From Defense Aerospace

 

Problems with Malaysian Scorpene

 

 

(Source: Forecast International; issued February 15, 2010)

 

 

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia --- The Malaysian Navy reports that Malaysia's first Scorpene class submarine, delivered in September 2009, has developed problems that have left it unable to submerge. "The submarine can still dive but when we detected the defects, we were advised that it should not dive," Defense Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said. "The defects are still covered by warranty, so the supplier and contractor are repairing them," he added.

 

This is the third fault found with the Scorpenes built for Malaysia. Malaysian Navy commander Abdul Aziz Jaafar said the first problem to emerge involved the submarine's cooling system This problem was discovered last December. This delayed the submarine's voyage from France to Malaysia.

 

During January 2010 another defect was identified, in a different system. These faults have already delayed the delivery of the second submarine, the KD Tun Razak. This submarine was originally scheduled for delivery in late 2009 but will now enter service in May 2010.

 

There is one consolation for the Malaysian Navy. To a submariner, being on the surface and unable to dive is much better than being submerged and unable to surface.

 

***

 

CV32: Can no one build a decent conventionally powered submarine these days? The problems with the Canadian Victoria (ex British Upholder) class, the Australian Collins class, the Greek Type 214 order, etc, are well known. I am being somewhat facetious, but the thought is meant to provoke discussion. What do you think?

I think a contemporary submarine is a very complex machine, and for mantain a efficent force we need a very specialized, motivated and professionally qualified crew and supporting military organization and industry, and without a clear and present menace, we're falling the guard (remember also UK, next to a situation without maritime patrol/ASW planes)

50 years ago very few countries have submarine force.

In our times, a lot of countries are trying to stablise credible submarine forces, sometimes for prestige, sometimes as menace to a potentially stronger agresor (remember 1982, the attention payed by Royal Navy to a dubious operative Argentine sub) but without clear success.

Traditionally first line countries, as USA, UK, Germany or France (we can remember, between other issues: welding in US Subs, reactor issues in UK subs, hull issues in German and French subs, fire control problems in UK and German (at least export subs, remember 1982) have experienced great problems in submarines construction and maintenance, we can't expect more of newbies.

The SS Collins is based in Swedish technology (and the Swedish submarine construction is very experienced and with prestige), and they're some 10 years of irresoluble fire control issues, the same for the UK/Canadian Upholder/Victoria.

I think is a reflect of a very poor training and maintenance organization, same in previous post about the US subs welding/maximum depth issue.

My grand-father was submariner, but I think in 1929 the things were a lot easier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_submarine_C-3

 

Reflect of the Malaysian Scorpene (of French/Spanish design and building) topic in MerEtMarine, called "minor technical issues":

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112419

Problems apparently resolved, SS Tunku Abdul Rahman sailing submerged without problems (in French):

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112795