Navy's Collins-class fleet 'reduced to one working submarine'

[ralphbuttigieg]

Is this fair dinkum?
************************************************** *******************************************
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/navys-collins-class-fleet-reduced-to-one-working-submarine/story-e6frg8yo-1225823451926


THE navy's trouble-prone $6 billion submarine fleet has been reduced to one operational boat, raising serious questions about the long-term serviceability of the six Collins-Class vessels designed to serve as Australia's frontline strike weapon.

Chief of the navy Russ Crane yesterday confirmed a generator failure last week on board HMAS Farncomb meant the submarine would have to be returned to dry dock for urgent repairs.

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston said by his count, the Royal Australian Navy's operational submarines were now down to one - HMAS Rankin - and the government had a major maintenance crisis to solve.

Citing security grounds, the navy declined to answer questions from The Australian about the number of submarines it can put to sea.

However, senior defence sources confirmed Senator Johnston's claim that only one boat was available for training and operational duties.

Farncomb's generator failure marks the latest in a run of serious mechanical problems plaguing the Collins-Class fleet. In a brief statement, Vice-Admiral Crane expressed frustration at news of the latest mechanical breakdown.


"I am very disappointed by this development," he said.

"Navy will continue to work with the Defence Materiel Organisation, industry and ASC (Australian Submarine Corporation) to determine the extent of the issue and rectify this problem.

"We are working hard to ensure this fault is rectified as soon as possible.

"The Australian public, the Defence organisation and our navy family expect nothing less."

Battered by morale problems linked to crew shortages and engine malfunctions, the generator breakdown is just the latest blow against the elite silent service.

As reported in The Australian on October 12, the submarine fleet is already operating under severe restrictions because of crippling mechanical and maintenance problems linked to chronic engine problems. Under ideal conditions, the RAN likes to have two subs ready for deployment, two in training or basic maintenance and two in deep maintenance.

But some senior engineering experts have warned that the Swedish-supplied Hedemora diesel engines may have to be replaced - a major design and engineering job that could take years to fix and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So serious are the problems that DMO has placed the Collins boats at the top of their "projects of concern".

West Australian Senator Johnston said a major hole existed in Australia's front line of defence. "I think we're down to one and that's (HMAS) Rankin tied up at (HMAS) Stirling (navy base)."

The woeful service record of the Collins-class subs raises questions about the RAN's ability to operate a planned expansion of the fleet to 12 new boats recommended in last May's Defence white paper

[Riđđu]

Does it matter whether or not it is true or not. Everybody thinks they only have one boat.

Australia’s Submarine Program In the Dock

www.defenseindustrydaily.com

26-Jan-2010 18:02 EST

The failure of a generator aboard HMAS Farncomb is just the latest problem faced by its fleet of 6 Collins Class diesel-electric submarines – which are now reduced to just 1 operational vessel. That readiness issue presents an immediate financial headache for Australia’s government, and adds a longer-term challenge to the centerpiece of Australia’s future naval force.

With just 6 submarines in its fleet, Australia’s current deployment set-up leaves little room for error. Even a normal setup of 2 in maintenance, 2 for training but available if needed, and 2 on operations makes for a thin line, given Australia’s long coastline and sea lanes. Instead, Australia currently has 3 submarines in “deep maintenance” and completely unavailable (HMAS Deschaineux, HMAS Sheean, and HMAS Rankin), 1 submarine back in port and facing indeterminate maintenance (HMAS Farncomb), 1 “limited availability” submarine fit for training (HMAS Collins), and 1 operational boat (HMAS Waller) that was in port for major battery repairs as recently as May 2009. When crewing problems are added to the mechanical issues, Australia’s 2009 White Paper plan to build 12 diesel-electric fast attack submarines as the centerpiece of the 2030 Australian Navy is attracting questions…

The current issue with HMAS Farncomb involves failures in 1 of the submarine’s 3 French Jeumont-Schneider, 1,400 kW/ 440-volt DC generators. As the Australian Department of Defence puts it:

“The problem stems from the way some of the generators were manufactured. At no time was the crew at risk but investigations are continuing in order to determine the impact this deficiency might have on the remainder of the submarine fleet.”

A generator failure is a serious issue for a diesel-electric submarine. The generators must power all systems on board, from oxygen generation to combat electronics, and also drive the Collins Class’ 7,200 shp Jeumont-Schneider DC motor. Given the dangers inherent in a submarine’s mission, electrical redundancy, back-up capability, and reliability are all critical.

There are fears that fixing HMAS Farncomb’s generator problem could require cutting open the pressurized hull. If that’s the case, repair costs would be high, and Farncomb would join 3 other boats in a long “deep maintenance cycle”. HMAS Deschaineux was due back in the water in early 2010. HMAS Sheean isn’t due back in service until 2011, and HMAS Rankin has no set date yet – it is merely “in queue” behind Sheean. While HMAS Collins has reportedly had its generators given a clean bill of health, investigation of the entire fleet’s generators is underway. If additional problems are discovered, the repair schedules for Deschaineux, Sheean, and Rankin become much less predictable.

So, too, does the future success of Australia’s estimated A$ 36 billion future submarine program.

One of the goals for the Collins Class program was to advance Australian shipbuilding capabilities, by creating state-owned ASC Pty Ltd. to build a foreign submarine design. ThyssenKrupp’s Swedish Kockums subsidiary was chosen to design them, based on the A19 Gotland Class. At 3,000t, their long-range design is the largest diesel-electric submarine type in the world.

Launching a submarine building industry is very difficult, however, and using what amounts to a new design adds to that risk. The Collins Class has performed well in exercises with the US Navy, where it has scored successes against American Los Angeles Class nuclear-powered fast attack subs. On the other hand, it has also encountered a long-running sequence of issues, including significant difficulties with its (Australian chosen) combat systems, issues with acoustic signature due to mechanical faults, major program cost growth to A$ 6+ billion, and schedule slippage.

The effects aren’t just mechanical, or financial. Crew retention issues are exacerbated by low mechanical readiness, which restricts training opportunities and so limits the available pool of crew. That forces higher deployment rates away from home and family among qualified submariners, which in turn feeds back into low recruitment and retention.

Collins was launched in 1993, and delivered in 1996. Its successor boats of class were commissioned in 1998 (Farncomb), 1999 (Waller), 2001 (Deschaineux and Sheean), and 2003 (Rankin). The persistence of serious mechanical issues, and very low readiness rates, into 2010 and beyond, raises legitimate questions concerning the long-term risks of Australia’s 12-submarine plan for its future navy.

Australia is a middle power with a small population, without a long submarine building tradition, and without an active submarine construction line. That it overcame these disadvantages to build and field the Collins Class is a respectable achievement, notwithstanding the problems that class as faced in service. At the same time, the strategic stakes in Asia are rising rapidly, and submarines are becoming more important as the country’s neighbors grow their economic and military power into the sea lanes around Australia. An expanded submarine force makes strong strategic sense as a key guarantor of Australian interests and sovereignty – but in some respects, any new program will be starting again from square one. Over a decade can be expected between the commissioning of HMAS Waller in 2003, and construction of any new submarines.

Does repeating the Collins program’s industrial structure for the core of Australia’s future defense risk creating the same cost and readiness issues in the new submarines? If not, why not, especially given the long interval between delivery of HMAS Rankin and future construction of the next submarine type? What are the strategic risks of treating the core of Australia’s future defensive posture as a make work program first, and a defense program second? What savings might be had by simply ordering some or all of the proposed 12 boats from a foreign manufacturer? Should ASC become a wholly-owned subsidiary of whichever firm wins the competition to build Australia’s next 12 boats? Or should the 12-sub program just be scaled back sharply, as too big a risk for cost inflation and low value for money?

Some of these questions are already being raised, by politicians and media editorials. Unless these readiness and technical issues can be turned around, Australia’s governments, of whatever party, should expect more questions.

[JimWH]

Almost certainly a daft thought, but if it comes to the point of actually deciding to replace the generator set aboard the Collins class (which I imagine is spectacularly unlikely given the giant embugerance factor for such a project) would it be worth converting at least one of the boats into a testbed for some of the technologies expected to be incorporated into the SEA 1000 boats? I'm specifically thinking about the High Temperature Superconducting generators/motors and perhaps even some novel form of battery storage (e.g. Li-ion batteries). As is the technologies are busy maturing nicely in the civilian and military worlds, but till such time as they're tried on a sub it does mean that the full extent of their utility will be speculative. Using a Collins as a testbed in the context of a larger refit program would allow a means of determining the operational utility in practice in a boat with some limitations compared to a full scale bespoke design (e.g. the limited air intake and exhaust volumes will limit the diesel engine power). And, if it does all go arse over tits, then in the context of a larger refit program there'd be the option of putting the test bed boat through a refit to bring her up to the standard of the other boat, thus making it a no-fouls way of trying out the scheme.

[Gubler, A.]

It’s interesting that so many ‘commentators’ seem to think that the weakness in the engines and generators of the Collins class indicates a weakness in the Australian submarine building industry. These items were imported! From France (generators) and Sweden (engines) and have been well known sources of weakness for the Collins since they have been in operation. The problem here is not building submarines in Australia but building submarines for Australian conditions and missions with European equipment that is just not robust enough.

[Milne Bay]

It’s interesting that so many ‘commentators’ seem to think that the weakness in the engines and generators of the Collins class indicates a weakness in the Australian submarine building industry. These items were imported! From France (generators) and Sweden (engines) and have been well known sources of weakness for the Collins since they have been in operation. The problem here is not building submarines in Australia but building submarines for Australian conditions and missions with European equipment that is just not robust enough.

Abe, is there a suitable alternative to the troublesome parts that is known to be reliable and robust?

[Gubler, A.]

Abe, is there a suitable alternative to the troublesome parts that is known to be reliable and robust?

Of course and to make sure it wouldn't be too difficult to test an alternative engine/generator under the right conditions. The problem with replacing the generators of the Collins is the Government has allready committed huge amounts of cash to replacing the combat system, the sonars (technology upgrade) and fixing mechanical flaws. To replace the generators would be another hundreds of millions of dollars program because the submarines would need to be cut in half along a can weld line so the new generators could be inserted and then re-welded. Which could be a good idea to re-establish can welding skills before the SEA 1000 build...

[Gubler, A.]

Almost certainly a daft thought, but if it comes to the point of actually deciding to replace the generator set aboard the Collins class (which I imagine is spectacularly unlikely given the giant embugerance factor for such a project) would it be worth converting at least one of the boats into a testbed for some of the technologies expected to be incorporated into the SEA 1000 boats? I'm specifically thinking about the High Temperature Superconducting generators/motors and perhaps even some novel form of battery storage (e.g. Li-ion batteries). As is the technologies are busy maturing nicely in the civilian and military worlds, but till such time as they're tried on a sub it does mean that the full extent of their utility will be speculative. Using a Collins as a testbed in the context of a larger refit program would allow a means of determining the operational utility in practice in a boat with some limitations compared to a full scale bespoke design (e.g. the limited air intake and exhaust volumes will limit the diesel engine power). And, if it does all go arse over tits, then in the context of a larger refit program there'd be the option of putting the test bed boat through a refit to bring her up to the standard of the other boat, thus making it a no-fouls way of trying out the scheme.

This is feasible in line with a generator upgrade but perhaps not the main motor as this would require two cuts in the Collins pressure can and significant redeisgn for different volumetrics and power management, etc. Replacing the batteries is easy as new battery technology is more compact than exsisting lead acid stuff and is often packaged into the shape of the exsisting batteries. So that would be physically similar to the periodic replacement of the Collins class's batteries. You would need new battery management systems but not as extensive as required for a new motor.

[Milne Bay]

Hmmm...............
This sounds like a bit of wishful thinking to me - but, for what it's worth here is the news:
SA pushing to design next sub fleet

Posted 25 minutes ago

* Map: Adelaide 5000

The South Australian Government says the state is well-placed to win the design contract for the new submarine fleet.

There will be 12 submarines assembled in Adelaide, but Premier Mike Rann says SA also has the expertise to design them.

The Federal Government is considering whether to buy an existing design, modify the Collins-class submarine design or come up with a new fleet from scratch.

Mr Rann says an answer is expected by the middle of the year.

"We've won the right to build the $30 billion submarine project in Adelaide, now we're going for some of the high-tech jobs involved in design," he said.

"I'm very confident we'll get there because we've got the facilities in place.

"There's a very vigorous push going on right now involving myself and [deputy] Kevin Foley and a team behind us to convince the Federal Government "Right you're building the submarines in Adelaide, that's terrific and what we want is to get the design centre as well'."

Of courrse, having the facilities is one thing, being able to design a submarine is quite another kettle of fish...........

[Gubler, A.]

I think you'll find the SA government is talking about the detail design being conducted in SA. Much like with the AWD.

[Riđđu]

Of course and to make sure it wouldn't be too difficult to test an alternative engine/generator under the right conditions. The problem with replacing the generators of the Collins is the Government has allready committed huge amounts of cash to replacing the combat system, the sonars (technology upgrade) and fixing mechanical flaws. To replace the generators would be another hundreds of millions of dollars program because the submarines would need to be cut in half along a can weld line so the new generators could be inserted and then re-welded. Which could be a good idea to re-establish can welding skills before the SEA 1000 build...

How much more challenging it is to repair submarines compared to surface vessels?

When I was working on the ferries those vessels always had problems because equipment was designed for blue water ships. After couple of years of continuous traffic in the archipelago and ice everything started to show wear and tear. Then it took only two weeks to actually change the gears and other heavy stuff. It was just quite expensive.

[Gubler, A.]

How much more challenging it is to repair submarines compared to surface vessels?

The big difference is the submarine's hull fully encloses most of the boat’s components but on an above water ship the hull is open on one side. So any machinery that needs to go in or out of the submarine needs to fit through the small hatches or the hull needs to be cut in half. Since the hull also needs to be extremely strong to withstand the pressure of water at depth it needs to be much stronger than a normal above water ship’s hull. Imagine having to do all your maintenance on an ice breaker by cutting a hull in the bow as the only allowed entry and exit to the ship’s interior. There are all sorts of other problems as well like the submarine usually having much tighter weight allowances and the shape constraints of a circular pressure hull.

A good comparison is the complexity accounting put together by ASC for the AWD bid. They calculated that building a 3,000 tonne submarine (Collins) was as complex as building a 9,000 tonne Arleigh Burke class destroyer. So a submarine is three times as complex indexed to weight.

[Riđđu]

The big difference is the submarine's hull fully encloses most of the boat’s components but on an above water ship the hull is open on one side. So any machinery that needs to go in or out of the submarine needs to fit through the small hatches or the hull needs to be cut in half. Since the hull also needs to be extremely strong to withstand the pressure of water at depth it needs to be much stronger than a normal above water ship’s hull. Imagine having to do all your maintenance on an ice breaker by cutting a hull in the bow as the only allowed entry and exit to the ship’s interior. There are all sorts of other problems as well like the submarine usually having much tighter weight allowances and the shape constraints of a circular pressure hull.

A good comparison is the complexity accounting put together by ASC for the AWD bid. They calculated that building a 3,000 tonne submarine (Collins) was as complex as building a 9,000 tonne Arleigh Burke class destroyer. So a submarine is three times as complex indexed to weight.

Thanks for clearing that up! I somehow assumed that submarines don´t just sail to the nearest repair yard with a suitcase of dollars, but didn´t realise that it would take years to change the generators and other problematic parts to all the six boats.

[buglerbilly]

New Australian Submarine Program Office to Place Increased Focus on Submarine Availability

13:45 GMT, February 12, 2010

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, today announced that a new Australian Submarine Program Office will be established in Adelaide next month.

“The establishment of the joint Australian Submarine Program Office is a vital step towards achieving the submarine output Government expects,” Mr Combet said.

“The Australian Submarine Program Office will be established in Adelaide to jointly manage submarine availability required by Government.

“The idea for a new project office follows discussions between the Navy, the Defence Material Organisation and ASC Pty Ltd on how better results can be achieved.

“The Government has made clear to all parties involved in the maintenance of the Collins Class Submarines that we expect better results. We understand this will take time but we are determined to see an improvement.

“This marks the start of a new partnership between Navy, the DMO and ASC which will set the basis for a strong and enduring submarine capability over the next decade,” Mr Combet said.

The Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russell Crane, DMO Program Manager Submarines, Mr Kim Gillis, and CEO of ASC Pty Ltd, Mr Steve Ludlam, met to develop a new charter to drive the relationship between the three key players in Australia’s submarine force.

“Discussions between the parties have also focused on a way forward for HMAS Farncomb’s generator repairs and a maintenance schedule change which will improve overall submarine availability,” Mr Combet said.

HMAS Farncomb is in maintenance following the electrical failure of one of its three main generators last month.

The office will commence work in March and will operate as an integrated product team of Navy, DMO and ASC personnel led by DMO’s Director General Submarines Commodore Bronko Ogrizek.

[buglerbilly]

Australia claims USD4.4m damages from ASC over Collins-class engine failure

By Jon Grevatt

17 February 2010

The Australian government is seeking AUD5 million (USD4.4 million) in damages from state-owned shipbuilder ASC over the engine failure that occurred in one of the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) Collins-class submarines last year, an Australian Senate estimates committee has been told.

The committee, which met on 10 February, heard that the compensation being sought is the maximum available under the terms of a 15-year Collins-class support contract that ASC signed with the government in December 2003.

Responding to questions from opposition defence spokesman David Johnston, Kim Gillis, the programme manager for Collins-class submarines at the Defence Materiel Organisation, said the government is seeking the damages following the receipt of a report that was conducted into the engine failure in first-of-class HMAS Collins in October 2009.

The committee heard that this report "clearly indicated" that the failure was caused by the way in which bearings were removed, inspected and replaced in HMAS Collins .

Gillis said: "We have now received the independent report. I have formed a view on that. I have now put a proposition to ASC as the result of the cause and sought a claim against ASC for approximately AUD5 million to recompense the Commonwealth for that damage."

He said that ASC "is looking at their insurers and also looking at subcontractors that were involved in the [maintenance] activity on HMAS Collins ", and added: "They have not accepted the claim. We are still in negotiations with them."

239 of 571 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2010

[Exsandgroper]

MSPA 75/10

Printer friendly version

MSPA 075/10 Monday, 22 March, 2010


Successful submarine escape and rescue exercise completed off the West coast
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has completed a successful personnel transfer from the submarine HMAS Waller, while it sat on the seabed off the West Australian coast.



The exercise of submarine escape and rescue is a requirement of the RAN’s submarine safety system and demonstrates that the procedures and equipment are in place to rescue personnel in the event of a submarine incident.



The method of submarine escape exercised as part of Exercise Black Carillon involves personnel transferring from a bottomed submarine into the James Fisher Submarine Rescue Vehicle, LR5, for transportation to the surface.



Upon surfacing, personnel were tended to onboard the Australian rescue ship, Seahorse Standard, with specialised RAN medical teams and equipment embarked.



“Black Carillon is an extraordinarily valuable opportunity to exercise our submarine escape and rescue capability,” said Commander Submarine Force, Captain Brett Sampson.



“The successful completion of the submarine escape as part of Exercise Black Carillon has demonstrated that the RAN is well equipped to take action to rescue submariners in the unlikely event of a submarine incident.”



Black Carillon is the twelfth in a series of RAN submarine escape and rescue exercises designed to demonstrate RAN submarine rescue capability. The RAN uses annual Black Carillon exercises to train and demonstrate this ability.


Media note: Imagery is available at


http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2010/Mar/20100322a/index.htm






Media Contacts: Defence Media Liaison 02 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664.

Cheers

[Gubler, A.]

LOL it was the AIC in the generators... who was the contractor?

This time it's the generators: Defence reveals latest battle with navy's underwater lemons

http://www.smh.com.au/national/this-time-its-the-generators-defence-reveals-latest-battle-with-navys-underwater-lemons-20100330-rbla.html

DAN OAKES DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT
March 31, 2010

MOST of Australia's strife-ridden Collins class submarines were fitted with dud generators when they were built, it was revealed yesterday.

The Defence Department official responsible for rehabilitating the Collins class fleet, Kim Gillis, told a senate subcommittee the navy had discovered five of the six submarines were built with flawed Australian-made generators.

''The generators on HMAS Collins, the original ones, were manufactured in France; inspections of those indicate they're very solid and we're not expecting to have a failure of those,'' Mr Gillis said.

''The remainder of the Collins class submarines had their generators manufactured in Australia, and are susceptible to this particular failure. They weren't done properly when they were first manufactured.''

Mr Gillis said the fault was confirmed during repairs to HMAS Farncomb, which was recalled to port last month after suffering generator failure, but had overhauled generators reinstalled yesterday. Mr Gillis stressed that the repair job had taken about a third of the predicted time.

It is believed the cost of modifying Australian-made generators is about $125,000, and each submarine has three.

The Collins class vessels, the largest conventionally powered submarines in the world, have become synonymous with controversy, underperformance and delay since the first of the fleet, HMAS Collins, was launched in 1996.

Last month it emerged that HMAS Rankin will be out of action for five years and HMAS Sheean for four years. It was also revealed that the government is demanding $5 million in compensation from the Australian Submarine Corporation over separate defects that have kept Collins incapacitated.

By the time Sheean and Rankin are relaunched, they will have overhauled generators. The two remaining subs, Waller and Dechaineux will be nursed along with the substandard generators until their next scheduled maintenance stop.

Mr Gillis told the committee that by having three generators, there was less likelihood of failure. He said the government would have little chance of gaining compensation from the manufacturer of the generators, which drew a hostile response from the subcommittee chairman, the Labor MP Arch Bevis. ''If we're in the habit of handing out money to Australian businesses, or American businesses, or anyone else, we should sure as hell be in the business of making sure that what they provide is what we pay for.''

The Defence Department also admitted yesterday flaws had been found in European helicopters that will replace Australia's fleet. It was revealed last month that a German military report had pinpointed serious deficiencies in the MRH-90 helicopters; Australia has ordered 46 of them. Major-General Tony Fraser said there were problems with the chopper's floor being too thin.

[SteveJH]

$375,000 to fix each sub, chickenfeed, but saying that, you would have thought quality control would have caught it to start with.

[Gubler, A.]

The generators were a cause of the noise problem back in the 90s as they vibrated too much. As to their current problem it could be something that needs a bit of wear and tear to tell.

[buglerbilly]

Contract for the Replacement of Batteries and Technical Support for Collins Class Submarines

(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued May 4, 2010)

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, today visited Pacific Marine Batteries Pty Ltd in Adelaide following its success in winning two multi-million dollar contracts from Defence.

Following a tour of the company’s facilities, Mr Combet said the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) had entered into two separate agreements with Pacific Marine Batteries for the provision of replacement batteries and technical support of batteries for the Collins Class Submarines.

“The Acquisition Contract is valued at more than $81 million for the provision of five Collins Class Submarine battery sets and will support 56 local jobs over the next six years,” Mr Combet said.

“The Standing Offer, on the other hand, will provide the DMO with a flexible seven year mechanism to engage Pacific Marine Batteries Pty Ltd at short notice for technical support of the Collins Class Submarine battery sets.

“Pacific Marine Batteries will continue to provide an Environmental Protection Authority approved storage facility for up to four battery sets (two in storage and two being ready for disposal).

“They will also provide equipment capable of conditioning the cells in anticipation of installation in a submarine, as well as providing decommissioning and disposal services at the end of the useful life of each battery set.

“Pacific Marine Batteries Pty Ltd is a small to medium enterprise that supplies components of a strategic capability to Defence.

“This contract reinforces the Government’s commitment to building local industry capability for the defence of Australia, the protection of our sovereign interests and the security and stability of our region,” Mr Combet said.

-ends-

[tiddles]

Lets hope the subs are in full working order, at least half is an improvement on one. As for the Afghanistan statement , as they say more later on another thread.This from ABC News
Tiddles
Half of Collins fleet still out of action
Updated 4 hours 22 minutes ago


Last October Senator Faulkner admitted to a Senate estimates committee that he had "major concerns" about the fleet. (Australian Navy)
Defence Force Chief Angus Houston says half of Australia's troubled Collins Class submarine fleet is now available for service.

Defence Minister John Faulkner said the Government placed a "high priority" on capability and operational availability last year amid reports that only one submarine was operational.

This morning Air Chief Marshal Houston told a Senate estimates hearing that sea availability is increasing.

"About a week ago we welcomed the return to service of HMAS Dechaineax," he said.

"This means we now have three submarines out of maintenance, fully crewed and available for operations from Fleet Base West, which is an important step forward for meeting our availability and preparedness targets."

The Government's Defence white paper, released last year, outlined plans for a 12-strong submarine fleet.

Last October Senator Faulkner admitted to a Senate estimates committee that he had "major concerns" about the fleet.

Air Chief Marshal Houston has also told the estimates hearing that an announcement will be made soon on arrangements to replace the Dutch soldiers being withdrawn from the Uruzgan province of Afghanistan in August.

It has been unclear what the Dutch withdrawal will mean for Australian troops and the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Air Chief Marshal Houston says he cannot yet say what the new arrangements are, but says they will be revealed soon.

"I assure the committee these new arrangements, coupled with our expanded mentoring responsibilities for the 4th ANA brigade, will significantly enable and focus coalition and ANA activities in Uruzgan towards the goal of transitioning security responsibility to Afghan authorities," he said.

Senator Faulkner says an announcement will be made within "weeks".