In response to /Kjell’s comment
of February 13, 2020:
Much of the Victoria class' current maintenance problems are rust-corrosion going back as far as their long term UK storage when
they were Upholders. Rust is an iron oxide while corrosion is a broader term encompasing destructive changes to iron, other metals, alloys, ceramics and polymers.
"the submarines deteriorated while in storage [sitting in seawater] and the
Royal Navy was not completely forthcoming on their condition during the
sale."
-----------
The complex fuel-water -ballast-buoyancy system of "fifteen" tanks for the
Collins also suffers from excessive rust-corrosion.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Propulsion_system
And see this Collins submarine image showing 2 of the Fuel Tanks and the Main Ballast Tank .
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Propulsion_system
And see this Collins submarine image showing 2 of the Fuel Tanks and the Main Ballast Tank .
This is a major reason for the excessive A$700 million/year total maintenance bill for the Collins.
-----------
-----------
So Naval Group is especially mindful of reducing
rust-corrosion problems in the 12 Australian future submarines.
Pete
2 comments:
In December 1986, HMS Upholder was the first to be launched. The last one, HMS Unicorn, entered the water in April 1992. This entire class officially entered service between June 1990 and June '93. Because on the internet there are quite a few different data to be found.
In the Defense Review of 1992 it was proposed to lay off all Royal Navy diesel-electric submarines. This decision was ratified in June 1993.
At that time only HMS Upholder was operational, but the remaining 3 boats were allowed to be completed.
These 4 boats were mothballed in April - October 1994. In 1998 Canada decided to buy these 'second-hand', because new boats were deemed too expensive. In October 2000, the first boat was accepted and sailed by Canadians in the UK. To then undergo a 6-month Canadian Work Period modification program. However, back then there was already criticism of the state in which the Upholders came out of the mothballs.
Commissioned as of: December 2000; June '03; October '03 and the last one originally in October 2004, but due to fire it became September 2015.
From the start this class has been plagued by major rust and corrosion problems. Yes and ...
The Upholders were in many respects a leap forward compared to the old Oberon class: they had good sailing characteristics under water, were very quiet and had good fire control and sonar, but there were also a lot of things wrong.
Former commander of both British conventional and nuclear submarines, Dan Conley, was involved as a naval officer in the trial run and transfer of the yard to the British navy. Conley writes in his book "Cold War Command" about the "serious technical shortcomings" that he and his colleagues from Commodore Naval Ship Acceptance (CNSA) found:
1. the Upholders had problems with the automation on board;
2. During the test run, HMS Upholder was confronted with a power outage and loss of propulsion due to a design error. This was restored after months.
3. The boats were found to have a range of 4,000 nautical miles, instead of 8,000 nm!
4. The most serious safety problem was the complex torpedo launch system. The outer torpedo hatches could unexpectedly open while the inner door of the torpedo tube was open too. As a result, a huge amount of water would come in in a short time.
5. The snorkel mast distorted because of the exhaust heat during snorting. The effect was noticed in practice: tons of seawater came through the snorkel in the engine room.
6. Diesel exhaust gasses constantly crossed the bridge. This was not only bad for the health of the people on the bridge, the view was also limited.
7. A lot of equipment was difficult to access for repair and replacement.
8. Limited space for the crew. According to Conley, it was a generation back.
9. The 2 Paxman Valenta diesels, originally intended for trains, did not meet the heavy requirements on a submarine. Damn, in our LCF De Zeven Provincien AAW lass frigates there were / are also Paxman diesel generator sets, which are actually intended for trains and also did not satisfy, because of prematurely wear and teat and are / were replaced by Deutz 'diesel carts'.
There are problems with a new class more often, but although some were solved, other problems proved persistent. Conley described the design of the Upholder as a whole as "very disappointing".
Stephen Saunders of Jane's Fighting Ships, even said that there is something "fundamentally wrong" with these submarines.
The shortcomings were remedied as much as possible and a committee of inquiry also had confidence in the quality of the boats.
Locum.
Thanks Locum
For that long list of the Upholder/Victoria class's grave deficiences.
I'll turn it into an article next week.
"3. The boats were found to have a range of 4,000 nautical miles". 4,000nm may be barely sufficient for transits to/from their southern bases to the northern ice shelves (eg. anti-Russian chokepoints).
This reality must be diabolical for the peace of mind of any Victoria Commanders considering putting their boats under the ice.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment