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.
Well, this is the perfect submarine - permanently under water.
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.
...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.
they should just consider it a sunk cost.
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
Or put caterpillar treads on it and have the world's first underwater tank!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
They should have kept their mouths shut and sold the finished product to North Korea.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Not the incompetence of the voters to vote for long term governments rather than short term tax cut promises?
c++;
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?
Ezekiel 23:20
It's even worse; they're Europeans - they can't blame it on vagaries of mixed-unit engineering! ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
How does someone in 2013 miscalculate the displacement of seawater?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
How does someone in 2013 miscalculate the displacement of seawater?
Probably to 15 decimal places on a workstation with more transistors than the entire world possessed in 1980, along with an entire PPT deck full of pretty renders, and a basic sanity check skipped early in the process...
Actually the contract was signed 24 March 2004. http://elpais.com/diario/2004/04/02/espana/1080856821_850215.html (Spanish)
The design started long before the contract was signed.
It is partially because of working ethos I guess...
Which is why the Americans have returned to the Moon already and the F-35s have been dominating the sky for years. Oh, wait...
Ezekiel 23:20
Minor nitpick.
Not all politicians lie. Some are just deluded into believing what they are saying or saying what they have been brainwashed into believing only to find that reality is a different game altogether. Some are just inexperienced and incompetent to understand the truth from a lie that has been passed on to them.
Someone being wrong is not someone telling a lie. There is a note of having to know and understand what you are saying is not true or correct in order for there to be a lie involved. A lie carries an intent to deceive or misdirect where being wrong can result from being lied to originally, not having all the information or having incorrect information or something even more challenging, an opinion that doesn't necessarily translate into the real world situation.
There is a saying about blaming malice over incompetence and most of the so called lies seem to be nothing more then incompetence.
Serious question.
The problem is that people ask too much of government. It is not capable of running all the things that is asked to do. Wiping the noses and asses of millions of people is just too much.
There should be a national sales tax. That's it, nothing else. You should not be charged for earning, saving or investing money.
Which will, conveniently, give HUGE tax breaks to the rich, while placing a crushing burden on the poor. And, given your call for drastic spending cuts, they would lose government support as well.
These PEOPLE (not animals or machines or figments of our imagination, mind you), are already living hand-to-mouth, because unions are dead and businesses pay less than is needed to survive. These human beings rely on medicaid and food stamps and welfare and the like to survive. You want to take that away, AND add a sales tax to everything they need to buy? They'll die.
Or actually, they won't. People don't lay down and die willingly. They'll kill you, take your food, and live. And they'll be entirely justified in doing so.
Taxes are what you pay to live in a civilized society. Don't you ever dare forget that.
I thought the UK got their stuff from the Americans? Is Canada really taking third hand stuff when America is right next door? Our economy may be shit but one thing we can do is build a sub, hell its pretty much the only weapons tech we can still build worth a fuck, not like we can build a plane that does more than suck money.
BTW would it be possible to get a tag warning if something is from Fox news or HuffPo? I try to avoid propaganda and those two sites are nothing BUT propaganda and frankly they are the absolute WORST kind of propaganda in that they promote that mindless ballclub mentality where they'll excuse anything that a slimy politician does as long as they have the correct letter after their name. I don't think you can do anything worse to this country than to promote mindless ballclub mentality and a "Oh you can't question that because he is on OUR side" bullshit, because it promotes hypocrisy and blind loyalty, the same ones that railed against the excess of the Bush white house will turn a blind eye and smile to shit like Fast & Furious which was nothing but a false flag against the American people, its fucking disgusting mindless flag waving is what it is.
So how about a little heads up before you link to a propaganda site huh? Both sites are as heavily tilted as Soviet era Pravda and if either told me it was raining I'd want a second opinion, when I see an article on either one I just start wondering on how this helps their cause or hurts the other flag wavers, because that is pretty much all they care about.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
You really think they cost that much? How much do you think it costs Canadians to fund conspiracies like a massive Maple Syrup Shortage, or the Hockey deficiency in Asia, eh?
We havent been to the moon because right now there really isnt a great reason to go there again. We did make return voyages however.
Seen the shit we have been doing on mars though? Outstanding.
Why am I responding to an America hating troll... sigh
There have been two books published on the Fair Tax. Everyone gets a pre-bate (check from the government) to off set the taxes paid on any amount up to the poverty level. For people who don't actually spend that much it will amount to a welfare check.
The fact that there will never again be jobs for everyone will eventually be acknowledged but what to do about it will probably be debated long after the riots have started.
There should be a national sales tax. That's it, nothing else. You should not be charged for earning, saving or investing money.
Yeah, that's a great way to increase the tax burden on the poorest while offloading it off the richest AND enticing them to not spend money. Do you even think about the second or third layer effects of any of your decisions?
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.
There are jobs for everybody capable of providing something that someone else wants as long as the government doesn't make it illegal. Currently, the prominent example of the government making it illegal is called "minimum wage."
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Taxes are the extortion I pay not to be jailed or killed by people legally empowered to use guns against the innocent.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Learn about the Laffer Curve. It's theoretically valid and verified by experience.
You mean someone has actually managed to put more than two numbers on a Laffer curve (0% and 100%) ? Do tell.
How do you sink the Spanish Navy?
Put it in water!
hahahah
sorry.
Sounds like a classic case of scope creep. See also the "Vasa".
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I take it that you've never attempted to live on minimum wage. Even working full time in the poorest areas of the country minimum wage will not pay for food and housing for one adult and one child. You propose that they need to be paid even LESS? Do you think the debtor's prisons and workhouses should be brought back as well? And I suppose the custom of overtime pay should be done away with as well, right?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
When my dad went to work at the Traverse City Iron Works in 1965 making fire hydrants guys were pouring iron wearing tennis shoes, jersey gloves and sunglasses. There was no safety equipment, there were no air filters, men lost eyes, fingers, and lungs on a regular basis. Dad was instrumental in bringing the union in, which forced the company to make the needed safety improvements. Perhaps that's nothing to you, but my dad was able to keep his hands and eyes intact and that was a big thing to me. So call me cuckoo.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The problem is that people ask too much of government.
I live in Spain and I don't recall asking them to build a new submarine fleet in the middle of a financial crisis.
No sig today...
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.
So you're saying that a flat 30% tax on sales would benefit the rich? How is that?
Currently the rich way less, as a percentage, of their income in taxes than many of the poor, due to all the nonsense that's in the tax code.
When the government manipulates the economy for social good, the rich manipulate the government for profit. Want to stop the rich from manipulating the government? Want to stop them from bribing positions and getting involved in elections? Then stop giving them a financial incentive to do so. Tax them at a fixed rate that's simple, easy to understand and very transparent. Once the government is out of their pocketbook, they will have no further reason to have their own hand in politicians pocketbooks.
I see the union was successful. The Traverse City Iron Works closed in 1983.