Slashdot Mirror
Spain's New S-80 Class Submarines Sink, But Won't Float
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.'"
Some screen doors will help lighten up the load. A lot thinner than regular doors.
... here in Canada, we just buy up the UK's old junk and they don't float either.
I get the per meter part but not sure if the author is using the US or UK ton.
They can't create competent stuff either nowadays.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Did they out source it to the UK Government?
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Well, this is the perfect submarine - permanently under water.
...still sinking after all these years.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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 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.
Easy solution: just substitute all the iron with lithium: the submarine will float... and it will solve itself (really!).
they should just consider it a sunk cost.
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.
What kind of war does Spain anticipate fighting in which a submarine would play a useful role?
Just fire 10 American consultants thats your tonnage solved straight away,
That's only a quarter of a million dollars per inch... I'm sure lots of billionaires would find that an irresistible deal!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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 Maybe the designers left out the mass of the engines, crew, fuel, and a few more things. Ouch.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Spain should have collaborated with Italy to design and deploy this Naval Triumph.
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.
$9.7 million per meter. And I thought stretch SUV's were expensive.
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
Bogus
I'm sure the specification mentioned submerging. Did it also include the requirement to surface?
Speak for yourself.
"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.
Ezekiel 23:20
It would float in space though, it's just a simple matter of re-deploying it there.
nothing new here in spain.. we also have airports without airplanes..
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?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/J_D_Exposito/spain-submarine-s-81-isaac-peral-cant-float_n_3328683_256066767.html
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.
"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.
we've only understood the principle of floatation for just over 2,000 years.
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.
Even with "cumulative error" and "mission creep" throughout the specification, design and building phases, a 100 tons off!!???
At least the front didn't fall off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgrX7uOZqHI
Spain has submarines? Why?
Economical and ecological solution to your non-floating subs.
The worse crisis they have, the more military equipment they buy. Have you noticed that ?
The US Congress passed an appropriation for something like $398 million to build a bridge from mainland Alaska to an island off the coast with something like 50 residents. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge). It was called the Bridge to Nowhere and was never built. Never built, as far as I know. It may have sneaked into some other appropriation and secretly constructed. Anyway, building an airport without planes is par for the course when politicians get involved.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Goes down but not up? I call that batting 500!
And with its SNAFU it has created a need for more jobs... In a country where the economy is linking line a Spanish submarine, this job-creation scheme is plain damned clever.
There's probably a lot of IT in this ships. They could switch to using smaller fonts.
"Unfortunately for the Spainards..."
This is such an egregious typo that I have a hard time believing it wasn't deliberate.
Serious question.
Foiled again!
Fortunately the war on drugs will never end, so we'll be able to keep borrowing beyond our means. Quite frankly a declaration of war should require a vote of the people at this point... the government has proven they can't handle the responsibility.
I wasn't expecting some sort of inquisition of the Spanish
rewriting history since 2109
Well, it's a rigid pressure vessel and air weighs 1.2kg per cubic metre, so why not lighten the boat simply by removing the air.
True, that wouldn't account for 100T, but after you remove the bodies you could also remove the air (vacuum) conditioning equipment, galley, fresh water, etc, etc.
Disclaimer: I work in this project
What the article states is grammatically correct but UNTRUE.
There is a long story behind the S80 submarine series. I'll try and summarize it for you and after some reading, you should be able to understand why the S80 is a great submarine and it DOES float.
TL;DR for the impatient: The first submarine in the S80 series had a floatability problem 18 months ago but it has already been solved. The problem was due to additional equipment and weapons being added at a later stage in the project, not due to bad engineering. The other submarines in the S80 class (S81-S83) do not have any problem.
This story beings with the S60 submarines aroun 1960. These submarines were the result of a collaboration between France (DCNS) and Spain (Bazan, later known as Navantia) in the Scorpene consortium. The S60 were and still are a big success but they have some limitations, such as no replacements for torpedos: once you've fired them, you need to return to port to reload.
After the success of the S60 submarines, the Scorpene consortium evolved that technology into the S70 class, which is an improvement but still had some limitations.
The S60 and S70 submarines were in service until recently both in Spain and France, and are still in use in Pakistan, Malaysia and maybe some other country I cannot remember right now.
One of the desires of the Spanish Navy was a bigger submarine. This was proposed in the Scorpene consortium but declined by the French side. The reason was DCNS was already designing and building their own bigger submarine, so they wanted to keep full industrial property and benefits and expected Spain to acquire this new submarine. Problem was a) Spain wanted to keep on submarine design and building, b) the French design was deemed inadequate by the Spanish Army. Lots of negotation went on, only to fail.
So here we are, beginning of the millenium and Spain has no plan for their submarine force in the future (the S60 and S70 submarines were to be dismantled by 2004-2010). Bazan plucked up courage and said "hey, we will design and build a totally new submarine fit for you", which the Spanish Navy of course accepted quickly. This was around 2002, although the final approval for this project only arrived in 2004 (if you are into big engineering projects, this is normal study time).
So Navantia starts designing this submarine and they do quite a good job. Remember, it's around 2002-2003 when the first blueprints for this submarine were being developed. Approval and all and green light to construction in 2004.
Years go by and the Spanish Ministry of Defense is receiving more and more money (delayed payments, actually, but this is pre-bubble times and who cares about that anyway?). This is bubble times, my friends, and there is money for everybody and everything. By 2006-2007, the Navy decides they want better weapons, more comfortable cabins, better electronic equipments, etc. "No problem, Sir, we'll fit that".
Mid-2008 arrives and crisis hits hard. 2009, even harder. Money starts to be tighter and tighter and Navantia receives an order from the Navy: "slow down your work. Instead of receiving the first submarine in 2010, we'll want it by 2012" (delayed to 2014 a bit later, and again to 2015 in 2011 IIRC).
The main reason for the delay of the submarines was the Navy was tight on money: by delaying the delivery date, the big payment date was already being delayed. But with every delay, there were redesigns: the same money now buys better weapons, better equipment, more comfortable cabins, etc. Which is perfectly fine save for it weights a lot more.
While the next submarines in the series (S81, S82 and S83) were incorporating all these changes in the blueprints, the original one, the S80, was not really: new equipment, weapons, etc was being accommodated in but nobody was looking at the weight issue.
Now you know WHY this has happened. If you have ever worked in a big engineering problem, you know
"Among the S-80's celebrated advancement is a diesel-electric propulsion engine that, ironically,
promises to be 20% lighter than comparable systems while delivering 50% more power."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/spain-submarine-s-81-isaac-peral-cant-float_n_3328683.html
I love this "story" it's a top of the heap WTF, destined to become an "I told you so" link to www.snopes.com
If you haven't seen it, here's a PDF of what one will look like, inside and out. (linked from the above article)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qda7omq (1,125 KB) of course it's shown cruising proudly on top of the water.
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.
Agreed in principle. In practice what you are proposing is absurd and unworkable. Why? Because defining income is actually rather complicated. (Hint, it's more than just the salary you get from your job) While we could do a lot (and should) to reduce the complexity of taxes by removing a bunch of needless cruft, an income tax will NEVER be anywhere close to as simple as you propose. The problem just isn't that simple.
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 job of the government is to govern. That by definition involves manipulation of private citizens. Tax policy is just a tool. I'd agree it's a clumsy and overused tool but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with judicious use of it. And your hyperbole about every program ending in disaster is demonstrably untrue. You had a fair point up until there.
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.
I think you may not have thought through the consequences of your proposal. Sales taxes are rather volatile forms of taxation by themselves much like income tax. They also are a regressive form of taxation (hurts the poor more than the rich). A diversified set of tax streams is (or at least can be) good policy. As an example, a lot of local municipalities get most of their tax revenue from property taxes and not much else. Works fine until you have a housing bubble burst like in 2008-09. Diversification isn't just for personal stock portfolios. Furthermore is is also good policy to match tax revenues with the expenditures whenever possible. Taxing gasoline to fund road construction makes sense because the two are linked. If we use the roads more taxes will automatically rise to match. Reverse if the roads get used less. Now taxing gas to fund something like schools makes less sense because there is little direct relationship between the two.
We need temporary tax increases until we get out of debt.
Our government has been out of debt precisely once in 230+ years, during the Andrew Jackson's administration if my memory serves. SOME debt is fine and actually is quite useful and not at all harmful to the economy. Essentially all governments have some amount of debt and that is actually a good thing. But just like having a credit card you can have too much debt if you aren't careful.
Then we need to make it illegal for our governments to borrow money except in times of war.
Again, you are proposing something that would actually hurt the economy badly. The ability to control the money supply is critically important. The way we control the money supply is by selling debt or buying it back. Without the ability to borrow we cannot adjust the money supply which makes it very difficult to combat inflation, encourage (or discourage) lending, or deal with volatile tax revenues. SOME borrowing is fine and even beneficial.
Personally I like the idea that Warren Buffet proposed. If we are not in a declared war and the US debt exceeds 10% of GDP then all members of congress and the senate should be ineligible for re-election until such time as the debt is brought back to an appropriate level.
Out of some thousands of posts I read last month, yours was the very best. If I had mod points... well... you know.
To be specific, you were clear, logical, well-spoken, persuasive, and there was not a drop of invective!
It really was a pleasure and has made my day.
I am Spanish and I live in the city in which this has happened (Cartagena). I know some people working there and I have laughed with them about that. The thing is that this happened some time ago, nearly a month or 2 ago (Don't know why the press took that long to publish it: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2013/05/08/actualidad/1368033966_797022.html Spanish press, 3 weeks ago). One big thing that you should take into account is that all the engineers working there never had assembled a submarine... because here in Cartagena all the ones who built a submarine retired some years ago. So no one had experience. The problem was partly a piece of steel they bought that didn't fit and also was overweighed (Not really sure, the cleaners told me that), and (this is true, sure) that they put extra metal plates in the final assemble that caused more overweight. They will swap it and remove the extra plates. But that's a lot of work, as they told me. PD: And you don't know the part when they dropped the submarine into the water and, as it was sinking, and without explanation, the submarine escaped with no one inside it.. but they didn't published it ;)... it appeared near the zone, but was a funny that the submarine escaped.
Which require the sub to carry hardcopy of all the EU regulations stipulating how hardcopies of EU regulations should be carried.
PS an "average" EU specification and regulation for the steering wheel on a bus runs in excess of 80 pages.
Personally I like the idea that Warren Buffet proposed. If we are not in a declared war and the US debt exceeds 10% of GDP then all members of congress and the senate should be ineligible for re-election until such time as the debt is brought back to an appropriate level.
It's not exactly hard be in a state of declared war. You know, the "War on Terror" and all that...
The ability to control the money supply (either directly, or indirectly through the Fed) is a weapon with no good uses. It's the reason that the dollar is worth less than 2% of what it was worth 100 years ago. The best situation is for money to have as near a constant value as freedom allows, which means something like a gold standard (if that sticks in your craw, then consider a mixed basket of valuable metals.)
The idea that without the ability to borrow money it would be difficult to control inflation is the exact opposite of the truth. Look at history; understand history.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Water wings!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
A Russian, an American and a Spaniard are having drinks in a bar, boasting about the capabilities of their armies. "In Soviet Russia", the Russian proclaims, while sipping his vodka, "We have atomic submarine. If they go down, they can stay for two months before come up again." Says the American, while downing a shot of whiskey, "That's nothing, we have nucular submarines that can stay submerged for six months before resurfacing!" The Spaniard, not to be outdone, finishes his sangria in a single gulp and says, "Your navies are pathetic. When our submarines dive, they NEVER come up!"
I hope they don't end up... ... ...
chasing a sunk cost.
Maybe it's just a pourly written article. But it seems to imply it floats just fine until it's submerged. That doesn't make much sense as you simply purge the ballast.
The town I live in has no debt of any sort, and to the best of my knowledge never has. We build up funds dedicated to anticipated future expenditures, and spend nothing we don't have money for. Relatively speaking, it's a rather poor town, not being well situated for industry, nor attractive to tourists, nor near enough to major business centers to be a "bedroom community": so the tax base is small, through no fault of policy. Yet we don't steal from our children by saddling them with our debt. If we can do it, so can others.
Other things being equal, debt is bad, the product of deliberate short-sighted greed.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Personally I like the idea that Warren Buffet proposed. If we are not in a declared war and the US debt exceeds 10% of GDP then all members of congress and the senate should be ineligible for re-election until such time as the debt is brought back to an appropriate level.
There are a few problems with this proposal. Most significantly, it seems this would encourage the US to be in a state of war.
Where is moderation: -1 False?
Re: 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 I'm sure there probably were penalty clauses and cost-overrun clauses and all kinds of things. The government has been in the business of writing contracts with civilian industry for a long long long time. (See the rant by a former president about the entrenched Military Industrial Complex" ). It probably depends on the nature of the mistake. If the company screwed up, well then they fucked up and need to bear the costs. If the company merely did the work to specs provided to them externally by the government or by another contractor, then the problem occured with the design and the specs and not with the manufacture side. In that case, the design guys need to pay for the fuck-up. I don't think all of the details are in the article that I could find.
When talking about submarines, sunk costs can be weighty! You start trimming here and there and suddenly you have a flood of unexpected problems. Even when dealing with little cuts here and there, on a submarine, not hope but problems, spring eternal. If you even cut a bit, the whole program can be washed up (or down).
How do you sink the Spanish Navy?
Put it in water!
hahahah
sorry.
The government grows because the nation grows. A larger more complex nation requires larger services. For instance, there were no need for ultra engineered paved roads in 1776. Post war federal spending as a percent of GDP has been around 20%. Most of the complexity in the tax code is to provide special privileges to special entities. It is, however, correct, for those certain entities will have income that is hard to define. This is why a flat tax would not work. Most of us we would pay about the same, but the special entities would manage to define income so they would pay less. Look at it this way. If I make money by working with my own two hands, my body, that is taxed at a higher rate than if I sit back and earn interest. Income of the wealthy is different differently than income of the working class.
The current deficit situation is probably caused by special entities not paying as much tax as they once did. For instance, federal debt fell rapidly post war, but increased 30 percentage points with respect to GDP during the reagan bush era. There were two reasons for this. First, as mentioned, borrowing is good and the country was not paying the debt down too fast. Second, Reagan cut taxes to below sustainable levels, something with bush realzied and fixe resulting, along with good, policy, the debt falling about 10 percentage points during the Clinton years.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I thought the problem with submarines was making them heavy enough, not too heavy. Its disturbing the amount of buoyancy that is provided by simply keeping seawater out of a volume. In sea water if you displace a cubic meter of ocean with air you have roughly 2,255 lbs of force pulling you towards the surface.
Sounds like a classic case of scope creep. See also the "Vasa".
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
That $9.7 million per meter over-run cost to millions of dollars per negative IQ point? Thanks!
And if you are in a state of war then 10% of the Congress and Senate, (randomly chosen) should be stripped of all rights and privileges of office, drafted as privates in the army, and dropped on the front lines.
The ship designers always design in the ability to lengthen the vessel right from the start, since they always end up over weight. That is why they already know exactly how much it will cost to lengthen them. Also, lengthening it is not completely a bad thing, since it usually makes the ship faster.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
And let us not forget the submarine, which the (corrupt, lazy, etc) Greeks
bought from the (efficient, honest, etc) Germans,
only to findout that it tilts to the side!!!
Not all the time... just when the weather is bad, and there are waves at the sea!
Of course, the Greek Prime Minister, Kostakis Karamanlis paid the Germans to the last penie...
It seems that, somehow, they held him by the b...
The ability to control the money supply (either directly, or indirectly through the Fed) is a weapon with no good uses.
My eyes are rolling so hard I think I just got a good look at my brain stem. If you're going to make bold assertions that seem unsupported by actual facts, you need to back them up.
It's the reason that the dollar is worth less than 2% of what it was worth 100 years ago.
$1 in 2013 was worth a little over $0.04 in 1913 if you adjust for inflation using the CPI and our ability to acquire dollars has increased at an even faster rate than inflation. The fact that inflation takes place doesn't mean much by itself. What matters is prices relative to the value of cash AND the amount of cash held. It's prices relative to the ability to acquire assets that matters. Buy a hamburger today or in 20 years and you are buying the same asset. If I have $100 and buy a hamburger for $1 today or I have $200 and buy a hamburger for $2 tomorrow, the cost to me is the same either way - it is costing me 1% of my assets. It's more complicated than my trivial example obviously but the basic point stands. Inflation (or deflation) is meaningless unless you compare it to income and previously acquired wealth. The dollar today is worth less but our ability to acquire them has greatly increased. There is a reason we adjust prices to account for inflation when comparing between different points in time.
The best situation is for money to have as near a constant value as freedom allows, which means something like a gold standard
Ahh, I understand now. You're one of the idiots who thinks there is something magical about gold and precious metals as an asset. Sigh... Gold is no different from any other asset. It has value because people believe it has value just like EVERY OTHER ASSET. The price of gold is volatile, just like every other asset. Tying the value of one asset (cash) to the value of another (gold) doesn't keep the value of either constant, it just makes the financing more difficult. In times of financial crisis there could be no lender of last resort because governments would be powerless to make money available where needed. Our recent financial crisis was a crisis of liquidity - no one could be sure who was safe to borrow from. The only party that everyone could be sure was a safe counter-party was the government. Had we been tied to a gold standard we would almost certainly be in the midst of the second great depression at this very moment. Virtually all economists blame the gold standard for greatly worsening the Great Depression because monetary policy could not be used as a tool.
Most people in the US could have the IRS prepare their taxes based on income, interest, and other factors that are already reported to the IRS. I know the IRS could prepare most of my taxes with me just adding a few details.
If your taxes are that simple then the IRS has some very simple forms. A 1040-EZ is not an especially difficult exercise even without computer assistance. However the IRS has to define income for ALL citizens and these days most have more sources of income than you are thinking of. Salary, bonuses, tips, dividends, interest, capital gains, deferred income, inheritance, gambling winnings, gifts, prizes, pensions, social security, insurance payouts, deferred income, stock options, payment-in-kind, etc. The list is shockingly long. If the tax code does not address each and every one of them as a form of income then people WILL utilize that loophole. My point is that defining income for tax purposes is more complicated than most people think.
Now don't get me wrong, our tax code does have too much absurd and needless complexity. I truly don't know why we need to provide tax breaks for mortgage interest or federal student loan interest (just lower the interest rate) or why we pay tax to fund social security and then the government taxes the check they send back to us. Wouldn't it be simpler and less complex to just to send a smaller check in the first place? The list goes on and on. I know why congress does it (easier to pass a tax reduction than a funding increase even though they have the same net effect) but much of it is bad policy.
The current deficit situation is probably caused by special entities not paying as much tax as they once did.
The current deficit is caused by too much expenditures (primarily medicare/medicaid and defense) without tax revenues to match. Everyone wants benefits and most want a strong military and no one wants to pay the additional taxes that they cost. Any serious discussion about the debts HAS to involve either cuts to Medicare and defense or increased taxes or some combination of the two. (I exclude Social Security because it is funded a bit differently and separately and is easily fixed by comparison) Frankly I think we could cut our military expenditures in half or more without seriously impairing our nation's ability to defend itself. We spend more than the next 15 or so nations combined and somehow they manage to survive.
The town I live in has no debt of any sort, and to the best of my knowledge never has.
Sounds like you live in a smallish town with a stable population. That is an unusual situation. If your town ever grows, I promise you that there will eventually be a need to issue bonds to fund some sort of project. Maybe for waste treatment, or roads, or bridge(s), or new schools, etc. There is nothing wrong with financing a purchase provided you do it responsibly. In fact if interest rates are low enough (like now) there are are plenty of cases where not financing would be dumb. A dollar tomorrow is most likely going to be worth less than a dollar today so if you can get a low interest rate and pay with tomorrow's dollars (offset interest with inflation) then it is pretty easy to show cases where financing makes sense.
I make most of my purchases on a credit card which I pay off each month. Sure, I could pay it all at the time of purchase but I am needlessly limiting my options by doing so. By letting the credit card company provide me float I hold on to the cash which earns me interest for the extra month I get to hold it. Over time that adds up. I also gain the ability to utilize that cash for more emergent purposes should the need ever arise. What I don't do is pay unnecessary interest or buy things I can't afford just because I have the ability to do so.
Other things being equal, debt is bad, the product of deliberate short-sighted greed.
So no one in your town has a mortgage or a car payment or any credit card debt? Are people greedy for financing those things? Things are rarely equal. Debt is neither bad nor good by itself - it's how you use it that matters. Sometimes you need to fund things that it is difficult to arrange for all the financing in advance. You might need some road repair today and waiting a few years isn't really a feasible option. That doesn't mean you finance things just because you can - you still have to live within your means. But the need for cash is sometimes more immediate than the ability to acquire it and that is ok as long as you are responsible.
Although the Sea Wolf submarine project did not have this particular problem (insufficient buoyancy requiring retrofitting) - it did have the problem of starting the construction of the submarine before the design work was finished, which then delayed the project and drove up costs as the builder waited on the designers to finish their work. The cost increase for the Sea Wolf was 45%. And it is not as if the U.S. had limited experience in building submarines.
The Spanish program was projected as costing 550 million Euros per sub, if they can fix the buoyancy problem by lengthening the sub by less than 30 meters (very likely) then they will be doing better than the Sea Wolf program.
BTW - another to describe the situation is that once all of the specs were completed, the Spanish Navy discovered that it needed a bigger sub than originally planned. Many U.S. defense programs have had similar experiences. Not as scandalous sounding though.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Then we need to make it illegal for our governments to borrow money except in times of war.
Again, you are proposing something that would actually hurt the economy badly. The ability to control the money supply is critically important. The way we control the money supply is by selling debt or buying it back. Without the ability to borrow we cannot adjust the money supply which makes it very difficult to combat inflation, encourage (or discourage) lending, or deal with volatile tax revenues. SOME borrowing is fine and even beneficial.
Personally I like the idea that Warren Buffet proposed. If we are not in a declared war and the US debt exceeds 10% of GDP then all members of congress and the senate should be ineligible for re-election until such time as the debt is brought back to an appropriate level.
The government isn't required to be involved in currency manipulation to deal with inflation, and their involvement often has an exacerbating effect on the volatility of money because it requires them to make accurate predictions. Private enterprise can borrow money and lend it both domestically and by foreign currency exchange just the same as the Fed, and I say that if the Fed quit interfering then the private sector could compensate without the risk of a mistake or oversight occurring. Between the civil war and the 1920's I believe it was handled this way, and the markets of course went up and down as always, but without any serious failures. Obviously that was a different world than what we have today though, so who knows.
I see the union was successful. The Traverse City Iron Works closed in 1983.
Having lived in Spain for quite a few years it is abundantly clear that the country's so-called leaders are thoroughly, pervasively and consistently corrupt, even more so than they are inept, which is really saying something. From the local council through the president and even the family of the king the extent of corruption is mind blowing. Virtually every day most of the news media feature a new or continuing story of a politician or bureaucrat having been found to be stealing. As a Spanish lawyer friend said to me, "Every Spanish official who has the authority to write a check or control spending steals from the very first day they are elected or appointed or hired until they leave office." It is inconceivable that a large portion of the money allocated to this insane project (what the hell does Spain need subs for anyway) is not already hidden away in off shore accounts. The tragedy is that this money should have gone into education, job training, and health care for the millions of Spanish who have no job.
A flat percentage tax like you propose is regressive and inequitable unless the rate is adjusted based upon income level. A much better way is to tax possessions. Every tangible and intangible good that one owns including cash in bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, artwork, securities, and everything else of value should be taxed. This would bring in far more from those who can afford to pay, by definition, be progressive rather than regressive, promote the flow of capital into investments, that is now sitting in bank accounts doing nothing for anyone, and encourage businesses to innovate, hire, expand, and upgrade.
It's time....to send in.............The Spanish Inquisition!!!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
Realistically, the tax form should be one line, your signature. I don't receive any more or less government than any other so why I should be expected to pay more or less is beyond me. Everyone should pay the same amount of federal tax and leave the states to decide how they want to tax their citizens. It's far more representative that way. Of course this necessitates cutting back federal spending by a large amount, which I'm sure most won't have a problem with. The liberals can cut back defense spending and the conservatives can cut entitlements. This makes things far more simple because, as you pointed out, income tax isn't that simple. I believe that it will also resulted in a far more people involving themselves in politics. Honestly, even removing the automatic payroll tax and giving citizens their full paycheck without taxes deducted would have that effect.
As to the morality of taxation, it is essentially legal extortion. Most people understand that in any society it is necessary to some degree or non-democratic power structure of similar function will take its place. However, it doesn't change what it is or that it's the best system that we've been able to come up with that works in theory as well as practice. As far as government's ability to influence private spending, it's only as effective as the government's ability to implement policies that citizens as consumers agree with. It doesn't matter what prices you set, if no one wants to buy it, they won't and a black market will emerge. Like government itself, it's another part of humanity that can't be avoided.
I don't like a national sales tax either. As far as I'm concerned, that should be a function of state governments with federal taxes being a flat rate. As far as I'm concerned the only business the federal government has with a sales tax is establishing a policy for sales tax on interstate commerce. The only other involvement the federal government might have is preventing sales tax on food, clothing, or other necessities.
Also, I would like to propose that as part of a person's federal tax they perform a set number of hours of what's referred to as community service. There seems to be a pervasive notion that the ills of this country are someone else's problem to fix. I disagree with that sentiment wholly and feel that if the citizenry of a country can't be trusted to solve their problems, they have become morally bankrupt and entirely dishonest with themselves. I believe that such a policy would lead to greater solidarity in communities and would result in the more well-to-do citizens of the country possessing a greater understanding and empathy towards those who aren't. It would also give people a more personal stake
They don't mention the worst part. It's solar powered.
Would that make it the first Caterpillar drive used in a submarine?
"So go ahead and buy the UK and USA scraps it is cheaper."
Considering we are talking about failed submarines, you may want to Google that a teeny tiny bit. One of Canada's largest ever military spending snafu's was buying several diesel subs from the UK.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/03/15/ns-british-mp-questions-sub-deal.html
Considering our recent history I don't find it surprising that Canada decided to design their own. I don't find it at all surprising that it cost 10 times as much either. Consider they are comparing the costs to a country that we actually bought the designs off of, who has designed ships in the past. Canada had Irving design the ship, which I don't think has ANY warship design experience, so yeah some cost overruns are going to take place. In addition Irving is of of the richest family's in Canada, who regularly hide their wealth and avoid taxes by putting all their money in tax haven countries. I sure (insert sarcasm) they didn't ripoff Canadians, and I am sure (insert more sarcasm) that the Conservative Party wasn't aware that would happen. It is also politically motivated decision from the perspective to keep the money/jobs local, even if it cost 10 times as much as it would have been to have some other company (say the Norwegian one) design it. Then again there is also the whole secret nature, and do you want foreign country or company to have your design specs (you are assuming of course that any corporate entity has any loyalty past their NDA)?
Anyway this might also have been complicated by "unrealistic" design specs. If these are the ships I believe them to be, they are the ones to be used in the arctic. So rather than getting nuclear ice breakers like Russia which would make more sense, the Conservatives wanted to go with Warships that were "Hardened" for arctic travel. Which frankly is retarded. So they likely had to take a perfectly good ship design that the Norwegians come up with, then "hardened" the hull so that it was a very ineffective icebreaker, but likely added 200 tonnes to the displacement, making the entire design have to be reworked, as otherwise they might be sailing with those a fore mentioned Spanish submarines at the bottom of the ocean.
If you're tempted to, you don't know how much Trident 2 is going to cost.