Lots to unpack.
They should have bought U214s instead.
Base data and articles are Wiki. Comments are mine and are my opinion YMMV and should. I will keep it strictly to the boats and whether these should have been built and did they serve their intended customers.
Scorpene.
General characteristics | |
---|
Type: | Submarine |
Displacement: |
- 1,565 tonnes (1,725 short tons) (CM-2000)
- 1,870 tonnes (2,060 short tons) (AM-2000)
- 2,000 tonnes (2,200 short tons) (S-BR)[1]
|
Length: |
- 61.7 m (202 ft) (CM-2000)
- 70 m (230 ft) (AM-2000)
- 75 metres (246 ft) (S-BR)[1]
|
Beam: | 6.2 m (20 ft) |
Draught: | 5.4 m (18 ft) |
Draft: | 5.8 m (19 ft) |
Propulsion: | |
Speed: |
- 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) (submerged)
- 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) (surfaced)
|
Range: |
- 6,500 nmi (12,000 km) at 8 kn (15 km/h; 9.2 mph) (surfaced)
- 550 nmi (1,020 km; 630 mi) at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) (submerged)
|
Endurance: |
- 40 days (compact)
- 50 days (normal)
- 50 + 21 days (AIP)
|
Test depth: | >350 metres (1,150 ft)[2] |
Complement: | 31 |
Armament: | 6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes for 18 Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes or SM.39 Exocet anti-ship missiles, 30 mines in place of torpedoes |
Note: MESMA AIP has two major issues.
a. It is hot.
b. Bottled oxygen that must be pressurized at 60 atmospheres to feed an essentially steam turbine system. This makes the whole sub an oversized Type 93 torpedo situation with all the incredible dangers and problems associated with that type setup.
Comments: Decent boats for what the French intended, which is coastal and littoral operations. Very quiet and reasonably safe and effective. The Indians love them.
S-80 submarine
General characteristics | |
---|
Type: | Submarine with air-independent propulsion |
Displacement: |
- 3,200 tonnes (3,100 long tons; 3,500 short tons) surfaced
- 3,426 tonnes (3,372 long tons; 3,777 short tons) submerged
|
Length: | 81.05 m (265.9 ft) |
Beam: | 11.68 m (38.3 ft) |
Draught: | 6.20 m (20.3 ft) |
Propulsion: |
- 1 shaft Etanol-AIP
- 3 bio-ethanol engines (3 × 1,200 kW)
- 1 electric motor (3,500 kW), 1 AIP fuel cell unit (300 kW)
|
Speed: |
- 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) surfaced
- 19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph) submerged
|
Complement: | 32 (plus 8 troops) |
Armament: | 6 × 533 mm torpedo tubes with DM2A4 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles |
Notes:
Based on the known data of this class, I can estimate that she has approximately 1500-2500 kilometers travel endurance at creep speed on air independent propulsion for 360 hours. Her conventional endurance amounts to 1,000 hours on snort/diesels and battery banks/electric motors. Her combat radius travel is based on that powered endurance. She was designed to be twice the size of the Scorpene and to be a blue water boat. This conforms to her surface travel endurance of somewhere about 13,500 nm or 25,000 km. The plug the Americans helped put into her has increased endurance by 5 days.
She is outfitted with American control systems and weapons fit-outs. Her AIP system is still unproven and based on
Coprox reactor technology. When that works, the hydrogen/ethanol fuel system drives an electric creep motor. It is an interesting contrast to MESMA as the fire hazard is different and the expected explosion a bit more violent.
Comments: Collins 2.0, I do not know if the Spaniards realized what headaches they bought for themselves when they tried to 2x the size of the Scorpene. They made a NASA type mistake and when it caught up with them in simulation, they were well over their level of expertise in trying to fix it. Submarine design is TIGHT. a 1% error will give the builder a paper weight. The Americans were quite perplexed at first, because anything done to the boat will change operational characteristics (CM/CG/diving depth, surface and submerged stability (See Greeks and the U-214 disaster.) drastically. No-one will know if the plug Electric Boat helped design will cure or kill the boat until it gets wet after a shakedown. The AIP looks chancy, too. By 2023 we should know if it works.
U-214 class.
General characteristics | |
---|
Displacement: | 1,690 t (surfaced), 1,860 t (submerged) |
Length: | 213 feet 3 inches (65.0 m) |
Beam: | 20 feet 8 inches (6.3 m) |
Draught: | 19 feet 8 inches (6.0 m) |
Propulsion: | Diesel-electric, fuel cell AIP, low noise skew back propeller |
Speed: |
- 12 kt surfaced
- 20 kt submerged
|
Range:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine#Greece |
- 12,000 miles (19,300 km) (surfaced)
- 420 nmi (780 km) @ 8 kt (submerged)
- 1,248 nmi (2,311 km) @ 4 kt (submerged)
|
Endurance: | 84 days |
Test depth: | more than 250m (820 feet)(400m theoretical, 1312 feet) |
Complement: | 5 officers + 22 crew |
Armament: | (8) 533 mm torpedo tubes, (4) subharpoon-capable |
Notes: Straightforwardly German with all the complexities and idiosyncrasies involved, the combat record of German U-boats when measured by OBJECTIVE metrics has been "mixed". Latest example is the
Falklands War, a recent
submarine loss (ARA San Juan), and
the recent Greek debacles. If one reads this aright, I am NOT a fan of German U-boats. One needs to be very aware, that
these boats do not forgive mistakes and recent ones have been less than stellar examples of German quality control.
The problem (as far as I can see) is that they tried to enlarge the existing design and ended up with a non-functioning submarine.
The U-214 was a READY design based on the U-212. They could have bought it off-the-shelf and limited the risk of developing a new submarine.
The Scorpene is a fine submarine, no doubt about it. But even the idea of buying 4 such advanced subs for a price of 1.4 billion on a yet to be developed design seems quite utopic to me.
I am not saying that the U-214 class didn't have it's problems too. Look at the problems with the first Greek U-214...
Yes, look at those problems... all traced to the thing acting like a giant plucked banjo. The primary problem seems to be aft in the screws. The Germans made a serious design error that causes vibration and cavitation aft which affects everything else they tried to do when they evolved the 209. Refer to what happens when one attempts to take a small sub and stretch and fatten it. (Collins, TR 1700/U-214, S-80) off a previous design (Gotland, U-209 (twice!), Scorpene.). Submarines do not work that way. Does one think a Virginia is an evolved Los Angeles? It is a "clean" design, based off 688 experience, but brand new in execution.
Was Britain really making the right choice in the 1980's when they ordered new diesel electric submarines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine.
Leaving aside the problems spending years in mothballs caused; was this a wise choice for a navy with ever shrinking funding, that could have perhaps been better used on more capable nuclear boats? Also why the bloody hell weren't they provided with an air independent propulsion system?
a. Submarine building skills are perishable. The builders have to stay in practice or they screw up in interesting ways. (Trafalgar and the not so Astute classes.)
b. AIP is still very experimental with mixed results. Also, it is not a cure all for hiding. HEAT is a major problem for AIP equipped boats. It makes for a creep speed limitation and a cooling problem as to how to dump that waste heat.
View attachment 520196
Maybe
My understanding of the Spanish attitude is that they wanted their own design. It was more a political matter than anything. Spain wanted to be able to design and construct all of its ships and to be able to sell them on the market (see the bid Spanish in the Netherlands for example ).
I'm convince that the French design team would have been capable of making the S-80 work for a fraction of the cost the Spanish paid OTL.
Maybe. DCN at the time suggested that approach. But then the Spanish wanted a bigger boat to power project, and earned Collins 2.0. The sub would have worked, it is claimed, if not for that small displacement volume error. Trouble is, submarine design is a knife edge proposition and reserve buoyancy is finicky. One cannot make even a 0.1% balance mistake on flotation over the length of the sausage without killing the boat as an effective platform (stability) and 1% is a sinker. 70-100 tonnes is that error in the S-80 which amounts to about a 2% flotation error distribution. It would take someone who is really GOOD at building subs to figure out how to solve that one. Maybe Electric Boat is the only bunch on the planet besides the French or the Russians who could figure it out. Anyway, the Spanish had three choices for assistance and they made their choice.
Note, I emphatically maintain; the French could have solved the S-80. Russians, too. The Americans were not the only option.