LibriumArcana.Games

One of Spain’s largest defense splurges may also be one of its most embarrassing. After spending nearly one-third of a $3 billion budget to build four of the world’s most advanced submarines, the project’s engineers have run into a problem: the submarines are so heavy that they would sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Miscalculations by engineers at Navantia, the construction company contracted to build the S-80 submarine fleet, have produced submarines that are each as much as 100 tonnes (110 US tonnes) too heavy. The excess weight sounds paltry compared to the 2,000-plus tonnes (2,205 US tonnes) that each submarine weighs, but it’s more than enough to send the submarines straight to the ocean’s floor.

Given the mistake, Spain is going to have to choose between two costly fixes: slimming the submarines down, or elongating them to compensate for the extra fat. All signs point to the latter, which will be anything but a breeze—adding length will still require redesigning the entire vessel. And more money on top of the $680 million already spent.

Spain’s defense ministry, the government arm responsible for overseeing the project, has yet to say how much the setback will cost in both time and money. But Navantia has already estimated that its mistake will set the project back at least one or, more likely, two years. And the Spanish edition of European news site The Local reported that each additional meter added to the S-80s, already 71 meters in length, will cost over $9 million.

It’s a costly mistake on many fronts. The state-of-the-art submarines were meant to be the first entirely Spanish-designed and built. Incompetence is likely going to cost the country at least some of the glory. Electric Boat, a subsidiary of US-based technology firm General Dynamics, has already evaluated the project and could be hired as a consultant to save the job.

Another bailout for Spain. This is getting all too familiar.

frigidmagi wrote:You spent 680 million dollars on a submarine that can't even float!?! BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH! OH MAN AT LEAST THE F-35 CAN FUCKING FLY! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

OH... oh God... I needed that.

Cynical Cat wrote:There's no master ballroom. Fucking savages.

rhoenix wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:You spent 680 million dollars on a submarine that can't even float!?! BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH! OH MAN AT LEAST THE F-35 CAN FUCKING FLY! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

OH... oh God... I needed that.

I... wow. You know, we can make fun of the Air Force for quite a lot. However... as much of a debacle the F-22 and F-35 were and are, I can only echo Frigid here. Yes, there were thousands of issues with both of those aircraft that needed to be addressed.

BUT AT LEAST THEY LIVE UP TO THE TERM "AIRCRAFT."

I meant the entire project costs thus far.

frigidmagi wrote:

I meant the entire project costs thus far.

The entire sub project for Spain was slated to cost 3 billion for 4 subs. Now it will cost more. The amount of money paid for the F-35 has produced a workable combat aircraft with teething problems, that will be produced in the thousands.

So no, the F-35 does not rate the title of most expensive nothing in history.

Stofsk wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:

I meant the entire project costs thus far.

The entire sub project for Spain was slated to cost 3 billion for 4 subs. Now it will cost more. The amount of money paid for the F-35 has produced a workable combat aircraft with teething problems, that will be produced in the thousands.

So no, the F-35 does not rate the title of most expensive nothing in history.

Yeah it does. The total project costs for the F-35 are far in excess of that 3 billion dollar price tag for those Spanish subs, and the total costs will be like over a trillion dollars over its lifetime. Calling the F-35 a workable combat aircraft is overly charitable. By every metric that matters it's outperformed by something like the Su35S, a 4th gen aircraft.

At least it can fly. I'll give you that. But that's about all it does.