Yes and no: Turkish Type 214 will have different ESM, radar, combat system, weapons (Mk48 Mod6 ADCAP in addition to DM2A4), countermeasures, RAM & acoustic coating than baseline Type 214 design, hence the designation Type 214TN.
S-80: The New Spanish Submarine
- Thread starter Templario
- Start date
For an update on this new build program (which will face a two to 3 year delay and millions of dollars to fix to deal with a weight issue), see this 5 June 2013 article -- Navantia Gets US Help To Fix Overweight Sub.
the road runner
Active Member
I would assume the S-80 will have more teething issues as time goes on with this sub being a new platform.Acoustic issues,ect.
Of note is how the AIP has not met its 28 day submerged criteria and can only manage 7 days.I recall some of the def pros talking about AIP not being a "silver bullet" in regards to preforming in the Collins class in RAN thread.
Some great youtube footage of the S-80.
Of note is how the AIP has not met its 28 day submerged criteria and can only manage 7 days.I recall some of the def pros talking about AIP not being a "silver bullet" in regards to preforming in the Collins class in RAN thread.
Some great youtube footage of the S-80.
seatmarbella
Banned Member
I put doubts about info that it is not official, you have people interested in perjudicating the project like the competence or political sides, like the reasons or details of the issue or the aip specs.
The S80 like the old Agosta class, S70, they are using now, has certain margin for incresing the lenght of sub with the same propulsion, so if it is this case i doubt it cost 500 million euro to fix this problem. The contract the Us company because they want their opinion as well as to act as external auditor or certificator of the solution, that is going to cost 14 million for the Us company it is said.
In the near future they are going to explain better the issue. The delay of the programme they annouonced is 1 year to 2, at this moment. The program already had 4 o 5 month delay by external providers of gears. But they have said that probably the timetable for the 2 last subs of the series is not altered so i don´t think the issue is too difficult to solve.
Now Spain has one S70 submarino to retire in 2016, in september comes another submarine for another 5 year period until 2018 to retire, and now are financing 30 millions for the maintenance of a 3rd sub to be in service until 2020. The s81 will come in 2015, s82 in 2016 and so on, so the submarine force in 2017 can be 2 S70 and 2 or 3 S80 that is 4 or 5 subs operative.
In the case being 75 tonnes that is the exceeded weight and being just 2 or 3% of total weight it seems that flotability can be easy to correct, if is just 2 or 3% of deviation.
Last edited:
It's just a news report; and most of us know that defence related news is not always accurate. I think road runner is trying to say that it is not uncommon to have some teething issues in a first of class; and when it is turn of my country to buy new submarines, my country will have our challenges to meet with the new builds too. As Singapore's Defence said on 12 March 2013: "MINDEF is also looking to replace our ageing Challenger-class submarines, which were built in the 1960s. The replacement submarines will have significantly improved capabilities... "
I am intrigued by the unique AIP system; and if you do have some information, would love to read more on this. Thanks.
Yes, it is important to certify that the proposed fix, solves the problems identified; and Electric Boat certainly have the expertise.
Good to hear. Look forward to more updates from you, as the project progresses.
The issues have been common knowledge around the industry for some time, nothing strange or unusual. As I understand it a key problem being experienced on the project is the lack of institutional knowledge brought about by the loss of so many experienced and capable people over the last few years, people who had the experience and expertise to have identified the problems earlier and fixed them before they got out of hand.
kev 99
Member
That sounds awfully familiar.
Almost exactly what the UK went through with the Astutes and what Australia will go through with the new submarines if they don't have the work to retain the people they currently have.
seatmarbella
Banned Member
The aip it was very good, the reformer very good, the fuel cells very good, the testing and engeneering very good in the time and efforts employed, so that the pictures i saw of it years ago and the last picture i saw some months ago it has a totally different aspect, due to own evolutions and for the shocks test inside the sub.
But there are more parts like the waste removal system and the last notice i got of it is that is was working. But if they really arent doing the 28 days of aip said time ago i think could be different thing to the reformer or the fuel cells.
The germans are continuously improving their aip system, for example the waste removal system they try to improve with spanish companies like Sener doing prototypes for them.
Now they have yet more time if they have to improve the aip with the new delays, so i am confident about it. The last official news about aip in last december or so, was aip was in 3rd phase and going well...
I hope despite adding ribs to the sub the ranges and endurances should mainly remain so that the project keeps being attractive. The electrical engine is also very good, magnetic, quite more powerful and sustained than Scorpene´s one.
We´ll see how the take advantage of the new space they create in the sub, maybe beds, food, fuel, or nothing useful....maybe this mistake in the program terminates making the sub a bit bigger and a bit more attractive for export.:dbanana
Last edited:
I've heard that one of the reasons why the Sea Wolf class was cancelled so quick and the Virginia program started was to keep that expertise in place
The USN/State/DoD has just contracted some US companies for 3 years to provide an assistance to the spanish to rectify the probs
It is a real problem - the US Govt at Spanish Govt request has just contracted a US company (not hard to guess which one) to provide 3 years of contracted assistance to help identify in detail and rectify the design issues
btw , a 75-90 tonne hull variance IS significant. It impacts on a number of platform performance issues
it is NOT a trivial task to deal with.
The ways to proceed aren't particularly nice options.
Either ditch kit inside to reduce the weight or lengthen the sub which costs several million dollars per metre. The latter being the preferred option as gutting the boat of - say - the underperforming AIP gear doesn't neccesarily help the weight issue.
Neither path seems particularly good. Still, couldn't pick a better company than GD to hold your hand when designing subs like they did for a certain other country a while back.
Either ditch kit inside to reduce the weight or lengthen the sub which costs several million dollars per metre. The latter being the preferred option as gutting the boat of - say - the underperforming AIP gear doesn't neccesarily help the weight issue.
Neither path seems particularly good. Still, couldn't pick a better company than GD to hold your hand when designing subs like they did for a certain other country a while back.
protoplasm
Active Member
Would I be correct in thinking that a 3-4m hull plug is going to cause a whole heap of CoG/balance issues, as well as the potential hydrodynamic problems? The small amount of fluid dynamics I did would suggest that you'd have to rerun the numbers for the whole submarine design if the length increased by that much.
a plug is probably the best solution - but it has inherent details that will impact on the whole platform
apart from handling and mechanical performance issues, the entire asset has to go through a complete acoustic re-map
considering that a plug is the best way forward (effectiveness of fixing the platform in a considered complete manner) then the other solutions are just poor compromises and invite grief further down the track.
reducing weight still means cutting open flanks etc.... at that point someone should have worked out that if you have to open up 15-20% of the sub just to remove gear, then you might as well chop it and do it properly.
the fix solutions are all ugly, the smartest option is to acknowledge early that you might as well do it properly.
the USN contractor may have a different view depending on what the deeper analysis comes back with - but superficially, and going off the grief experienced by a number of builders and builds in the last 40 years, you'd have to start leaning towards cutting and gutting - a plug means that existing gear can be shifted and not necessarily be a continuing impediment - adding a plug adds some bouancy as well, so the final "fat" figure can start to go south. ironically the sub could end up heavier but be a better handler.
I imagine that spanish SF would be enthusiastically pushing for a plug
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
I know it’s not a simple as it sounds and changing aspects of the boat can have a detrimental effect on acoustic signature and handling of the boat, but is putting a plug not that dissimilar to what Västergötland-class is to Collins-class submarine.
Buy lengthening the boat to increase buoyancy does it have to be a single plug or can it 2 or more in certain area of the boat to lessen the effect on handling and signature management?
Buy lengthening the boat to increase buoyancy does it have to be a single plug or can it 2 or more in certain area of the boat to lessen the effect on handling and signature management?
Another fun part about putting in a plug is you have to run connections for every pipe and wire that crosses it. Depending on where the plug is and how far they have progressed it may require removing and replacing entire wiring harnesses. The plumbing is 'simplier', provided the thermal analysis works out, because it can be patched together by hand.