From UK Daily Mail article"Too heavy: The [S-80 lead vessel] Isaac Peral, a new, Spanish-designed submarine is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface. Officials are pictured next to the engine of the vessel last November [2012]" also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navantia#Controversies
--------------
[See UK Daily Mail article of June 6, 2013, "Spain's £1.75billion submarine programme is torpedoed after realising near-complete vessel is 70 tonnes too heavy because engineer put decimal point in the wrong place" at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336953/Spains-1-75bn-submarine-programme-torpedoed-realising-near-complete-vessel-70-tonnes-heavy.html
"A £1.75billion Spanish submarine project has run aground after officials realised that the vessel is more than 70 tonnes too heavy - because an engineer put a decimal point in the wrong place.
A former Spanish official has described the mistake, which has led to fears that the submarine might not resurface if sent to sea, as 'fatal'.
The [S-80 lead vessel] Isaac Peral, the first in a new class of diesel electric submarines, was almost complete when the problem was noticed."]
SEA 1000's official parameters suggest that the following are prime considerations: Australian Federal Government money for South Australia for manufacturing industry development; business; union; jobs; and electoral interests . SEA 1000's expected in-service deadline is now apparently around 2035.
The the overwelming majority of the site-meter visits (from Australian entities, US defence companies and European entities) to this gentleseas website have been "Googling""S-80" or "Navantia" and not HDW 214, HDW 216 (see the 216 on navyrecognition.com) or Scorpene.
Navantia's solid performance in being the major contractor for Australia's under construction AWDs and LHDs may be allowing Navantia strong influence over Australia SEA 1000 selection process. Navantia may be considered a safe vender but its lack of experience in completing a submarine itself of ever exporting a submarine itself may be significant problems.
Navantia was involved with DCNS in building Agostas and Scorpenes some years ago but Navantia did not build them by itself. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/scorpene/
HDW and DCNS are the firms with the greatest export experience and deepest knowledge base in conventional subs. HDW and DCNS should therefore be the front-runners in Australia S-80 future submarine selection. Inter-operability with the US is important hence its is highly desirable that these firms would be permitted by the US to incorporate the US SSN equivalent combat system and weapons fit.
The Navantia S-80 apparently incorporates the US combat system-weapons fit. However the S-80 falls down in not being completed and not yet exported. As indicated above the S-80 has been significantly delayed due to basic design faults. The S-80 is reportedly 70 tonnes overweight - hence suffering major balance problems - leading to a delayed in-service of 2017 - and cost overruns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navantia#Controversies.
The 70 tonne-balance error may be an outcome of inexperience or undue haste in developing and building the S-80.
Navantia's involvement with DCNS in Scorpene building apparently ended in 2010. Hence pre-2010 perceptions in Australia's Defence Department that Navantia was a competitive contender in SEA 1000 now may not be as valid.
Navantia apparently has never completed a submarine by itself or exported a sub by itself. As things stand this may make Navantia a higher risk sub maker than Kockums was in the 1980s?
Note that in the 1980s Kockums was chosen over the more proven HDW at the last minute - and the rest is history. Now we have never completed a sub by itself Navantia.
If Navantia develops a demonstrably efficient S-80 and gets some export orders for subs experience before 2025 then it might be less high risk and less expensive.
-
Pete