Spain just spent $680 million on a submarine that can’t swim

[frigidmagi]

qz.com

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.

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.

[rhoenix]

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."

[Josh]

I blame the executive and legislative branches more for the F-22 and F-35 debacles. It's their job to manage shit.

This...

Well, submarines are supposed to sink, so they've got the design half-licked. Just give them some time to figure out the rest of it.

[Josh]

Wait.

I found the blueprints.



And the proposed revision.

[Cynical Cat]

There's no master ballroom. Fucking savages.

[General Havoc]

There's no master ballroom. Fucking savages.

Zombie Napoleon DOES NOT APPROVE.

[Josh]

Well technically the galley can be converted to a ballroom, hence the disco ball.

I mean I know it's primitive that they don't have a dedicated space, but these sailors signed up to serve and service means certain hardships must be endured.

[Batman]

And that's why smart countries buy german exports if they want conventional subs.

And while this is certainly embarrassing (not to mention expensive) for Spain, it's hardly the first time something like this has happened with a military project.

And who gives a damn about the ballroom? Balls are boring (unless you're a seal at any rate). As a crew member I'd be much more concerned about the lack of a strip club, movie theater, liquor store and fast food parlour.

[Stofsk]

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."

Yeah but the F-35 still has the title of 'most expensive nothing' in history. So

[frigidmagi]

Negative a single F-35 does not cost 680 million dollars! In fact the F-35 is flying and in operation today!

[Stofsk]

I meant the entire project costs thus far.

[General Havoc]

F-35s exist. They fly successfully. Submarines that will not manage to float or sink on command have failed at the basic requirement of being working ships.

[frigidmagi]

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.

[Karrick]

So... does this mean Polish submarines and their screen doors are no longer the laughingstock of the submarine world?

[Stofsk]

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.

[General Havoc]

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.

The F-35 flies. The Spanish submarines do not float. Whatever the flaws of the F-35 are, and they are many, comparing it to a military vehicle that physically does not work is disingenuous, drum-beating stupidity. And the F-35 does considerably more than "just fly" if the best objection you have for it is that there exist documents unfavorably comparing it to a Russian redesign from 2008. And by the way "every metric that matters" means approximately the same thing as "based on metrics I cherry picked out of thin air according to sources I don't have." I've read the precise opposite regarding the F-35 more than once, and while I'm sure my sources are as biased as yours, neither of us have ever seen the thing fight. Those who have paint a significantly more nuanced picture, especially given that the comparison point, I'll remind you again, does not function at all.

Moreover, the lifetime costs of running the Spanish submarines are also considerably larger than 3-4 billion. Comparing the cost of maintaining a 3,000 strong fleet of jets for half a century to the construction costs of four submarines is like claiming that the Nimitz-class carriers were failures because they cost more to build and deploy over the course of their lifetimes than a roman trireme.