Talk:Oberon-class submarine

Suspicious paragraph

 * The Oberons were arguably the best conventional submarine class of its time, with an astonishing reputation for quietness that allowed it to exist into the 21st century until replaced by newer classes such as the Collins and Victoria classes in Australia and Canada respectively. In fact, the ability of the O-boats to run in total silence enabled Australian submarines to successfully attack USS Enterprise, despite a huge number of supporting ships 'protecting' it. This led to the U.S. re-instating diesel boats into their fleet with the Los Angeles class SS.

Is the part in Italic font really true? It looks like a hoax or a mistake to me. I can't imagine the US will replace their nuclear subs with diesel boats. The LA class is also an SSN. A reference about the exercise and date on which this "attack" occurred would also be helpful. Sietse 11:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ive heard the rumour of an oberan class actually getting a hit on a us carrier during an exercise.Corustar 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

-No, this line about retiring the LA class subs is false. The USN re-introduced diesel submarines for a few reasons, one of them being that diesel subs are more capable that the larger nuclear classes in shallow water roles. I'm afraid I can't give you a citation immediately but I have this information from several sources at the Australia Strategic Policy Institute.

Also, I have a slight... wariness about including lines such as: "In fact, the ability of the O-boats to run in total silence enabled Australian submarines to successfully attack USS Enterprise, despite a huge number of supporting ships 'protecting' it."

...as I've heard many stories like this, including the Australian Navy detecting B-2s and other stealth aircraft by utilising non standard radar placements, F/A-18s/F-111s using improvised tactics  to avoid detection during Red Flag, and so on and I personally believe, unless these can be cited with some, let alone clear references, they shouldn't be included in these articles. I don't mean to detract from the ADF services as they are very capable and professional. But many of these claims are "camp fire" stories with little if any basis in fact. Example, to the best of my knowledge, B-2 bombers have never been used in any exercise with foreign military services. As far as I understand it, it was only recently at the Red Flag exercises that any stealth aircraft were involved (in this

case the F-22) and even then it was limited to in-service use, not with foreign services. Nevertheless, they spread as in-serice urban myths. (Bobbo9000 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Interestingly enough, I'd heard this story in relation to the newer Collins class submarines, but it involved the sinking of two Los Angeles class submarines. Ref: ...For example, in 2002 during the biennial RIMPAC, exercises involving the navies of the U.S., South Korea, Canada, Japan, Chile, Peru, and Australia, an Australian Collins-class diesel-electric submarine was able to score multiple kills against two U.S. Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines... found at http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/2873/history/3,2360,656,164,2873 and probably elsewhere as well. ''Has anyone Googled this Enterprise issue. ''

Mark5677 07:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A new incident with diesel subs slipping through USN carrier escorts: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.32 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that if you turned everything off on the sub, other then essentials, you could then just float under the surrounding sonar screens. All you would need to do in advance is plot out the most likely course for the carrier and then just sit down at 200-1000 feet or whatever and wait for them to pass over. Then you pop up and say hello. (CaptianNemo (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC))


 * To put paid to this section...:Speaking as a qualified submariner, there is NO REASON to doubt a diesel boat ever succeeded in an attack on any class vessel in war games... that's one reason such exercises are held. There is always luck as well as the fog of war.    Aside: My ship once sunk "An Island" playing the role of a Russian Cruise missle sub; which ilse, happened to be mazquerading as the USS Saratoga... but I digress...

Bottom line, STEALTHINESS is a strong hole card in naval warfare, and diesel boats are very quiet if sitting in ambush barely making steerageway while lurking for whomever. As coastal defense forces, or for defense in restricted waters such as is prevalent in the Baltic-North Sea/Channel-White Sea, etc. operating areas, diesels have some advantages... provided the mission does not require long endurance, permits periodic snorkeling, and can do without high sprint speeds. // Fra nkB 02:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC), USNR

Canadian subs to be sold for scrap
CBC News: [For sale: 4 submarines, not shipshape]

HMCS Onondaga, HMCS Ojibwa, HMCS Okanagan and HMCS Olympus were purchased between 1965 and 1968... they may be able to get $50,000 to $60,000 each as scrap metal.JohnnyB 16:12, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added this information to the first three subs' articles. Olympus doesn;t have an article. -- saberwyn 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Likely stats error or Vandalism
re: Infobox statement on speed:
 * Surfaced: 12 knots (22 km/h)
 * Submerged: 17 knots (31 km/h)

As a qualified submariner, I find this to be a likely error or vandalism... stinkpots are surface vessels first and submersible by compromise... the top speed should be under the diesel engines. Given that postulate, the relative ratios would be about correct.


 * Comparatively, the US Gato class did about 21 knots on the surface and a similar (lesser) submerged ('under battery power') speed. This needs checked in Jane's and cited. I'm adding a fact tag on both lines so that gets attended to ASAP. // Fra nkB  02:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In adding the fact tags, I found that the source encyclopedia likely has a typo (search on Oberon)... So someone needs to check it against something more authoritative like Jane's Fighting Ships (Which at least has new editions every few years and aggressive editor-experts!). Many libraries will have Jane's in print. // Fra nkB 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1996-97 edition of Janes confirms these speeds. 12 surfaced, 17 submerged, 10-11 snorting depending on regional variant. (p. 23 for Australia, p. 54 for Brazil, p. 86 for Canada, p. 104 for Chile, UK's were decommissioned by this time.) The figures are also correct in The Illustrated Directory of Submarines gives the same speeds for the Porpoise class, which was a near-identical predecessor to the Oberons.
 * Although World War II submarines (such as the Gato class referred to above) were surface combatants first and submersibles second, technology and tactics developed during and immediately after the war saw a need for subs to be underwater warriors first. As early as 1951, the US Navy was operating the Tang class submarine, which was a little under three knots faster underwater. The first Oberons, by comparison, didn't enter service until, the start of the 1960s. Contemporary submarine classes were also going faster underwater than on top of it, like the US Barbel class submarines (albeit after which the USN gave up on diesel-electric subs). Diesel submarines currently in service also show the propensity to go faster when submerged, for example the Australia Collins class and the British/Canadian Upholder/Victoria class, and the German Type 212 submarines. -- saberwyn 05:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Intriguing... 30 years in the USNR and that includes the four active duty in the US's NUC sub force, and I'd never put that together. The last diesel boats the US had were stationed in the West Coast Navy and decommissioned when I was on active duty back in the seventies, iirc.  Engineering-wise though, such makes partial (but counterintuitive) sense, the fluid mechanics equations must really be interesting.  On power requirements alone, I would have doubted it as drag increases as the square of velocity.  The 'fully submerged co-efficient of drag' must be a very different parameter for these designs... especially in deeper depths where they take advantage (ruthlessly I have to infer) of increasing pressures boosting available output thrust and so effectively the shaft horsepower. One runs fast as a rule only when deep anyway to minimize cavitation noise (and related adverse effects), so that works together well with that aspect.


 * Well, no day is wasted when you learn something new. This one raises me eyebrows a bit, but that makes it all the more valuable, n'est pas? // Fra nkB  20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SSKs stopped being just "submersibles" in WW2. The type XXI already featured nearly identical surface and submerged speed and pretty much every decently engineered post-war design features much higher submerged speed. The german-build type TR1700 of Argentina actually runs 25 knots submerged, with a surfaced top speed of only 15 knots. 220.245.11.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

Improper clearing of fact

 * IMHO, that's an improper way to clear the fact tags... should provide a ref to Jane's and your source footnoted specific to the datums questioned. I'm not the only one that will put this together as counter-intuitive, and since the specific and explicit data were questioned and then rechecked it would be more appropriate to footnote those statistics as well.


 * Since your info on Jane's is sketchy, perhaps you'd like to finish? // Fra nkB 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For a previous RN boat class that was faster underwater than surfaced see here: British R class submarine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.74.163 (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oberon class sub for sale?
I once saw an Oberon class sub for sale on Ebay but unfortunatly it has been taken offm w (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

Masts photo
I've just uploaded what I think is a fairly good photo showing the equipment masts of an Oberon class submarine, specificly the Australian boat HMAS Onslow. I don't think there's a good place for it in the article now, but if a section on detailing the equipment fitted to the submarines (such as the radar, ESM, periscopes) was developed, it would be a useful illustration. The masts are identified in the Commons caption, and a source provided. -- saberwyn 04:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And a second photo, showing the fin and masts -- saberwyn 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added one which fits in place to the design section. Great photos! Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  05:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

American Counterparts?
"Like the Porpoises, the Oberons were far quieter than their American counterparts." It's not clear what "American counterparts" this unreferenced statement would be referring to. The Tang or Tench classes? They were introduced 10 years before the Oberon boats, so it doesn't seem valid to regard them as "counterparts". If it's referring to the roughly contemporary (1958 vs. 1960) Permit class, it's basically just saying that diesel-electric submarines are quieter than nuclear-propelled boats of the same era. They're also slower, cannot stay submerged indefinitely, and have shorter unrefueled range. That's why they were typically assigned different missions in Navies such as the Royal Navy that operated both types. So again, they're not really a valid "counterpart". Darkstar8799 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * They were quieter than all of them; see British Porpoise-class submarine - the Oberons were an improved Porpoise.


 * At the time the Porpoises and Oberons were widely considered the quietest submarines anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.141 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Battery dimensions deleted
I have just deleted the dimensions of the type D7420 lead-acid cell. They were quoted as 4 ft * 0.16 ft * 0.12 ft: that gives an external volume of about half a gallon, which is not plausible.

Dulciana (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Oxley
The article forgot to mention the bow of HMAS Oxley is next to its sister ship in the Maritime museum Fremantle too. 2405:6E00:268E:6FAD:2C90:802F:16A8:3CB3 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)