Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spain's New S-80 Class Submarines Sink, But Won't Float

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the would-you-classify-that-as-a-launch-problem-or-a-design-problem dept.

The Military 326

New submitter home-electro.com writes "In the era of total CAD and CAM, is it even possible to come up with a fundamentally flawed design ? Turns out, yes. This a fascinating engineering SNAFU. Spain's newly built submarine is 100 tons too heavy, which means it is unable to float. 'Unfortunately for the Spainards, Quartz reports that they have already sunk the equivalent of $680 million into the Isaac Peral, and a total of $3 billion into the entire quartet of S-80 class submarines. If Spain hopes to salvage its submarines, it must either find some weight that can be trimmed from the current design or lengthen the ship to accommodate the excess weight, The Local notes. Though the latter option is more feasible, it is expected to cost Spain an extra $9.7 million per meter.'"

cancel ×

326 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I know... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821975)

Some screen doors will help lighten up the load. A lot thinner than regular doors.

Re: I know... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821997)

Whatever floats your boat dude

Re:I know... (5, Funny)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#43822375)

Ever since the sinking of the Armada, spanish ship building has never recovered, fully.

at least they're trying... (1)

canistel (1103079) | about a year ago | (#43821979)

... here in Canada, we just buy up the UK's old junk and they don't float either.

Re:at least they're trying... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822057)

here in Canada we aren't in extreme debt too, not sure what Spain is doing even building these. Spain is having a rather significant financial crisis the last few years.

Re:at least they're trying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822117)

King does what he wants......

Even if that's having his people use their food in catapults to attack enemies while they starve..... it accomplishes the kings agenda.

Nowawadays it's just a bunch of kings all conspiring together even though we supposedly have democracy....

The people are starving on the streets but this steel failure took priority..... And you don't say you have a king. Sure looks like it to me....

Re:at least they're trying... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822171)

This is Canada's current debt: $611,487,921,xxx (over 600 billion dollars) That's from www.debtclock.ca website. The last digits are increasing so fast I can't read them.

If that isn't considered extreme I don't know what is. The interest charges Canadians pay on this debt is staggering and it shows on the amount of taxes that Canadians pay.

There is only 35 million people in Canada and we have 10 million square kilometers of natural wonders and natural resources to create wealth. Why do we have such a huge debt? The incompetence of the government is directly to blame.

Re:at least they're trying... (2)

pipatron (966506) | about a year ago | (#43822319)

Not the incompetence of the voters to vote for long term governments rather than short term tax cut promises?

Re:at least they're trying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822533)

Not the incompetence of the voters to vote for long term governments rather than short term tax cut promises?

You sound like a politician. (Sorry, didn't mean to be that rude).

How do Canadian voters get to pic "long term" government when all the politicians lie? That is the fundamental problem with Canadian politics. There is no accountability at all. There is no punishment for lying, gross mismanagement, or failure. Do you know what there is? After a few years of totally screwing up, there is a fully funded pension and a cushy contract job at whatever industry or lobby that you favoured.

That is how Canadian politics works. We might as well be a third-world country - you know the one. The one where you just have to shake your head because the King's nephew blew thru 10 million on hookers or something. Seriously, that is how de-evolved Canadian politics is. I'm surprised the youth of this country are not in open, armed rebellion. After all, they are the ones that have to pay for this mess.

Re:at least they're trying... (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43822745)

Well, politics has gotten complicated over the past 100 years or so. Most people have 1 thing they are good at... maybe 2. In order to fully comprehend what's going on in politics you need to commit a significant portion of your day to reading, weighing and digesting information on the subject because it's literally changing by the second. At least a programming language stays relatively the same over longer time periods. Lucky for us, computer geeks usually have jobs that allow them to surf the internet for large parts of the day and stay on top of things.

It used to be that news papers and TV would figure out what information was relevent, set it up in such a way that readers could come to a few rather clear conclusions and then decided for themselves. Abortion is either about the Rights of the mother, or murdering babies... you pick. Well, the media in mid century suddenly became a lot more biased. The activism of the 50s and 60s lead a lot of kids into the field with the single minded goal of shifting public opinion. They did well, you can find dozens of studies that show most media, in most countries around the world are left leaning. In the past decade however we've seen the Right catch up, and we have Fox, al jazeera. etc... and while the majority of leftist reporters were "left leaning" in their work, these new entities are outright blaintent about their goals? The result? We now have very left wing reporting as well. I don't watch either, I think it's shameful what's going on in the news media today.

So what's your average person supposed to do? They're caught up in black and white issues, which likely aren't black and white at all if you study them. And often they aren't even the issues those people would be most interested in. I can't say a lot about the Canadian financial problems, I live in the USA... but if they are similar to ours then:
1. We need a simplified tax code. There should be 3 lines on your tax forms, how much you make, the percentage of that you have to pay in taxes, and your signature. No more subsidies, loopholes, nothing. The government should not be attempting to manipulate private citizens into spending a certain way. Every such program in history has ended in disaster. (The dust-bowl is a good example)
2. We need to FEWER taxes. I don't mean less, I mean fewer. The current system of "Tax everything" is directly and intentionally designed to obfuscate how much you are actually paying in. You pay taxes on what you earn, when you spend, on the roads you drive, the gas you buy, to register your car... that all needs to die. There should be a national sales tax. That's it, nothing else. You should not be charged for earning, saving or investing money.
3. We need to drastically cut spending. The vast majority of what the government spends money on its out right insane. Specifically in the US, our military spending borders on full retard levels. I know in Canada you have a large subsidie to the logging industry you'll likely regret later. We can all identify silly crap the government should not be involved in.
4. We need temporary tax increases until we get out of debt. Then we need to make it illegal for our governments to borrow money except in times of war.
5. The government needs to get out of and stay out of the economy. It would be one thing if there were financial wizards trying to manipulate the economy, but it's not, it's politicians.

Re:at least they're trying... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43822329)

here in Canada we aren't in extreme debt too, not sure what Spain is doing even building these. Spain is having a rather significant financial crisis the last few years.

What do you mean, "not sure"? You think this whole project was started yesterday? As opposed to, you know, the end of 1990's, being the time when the whole thing got approved?

Re:at least they're trying... (0)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year ago | (#43822655)

<quote>
<p>What do you mean, "not sure"? You think this whole project was started yesterday? As opposed to, you know, the end of 1990's, being the time when the whole thing got approved?</p></quote>

Actually the contract was signed 24 March 2004.
http://elpais.com/diario/2004/04/02/espana/1080856821_850215.html (Spanish)

In other words: It took those siesta sleepy heads 9 years to figure this out... It is partially because of working ethos I guess...

Re:at least they're trying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822415)

Submarines take a LOOOONG time to build. They've been working the design since the early 2000's. They've been slow rolling the project because of the issues because cancelling it out-right is even worse in some respects.

Re:at least they're trying... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43822701)

here in Canada we aren't in extreme debt too, not sure what Spain is doing even building these. Spain is having a rather significant financial crisis the last few years.

According to our wiki overlords [wikipedia.org] this project (as is totally customary for military designs) has some tangled family history going back to the cold war, and the actual contract currently being fucked up was approved in 2003, signed in 2004, and was itself an iteration on a slightly different plan originating in the late 90s. Spain may well have been totally fucked in the early 00s; but it was still riding high on the 'nobody seems to have caught on yet' section of the bubble.

Now, in an ideal world, Spain would probably just say 'fuck it, "commie naval invasion" is so far down the list of our problems that we should just scrap the whole damn thing.'; but defense programs rarely die so easily or cleanly, regardless of their nation of origin.

Re:at least they're trying... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43822269)

Considering the junk the British Military are still using, the old junk they're selling to you must be bad! You probably want to look for holes filled in with newspaper and Polyfiller.

Re:at least they're trying... (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | about a year ago | (#43822391)

Or batteries that catch fire when you try to use them. Major power cables run at the lowest point of the vessel, etc.

Re:at least they're trying... (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43822645)

That's because when Canada does design a ship it costs 100 times that of any other nation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html [www.cbc.ca]

The design of a ship is costing canada $250 million, when similar vessels designed in Norway were designed for $20 million and built for $80 million

So go ahead and buy the UK and USA scraps it is cheaper.

Which tons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822001)

I get the per meter part but not sure if the author is using the US or UK ton.

Re:Which tons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822323)

metric ton.

Was it designed by Lockheed Martin? (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#43822033)

They can't create competent stuff either nowadays.

Re:Was it designed by Lockheed Martin? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43822347)

It's even worse; they're Europeans - they can't blame it on vagaries of mixed-unit engineering! ;-)

Outsourced? (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#43822035)

Did they out source it to the UK Government?

Perfect submarine - never above ... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822043)

Well, this is the perfect submarine - permanently under water.

The spanish armada (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822065)

...still sinking after all these years.

Re:The spanish armada (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43822097)

You joke but just the other day on TVE (spanish tv) the news anchor mentioned that Spain was the country with the greatest "sunken patrimony" in the world. She seemed rather proud of that fact...

Re:The spanish armada (3, Funny)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#43822337)

"sunken patrimony"

Fathers who died in shipwrecks?

Re:The spanish armada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822353)

You joke but just the other day on TVE (spanish tv) the news anchor mentioned that Spain was the country with the greatest "sunken patrimony" in the world. She seemed rather proud of that fact...

I'm sure that we'll not see any of that in TV news here in Spain...

Re:The spanish armada (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43822741)

You joke but just the other day on TVE (spanish tv) the news anchor mentioned that Spain was the country with the greatest "sunken patrimony" in the world. She seemed rather proud of that fact...

I wouldn't be so proud of the fact(given that most of Spain's "sunken patrimony" is just bullion that they were brutal enough to grind out of the backs of the locals in South America; but not competent enough to ship back to Europe); but it's probably true. The sheer scale of Spain's "Why don't we just ship every last troy ounce of precious metal we can get our hands on in the entire western hemisphere?" project was really pretty nuts. Unfortunately for them, of course, the kind of "wealth" that is shiny and looks good in treasure chests tends to be rather less useful than the mixture of human and technical capital that actual productive economies are built with(a comparison with what the relatively tiny Dutch were doing at the same time the Spanish Empire was considered something of a superpower is instructive)...

Re:The spanish armada (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43822291)

Well played!

Government efficiency (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43822075)

I think this is a great example of government "efficiency", underlining the fact for all those people who love to carry on about how vital "government spending" is. I simply can't believe that contracts are awarded without any sort of penalty clause that covers errors like this, delays in completion dates, etc. Years ago this would be considered high treason and someone would swing. Now, thanks to corrupt and decadent government, nothing will happen. In fact, the contractor will probably get more contracts.

Re:Government efficiency (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43822207)

I think this is a great example of government "efficiency", underlining the fact for all those people who love to carry on about how vital "government spending" is.

Yeah, because private enterprise never screws up.

Re:Government efficiency (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43822263)

When private enterprise screws up it doesn't come out of your pocket. Unless of course you're a shareholder - but then again, you knew there was risk involved in buying shares. When government screws up it comes out of your pocket whether you agree or not. And government screws up a lot more, and a lot bigger, than private companies - they can afford to! There are no consequences.

Re:Government efficiency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822349)

>When private enterprise screws up it doesn't come out of your pocket

So wrong on so many levels. That would only apply to tiny companies nobody ever heard of.
Banks and companies deemed "too large to fall" because they are "relevant to the system" are definitely rescued, subsidised and propped up with public money (tax money from you and me)

Re:Government efficiency (3, Insightful)

xdor (1218206) | about a year ago | (#43822703)

"Too big to fail" is a government determination: not a private one.

Banks are a very poor example: they are only one-step away from government: merely a private extension of the Federal Reserve: a better reflection of poor legislative and financial policy than private lechery.

Don't confuse the free market with entites that live off public taxes and are first in line for public monetary distribution.

Re:Government efficiency (5, Insightful)

sphealey (2855) | about a year ago | (#43822363)

- - - - - When private enterprise screws up it doesn't come out of your pocket. - - - - -

Wall Street called; they need another trillion $ of bailout money. Unmarked 20s straight from the taxpayers' pockets please.

Superfund is another example that comes to mind.

sPh

Re:Government efficiency (2, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43822465)

The concept of a "corporation" is a government-created entity. They even get their charter directly from government. But even if a corporation were some natural entity, the goverment granting them limited liability leads to stuff like superfund sites. When the government has sole authority to issue currency and grant charters to banks, it's hard to blame "private industry" for playing the game the way the government has set them up to play it.

Re:Government efficiency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822699)

It's not hard at all. You just have to realize that the "private industry" is setting up the rules for the government, or did you think all of that lobbying was for naught?

Re:Government efficiency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822287)

When private enterprise screws up, you as a taxpayer don't have to foot the bill...

Oh wait.. that's the theory. It doesn't quite work though as we saw in 2008

Re:Government efficiency (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43822309)

Only because government ignored actual laws designed for those situations and decided to make it up as they went along. I have no idea why people let them get away with it.

Re:Government efficiency (3, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | about a year ago | (#43822681)

because the people who got pissed were labeled as right wing conspiracy nutjobs, or dirty lazy hippies. Everyone else either believed those labels, got paid out, or turned a blind eye to the possibility that their political spectrum could actually have a flaw.

Re:Government efficiency (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43822687)

Fear.

The conservatives were more afraid of people losing jobs and their big money friends failing than actually being capitalists and letting those companies fail massively. personally I would rather have let them fail, by now we would be coming out of the real recession, instead of dragging along like we are. If you don't believe me look at the actual reports, at best 1-2% growth, with occasional slip to 0. Meanwhile wall street is moving along like it never happened and is shown the economy is growing at 10-15% annually.

Re:Government efficiency (0, Troll)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#43822261)

This is free enterprise capitalism at its peak.
The project is a contract with a private firm to design and build the submarine.
Private company gets contract from government and screws up. Since it's "defense spending", it's very lucrative.
This is just the private sector looting public funds... the highest form of capitalism. We have this go on all the time in the US with defense spending.
" according to engineers at Navantia, the Spanish shipbuilding company responsible for its design, "

Re:Government efficiency (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43822301)

We have this go on all the time in the US with defense spending.

SOP, whether working for a government or another company: bid low, and count on problems and changing requirements to make it profitable before it's done.

Re:Government efficiency (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43822665)

Why do I get the idea that parent poster is some sort of far-left douchebag? Hint: under socialist governments (the good kind of socialist - the kind where being a right-winger was *illegal*) they spent far, far more on defense than any Western country ever tried to do.

Re:Government efficiency (2, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43822275)

No, this is a specific example of military-industrial complex "efficiency" --- a particular order that combines the very worst of private monopolistic greed with unaccountable, secretive, wasteful spending. Governments tend to be rather efficient (much more than private markets) at supplying *public goods* like roads, healthcare, education, transportation, infrastructure, utilities, etc. --- things with clear public benefits easily evaluated by the public. Joe Citizen can tell when his roads have potholes, his tapwater tastes like ass, his kids have a lousy school, and he can't get decent medical care; and this will show at the next election. Few people who support increased government spending for public good are also big fans of handing blank checks to the military-industrial complex to build the next generation murder-machine boondoggle; generally, the most enthusiastic supporters of unchecked military spending are the same folks who rail against any publicly beneficial forms of government spending (since they are ideologically committed to proving government is a failure, by making it so whenever they get in power).

Re:Government efficiency (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about a year ago | (#43822327)

Government spending in the form of social safety nets and common (natural monopoly) infrastructure construction is vital ... everything else can be handled by taxation. Taxation is a dirty word in the modern world though, so debt it is the alternative ... and the advantage of debt is that it's mostly hidden from the voters, in the short term, so they are more likely to accept government waste/corruption.

Re:Government efficiency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822437)

Good theory, but Navantia, the company building the boat, is a state-owned business.

Re:Government efficiency (1)

jopsen (885607) | about a year ago | (#43822457)

I simply can't believe that contracts are awarded without any sort of penalty clause that covers errors like this, delays in completion dates

What makes you think there aren't any penalties? You don't hear about it because the news only reports bad news...

In fact, there usually is penalty clauses in such contracts, even in IT, but that doesn't mean both parties doesn't loose when something fails.

Yes, governments (well, democracy) is inefficient, but the alternatives are a lot worse :)

Narrow margins (4, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#43822077)

Weight and balance control is pretty much a requirement for any shipbuilding (both for controlling draft and controlling stability), but on submarines it's absolutely critical. The margins on a submarine are razor thin - much thinner than you might think. On my boat [wikipedia.org] a mere eight ton error (heavier than calculated) once caused us to lose control on diving.
 
That being said - a 100 ton error in design and construction is a screwup beyond any analogy or hyperbole.

Re:Narrow margins (3, Interesting)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#43822143)

I have no idea how anyone can underestimate a sub's weight by 100 freaking tons. Other than forgetting to set the material in their CAD software, that is.

Re:Narrow margins (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#43822149)

A submarine is an incredibly complicated design. Errors become more difficult to spot as a design gets more complicated. A couple little mistakes and you're massively over or under weight.

Re:Narrow margins (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#43822185)

Errors do become harder to spot as time goes, but weight estimates are relatively easy to make these days, as long as you're using CAD software instead of a drawing table.

100 tons screams of either gross engineering incompetence, management trying to sweep problems under the rug, or both. Not some honest little mistakes piling up.

Re:Narrow margins (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43822279)

It's "only" 5% of the total weight.... /sarcasm

Re: Narrow margins (2)

Glonoinha (587375) | about a year ago | (#43822355)

Honestly I think you have it backwards.

Old school engineers doing it by hand had to know what they were doing.

Noobs with enough experience to 'look good' can have their deficiencies glossed over by the powerful CAD/CAM software, letting them build inconsequential assemblies that individually would work nicely in isolation, but fail as a whole because they didn't understand (or consider) the engineering and physics at the higher level.

Consider the difference between software engineering and programming. An average coder that knows his way around Eclipse can write a hand full of nice classes, but real software engineering by the heavy hitters can happen in a room without a computer - that's where you see the big picture.

Re: Narrow margins (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43822789)

I think that his point is that, with CAD, even a trained monkey can tell the software "Just iterate through all the pretty little pictures we drew, multiply their volume by their density, and then add it all up" and arrive at a final weight.

It's definitely the case that myopic-design-by-CAD allows people to fuck up in ways that the days of Heroic Engineering and designers who had to be just-that-good in order to design anything didn't; but a CAD system, unless the software is a ghastly morass of nightmarish failure, should make basic accounting-style checks comparatively simple.

Where were the checks and balances? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822255)

The artical is wrong, it appears. It looks like they miscalculated the displacement of water. They knew how much it weighed based on invoices. Someone should go to jail and pay restitution.

Re:Where were the checks and balances? (2)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#43822497)

How does someone in 2013 miscalculate the displacement of seawater?

Re:Where were the checks and balances? (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43822653)

Global Warming!

As the oceans get warmer, the heat gets transferred to the submarine, making it larger. Larger things are heavier and then poof too heavy. It sinks.

Really easy when you understand the physics.

Re:Narrow margins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822575)

Spanish, nuff said

lithium (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#43822095)

Easy solution: just substitute all the iron with lithium: the submarine will float... and it will solve itself (really!).

Re:lithium (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43822295)

Or put caterpillar treads on it and have the world's first underwater tank!

At this point (5, Funny)

venicebeach (702856) | about a year ago | (#43822111)

they should just consider it a sunk cost.

Re:At this point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822359)

They could use Heliox for buoyancy but it's hard to have a serious navy when your captain sounds like a squirrel.

Re:At this point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822377)

Please mod parent +1, Groan-worthy.

That's why we want out... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822119)

Adn things like this (plus a 300-year long plundering, and a sustained and failed effort to anihilate our culture) is why we catalans want to get out of that mess called Spain.

Re:That's why we want out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822321)

Speak for yourself.

Percentages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822131)

At most, it's 4.1% overweight according to TFA. Maybe this isn't that difficult a problem to solve. Also it's not weight that keeps it from floating, it's buoyancy. They could make it 10X heavier, as long as they made it enclose enough volume to balance that they'd be fine. I can only assume that what they really mean is that given its current volume it has too much weight.

Re:Percentages (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#43822157)

"or lengthen the ship to accommodate the excess weight" didn't give that away? You still had to make an assumption?

fp fZ4gorz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822135)

One Here but now buT suffice it shout the loudest Followed. Obviously

WWII is over (1)

nbauman (624611) | about a year ago | (#43822161)

What kind of war does Spain anticipate fighting in which a submarine would play a useful role?

Re:WWII is over (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year ago | (#43822181)

What kind of war does Spain anticipate fighting in which a submarine would play a useful role?

Any war involving significant naval action is likely to involve submarines. You build the subs ahead of time because you don't really want to wait until the war starts to begin you defense procurement. (What war? I don't know, nor does anyone else, but with the sorts of long lead times involved you really can't wait for exactitude on that sort of thing.)

Re:WWII is over (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year ago | (#43822197)

to begin your defense procurement

Meh. I did look at the preview, honest!

Re:WWII is over (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#43822293)

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

Re:WWII is over (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822661)

‘The minister of defence, in the aftermath of the First World War, had reduced the funds available to the military, while King Gustaf V sat in the palace gnashing his teeth. The defence minister, a man with an analytic bent, realised with hindsight that Sweden should have been better armed when the war broke out, but that didn't mean that there was any point in arming now, ten years later.’ - Jonas Jonasson

Re:WWII is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822317)

Like Spain took part in WWII?

You're right though, I don't see that Spain has any use for submarines, other than as a prelude to building them for other countries. Similar to how Spain is selling near-replicas of the Juan Carlos I to Australia and perhaps other countries.

Re:WWII is over (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year ago | (#43822489)

Doesn't have to be a war, submarines were involved in the Libyan no-fly zone enforcement (which Spain provide aircraft for).

Re:WWII is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822607)

submarines were involved in the Libyan no-fly zone enforcement

And quite successfully at that.

Re:WWII is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822671)

"submarines were involved in the Libyan no-fly zone enforcement"

If they can't get their subs to float, I have no idea how they're going to fly. But for a nominal cost-plus award fee, I'll be happy to study that issue for the next few years.

Re:WWII is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822613)

Probably with Catalunya, where subs aren't required either

Easy fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822163)

Just fire 10 American consultants thats your tonnage solved straight away,

Where's the problem? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43822223)

That's only a quarter of a million dollars per inch... I'm sure lots of billionaires would find that an irresistible deal!

Archimedes made an important discovery (1)

Streetlight (1102081) | about a year ago | (#43822237)

Around 2200 years ago, didn't Archimedes discover something about buoyancy and mass of water displaced required to cause something to float? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_principle [wikipedia.org] Maybe the designers left out the mass of the engines, crew, fuel, and a few more things. Ouch.

Spain should have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822253)

Spain should have collaborated with Italy to design and deploy this Naval Triumph.

Re:Spain should have... (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43822305)

They should have kept their mouths shut and sold the finished product to North Korea.

Stretch Subs (1)

DeBattell (460265) | about a year ago | (#43822271)

$9.7 million per meter. And I thought stretch SUV's were expensive.

comment at the source (5, Insightful)

bogolisk (18818) | about a year ago | (#43822297)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/J_D_Exposito/spain-submarine-s-81-isaac-peral-cant-float_n_3328683_256066767.html [huffingtonpost.com]

These are very biased news and in fact they are wrong. For starters, only the first submarine has a floatability problem. The other submarines in the series are larger, therefore they have no problem. Now, why has the fist submarine (the original design) a floatability problem? Because the Navy asked for more equipment (electronic equipment, weapons, etc) and more comfortable cabins for the sailors than originally planned. It is not a design problem but a modifications problem and this is very very very frequent in large projects, especially if military. The changes have been taken into account in the design for the second and subsequent submarines (S81, S82, etc). The first submarine (S80) will be fixed by making it a bit longer and adding some floating aids. Source: I work in this project. Next time you want to say stupid things about very serious projects, please warn us you are drunk.

J D Exposito

Scope Creep? (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | about a year ago | (#43822491)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/J_D_Exposito/spain-submarine-s-81-isaac-peral-cant-float_n_3328683_256066767.html [huffingtonpost.com]


These are very biased news and in fact they are wrong.

For starters, only the first submarine has a floatability problem. The other submarines in the series are larger, therefore they have no problem.

Now, why has the fist submarine (the original design) a floatability problem? Because the Navy asked for more equipment (electronic equipment, weapons, etc) and more comfortable cabins for the sailors than originally planned.

It is not a design problem but a modifications problem and this is very very very frequent in large projects, especially if military.

The changes have been taken into account in the design for the second and subsequent submarines (S81, S82, etc). The first submarine (S80) will be fixed by making it a bit longer and adding some floating aids.

Source: I work in this project.

Next time you want to say stupid things about very serious projects, please warn us you are drunk.

J D Exposito

I could see scope creep being the cause of weight problem. However, wouldn't the weight calculations be redone to account for the changes? Or was the hull construction underway before the requirements were finalized?

It almost sounds to me like they decided to use rapid development and it turned around and bit them in the ass.

Bad specification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822311)

I'm sure the specification mentioned submerging. Did it also include the requirement to surface?

Hah...the whole article is full of puns. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43822405)

"Sunk costs", "dead in water"...I don't know who floated the idea to the editor but it should have been torpedoed in the interest of seriousness.

It would float in space though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822433)

It would float in space though, it's just a simple matter of re-deploying it there.

yes we can (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822435)

nothing new here in spain.. we also have airports without airplanes..

Why are they building a sub marine? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43822475)

Is Spain straining under some delusion of greatness? Knowing how well their Armada against Britain did one would think Spain would have given up the ghost and resigned itself to being a small player it is, and stay far from naval equipment. Building submarines? Why?

Re:Why are they building a sub marine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822651)

Probably the same reason that Greece bought a billion dollars' worth of German submarines in 2010 ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575352991108208712.html ). Italy cooperates with Germany on building subs, and they've been buying since 2008. Why? Military-industrial complex: there's sufficient vested interest, so wasteful projects will be pushed through legislatures and bureaucracies because the right people will be paid to support them. The continuation of the projects ensures that funds for corruption will be replenished, because corruption is remarkably self-sustaining (hence why it's so hard to root out).

Other countries like Egypt ( http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/09/11/Egypt-subs-deal-boosts-German-arms-sales/UPI-77011347378686/ ) probably just buy them for military machismo, more than anything else; the people are burdened with taxes to assuage the generals' Freudian anxieties about competing with Israel's cigar-shaped boats.

Re:Why are they building a sub marine? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822683)

Yeah, like britain which almost lost a war against that mighty naval power, Argentina. Would have lost the war without help from France.

Hey, about the submarines you sent us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822509)

"Hey, about the submarines you sent us...Their color is fine, they just won't float" - Gila

Gila was a post spanish civil war humorist. Little known fact about Gila is that he actually fought in the civil war and was executed, but they didn't execute him well and survived. This is one of the reasons he become a humorist about the war matters.

Well, to be fair... (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | about a year ago | (#43822517)

we've only understood the principle of floatation [wikipedia.org] for just over 2,000 years.

Hey, what's 3ft.... :) (1)

AbrasiveCat (999190) | about a year ago | (#43822553)

It only needs about 3 to 4 more feet. So other than cutting it open the $10 million for the extra meter isn't to bad, just egg on the face. I sure someday the crew will appreciate a little more space.

Spanish Precision? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822641)

Even with "cumulative error" and "mission creep" throughout the specification, design and building phases, a 100 tons off!!???

This could have been much, much worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822697)

At least the front didn't fall off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgrX7uOZqHI

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43822709)

Spain has submarines? Why?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?