Shipbucket

Submarines, in and of themselves, are not gross. The stuff growing on the one in the picture, on the other hand? Ugh... :shudders:

That boat obviously haven't been on the move lately. In fact the growth pattern tells us that it has been on the surface for at least a couple of months. (Unless it was tied up in an unusually rich environment) You see the same amount of growth on untreated dinghies that has been left in the water for most of the season.
If it had acquired them by moving around then they'd be all over the hull. (Remember, I'm speaking purely in the context of nuclear submarines)

Oh and in case anyone is wondering, the picture shows a Collins class SSK.

Slippery paint is also good for boundary layer turbulence.

I predict we will see blue-painted submarines within our lifetime.

Thiel wrote:Oh and in case anyone is wondering, the picture shows a Collins class SSK.

The fact its a Collins makes me rather sad , we haven't had a good run with them really

I'm sorry but I have doubts about the identification of the picture as a Collins; That doesn't look like the bow of a Collins class boat.

And Rodondo - Why do you think we haven't had a good run with them? Are you giving credence to the political knife-fighting and the media's uniformed ravings? They are a great submarine and arguably one of the best conventional submarines around. If you read informed comment on them (as opposed to ramblings of politicians with an agenda or media trying to beat up stories to sell papers) you'll find they are highly thought of in the submarine community.

I mean the engine breakdown in the Timor Sea I think it was and the near disaster with the Farncomb in May/August I believe it was. I agree they are good submarines for what they are, its just, as you said the politicians, have blemished them.

I also agree about the identification, the bow isn't as rounded as a Collins is and the stern doesn't match that really well to the photo

I agree the engines appear to be the weak point of the Collins but that is something that the Navy needs work around and learn from when we build the next class. The rest of the weapon system is world class.

General Observation: Australia built these submarines from scratch with no previous experience in building this type of vessel. What staggers me about this project (* And I have been watching this project for decades*) is how few problems Australia has had given the starting state of the submarine building/support industry in this country. There have been problems but rather than concentrating on the problems and whinging about how bad things are, it would be more productive to acknowledge the problems and use that to learn how to do things better.

As to the Farncombe incident: Submarining is very dangerous. You are taking machines into extremely hostile environments. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to gloss over incidents where boats are in mortal peril but you can't expect to operate on the edge and not expect dangerous things to happen. In a submarine if you make a mistake or something relatively small goes wrong you have a high probability of getting dead. I have the greatest respect for the people that operate these weapons because they do something I could never do.

If you want to discuss about submarines, do it in offtopic forum, leave the topics in here for drawings and their comments

Type XXIII submarine:Do we have this?

odysseus1980 wrote:Type XXIII submarine:Do we have this?

What do you think? please look in to the main website before you post a request.
http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... eXXIII.png