA 1114. Approval for the development phase of the project was given in the 1981–82 federal budget. The RAN had four main requirements: that the submarines were tailored to operating conditions in the Australasian region, that they be equipped with a combat system advanced enough to promote a long service life, that appropriate and sustainable infrastructure be established in Australia to construct the boats, then provide maintenance and technical support for their operational lifespan, and that the submarines were capable of peacetime and emergency operations in addition to their hunter-killer role. Ten submarines were envisioned, a number which was revised to between four and eight boats by the start of 1983, and later settled on the acquisition of six submarines, with the option to order two more.
Requests for tenders
The development of the submarine commenced in May 1983, when the government released a request for tender and approached seven of the world's nine diesel-electric submarine manufacturers for submissions. The submissions would be narrowed down to two based on the provided information, with these undergoing a funded study to determine the winning design. Tendering companies had to demonstrate how Australian industries would be incorporated into the project, and that they were willing to establish an Australia-based consortium to construct the submarines. All seven companies responded by the end of the year: the combined submissions totalling four tonnes of paper.- Directions Techniques Des Constructions Naval of France originally supplied a design modified from the, but the submission review board did not view this favourably, as the submarine was of the same vintage as the Oberons. Their submission was altered to a conventionally powered version of the Rubis-class nuclear submarine.
- The German companies Ingenieur Kontor Lübeck and Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft collaborated to offer an enlarged version of the Type 209 submarine, designated the Type 2000. Submarines based on the Type 209 design had been exported to several nations, but were not operated by the German Navy.
- Thyssen Nordseewerke, another German company, offered their. Like the Type 209, the TR-1700 was an export-only submarine design.
- Cantieri Navali Riuniti of Italy proposed a design based on their, scaled up by 25%. The age of the early 1970s design was a concern, and the proposal was withdrawn early in the process.
- The Dutch partnership of United Shipbuilder Bureaux and Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij submitted the. Their offer was identical to that constructed for the Royal Netherlands Navy, minus the Dutch combat system.
- Swedish shipbuilder Kockums submitted the Type 471 design, an enlarged version of the operated by the Swedish Navy.
- The United Kingdom company Vickers Shipbuilding & Engineering offered a design referred to as the Type 2400, that later became the Upholder class.
The combat data system was procured separately to the submarine design; 14 companies were identified as capable of providing what the RAN wanted, from which eight were approached in January 1983 with a separate request for tender. Five responded: a consortium led by Rockwell International of the United States, Plessey of the United Kingdom, Signaal of the Netherlands, Sintra Alcatel of France, and a collaboration between the German Krupp Atlas Elektronik and the British Ferranti. Each tender was required to offer a system with a distributed architecture, despite the absence of an accepted definition for 'distributed computing' at that time, and had to show the cost of programming the software in Ada, although they could offer additional cost breakdowns for other programming languages.
Funded studies
By May 1985, three months behind schedule, the review board narrowed the tenders down to two contenders in each group: IKL/HDW and Kockums for the submarine, Rockwell and Signaal for the combat system. The Walrus and Type 2400 submarine designs were considered to be too expensive to manufacture because of inefficient building practices, while the combat data system tenders had been narrowed down by unjustified development risk in the Plessey and Krupp/Ferranti proposals, and the dual problems in the Sintra Alcatel tender of excessive power usage and incompatibility with the proposed American weapons system. On 9 May, the Australian cabinet approved the selections for the funded studies and decided that six submarines would be built, with the option for two more, all in Australia.The companies were granted funding for project definition studies, from which the final selections would be made. Liaison teams were sent to each of the four companies to observe the development of the concepts presented in the initial proposals. As part of this process, the two submarine designers were required to establish a consortium with at least 50% Australian ownership: IKL/HDW joined with Eglo Engineering to form Australian Marine Systems, while Kockums became part of a joint venture with the Australian branch of Chicago Bridge & Iron, Wormald International, and the Australian Industry Development Corporation to create the Australian Submarine Corporation.
During the study, various accusations of foul play by or unsuitability of both submarine designers were made by Australian politicians and the media. These included claims that the centre-left Australian Labor Party and the Swedish Social Democratic Party, both in power at the time, would lead to a pro-Kockums bias, investigations into perceived coaching of IDL/HDW representatives in the questions to be asked at an ALP Caucus briefing session on the project, and public emphasis on security incidents in both Sweden and West Germany. These incidents either lacked supporting evidence or were proven false, and were the result of the Liberal Party attempting to discredit the Labor government, or pro-British politicians and organisations who believed both submarines were inferior to the Vickers Type 2400 offering.
The Dibb Report on the state of the Australian Defence Force was released in March 1986; it included advice that if the submarine project cost increased too much, the boats' capabilities should be scaled back to save money. Around the same time, Federal Treasurer Paul Keating began efforts to tighten fiscal policy and cut government spending across all portfolios. Consequently, despite his enthusiastic support for the project as a means to improve Australia's defence and industrial capabilities, Minister for Defence Kim Beazley advised the project heads that he would not be able to secure Cabinet approval for construction of the submarines if the predicted cost "started with a 4 ".