New Depths in Australia-US Relations: The Collins Class ...

Maryanne Kelton: New Depths 8bigger boat would also offer better habitability conditions for the crew and allow forthe installation of more sensors. Importantly too, the boat would need to maintaindepth and slow pace in shallow waters. Thus a combination of these functions,including the operation in littoral and estuarine waters, created the intricatecomplexity of the design. 18For the proponents of the new submarine, its ability to provide 'a long termpresence in the littoral of a potential aggressor', and perform a crucial role in thegathering of intelligence considerable distances from Australia's shores werepersuasive arguments for Australia to maintain its submarine capability. 19 Traditionalsubmarine capabilities included covert posture, long endurance, and diverse sensorand weapon load. This had also involved surveillance, intelligence acquisition,maritime strike and clandestine operations involving mine laying, anti-shippingactivities and insertion and extraction of small parties in areas of conflict, and antisubmarinewarfare (ASW) training. As 90 per cent of Australia’s trade wasconducted via shipping it would also offer an invaluable trade protection role. Inparticular, for Australia, these functions could be performed by submarines withrelative impunity where it lacked air and sea superiority. 20Although a nuclear powered submarine may have been a more appropriatedesign to respond to the long range and heavy weapon component objectives, forAustralia there were significant disadvantages associated with this model. 21Construction of nuclear energy manufacture plants, transport, storage, safety andeventual disposal of nuclear fuel were unpalatable concerns for the Australian publicand particularly the ALP Left at that time, as were the financial costs involved in theestablishment, construction and through life maintenance of these vessels. Costssurrounding the maintenance of nuclear bases were enormous. It was thus bothpolitically, commercially and strategically unattractive. 22 For Australia then, a largediesel electric submarine was the preferred model. At the time, these optimumpreferred specific design requirements were unavailable in off the shelf technology.Australia's unique geographic and oceanographic environment, together with theRAN's needs of a submarine to operate in the 1990s onwards, thus laid claim for anew design for the submarines. 23Nuclear powered submarines may be six times as large. One of the difficulties for large submarines isthat because of the greater transparency of tropical waters created by the low levels of biomass, theyare more likely to be visible from the air in some situations even when submerged. Information frominterviewee.18 Two of the major challenges for the submarines constructors relate to noise signature and sensoreffectiveness. Again the nature of shallow tropical waters make it more difficult for effective operation ofsonars. Information from interviewee.19 John Dikkenberg, former Commander of the Australian Submarine Squadron 1989-93, 'Submarinesvital to our defence', Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter, April/May 2000, pp. 22-24. Note also that littoralwaters can refer to waters as shallow as 70-80 metres.20 For submarine functions see John Dikkenberg, 'Submarines vital to our defence', Asia-PacificDefence Reporter, April/May 2000, p. 22, and Commodore Geoff Rose, Collins Class Project Director,'Introduction of Underwater Platform Technology (An Australian Perspective)', Paper for the DefenceAsia Forum 1997 at the World Trade Centre, Singapore, 16 January 1997, p. 2.21 For the argument for conventional submarines see, Commander A. J. Millar, CSC RAN (Retired),‘Conventional vs Nuclear Submarines: The Case for Conventional Submarines for Australia’, RAN NewSubmarine Project, undated, copy in author’s possession.22 Kim Beazley, then Minister for Defence, provided a summary of the advantages and disadvantages ofnuclear powered submarines in response to a question upon notice from Dr. Krugman, CPD, HouseHansard, 9 October 1985, Question No.2039, p. 39: ‘not only were they noisier and with a high infra redsignature, more vulnerable to detection, in inshore conditions the nuclear submarines were less effectivethan conventionally powered submarines.’ Given however, the nuclear submarines’ unlimited mobilitythey were a highly attractive option for the US and Soviet navies.23 For a brief technical summary of the Collins design, see Commander A. J. Millar, RAN, Profile of theCollins Design, Australian Navy, 1992-93, pp. 44-46.