> "Argentine authorities are scrambling to find a three-decade-old submarine..."
30 years doesn't seem that old for a submarine. A good proportion of the UK fleet were launched in the 80s.
What age does the US start decommissioning subs?
30 years doesn't seem that old for a submarine. A good proportion of the UK fleet were launched in the 80s.
What age does the US start decommissioning subs?
Which UK submarines from the 80s do you think are still operating? I think there’s just one, HMS Trenchant, from 1989.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine#Boats...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submar...
San Juan was laid down in early 1982 and launched in 1983 then underwent a mid-life upgrade in 2008-2013, Vanguard was laid down in 1986 and (being significantly more complicated) launched in 1992. The point stands (as a counter to the idea that Argentina's fleet is somehow ancient) that they're of a pretty similar age and era, even if it's not true that the majority of the RN's fleet is.
The other two subs were UK built and are still serving, even if not with the UK.
As another data point, HMS Illustrious launched in the '70s, participated in the Falklands War in the '80s and was only decommissioned 3 years ago (admittedly as the oldest ship in the fleet and decidedly showing its age).
Edit: If you widen the criteria to the entire fleet, there's also 14 Archer-class patrol ships that were commissioned in the 80s (plus one that's with the Royal Oman Police) [1] and eight of the Hunt-class minesweepers [2], of which one was commissioned in the 70s.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer-class_patrol_vessel
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt-class_mine_countermeasure...
Might as well desperately throw HMS Victory into that mix of random things and really get the average age up! But none of this is relevant to the launch dates of submarines in the UK fleet, which is what was claimed.
I get the underlying point about the age of naval platforms, yeah. I was just correcting the incorrect and misleading claim about the age of the UK's submarines, because a clearly incorrect claim doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
The expertise of the men involved in the restoration of the Warrior (and the HMS Trincomalee which is still birthed at Hartlepool currently) was fascinating to me growing up. There's nothing of interest in Hartlepool with the exception of the towns ship building legacy. The restoration of those two ships are one of the few bright points in an otherwise awful 4 decades of austerity for my old home town.
"[HMS Trincomalee]... is the oldest warship afloat anywhere in Europe, berthed at Jackson Dock, within The National Museum of the Royal Navy Hartlepool."
I seem to recall the intent was to originally have the HMS Warrior made sea worthy but during the repair work it was deemed too risky or expensive? This was done shortly before it was sent back to Portsmouth back in 87. I believe the intent is to sail the HMS Trincomalee down to Portsmouth in the future too. That'd be a sight to behold.
Somehow you've missed the fact that ARA San Juan is 9 years older by your own account, and even older if you consider the fact that HMS Vanguard was only comissioned in 1993 and entered service in 1994.
Considering also that the typical design life of a navy ship is somewhere between 30 and 40 years, perhaps we can agree that a 10-year difference is highly relevant and significant.
Moreover, fatigue life is an unforgiving master and can't simply be fixed by mid-life updates.
A lot of countries have these subs and airplanes but not enough money for training, maintenance and so on.
At one time, Argentina had the most extensive navy in South America. That time was not in the last two decades. Much of their current capability could be best described as left-over.
The US has no diesel-electric subs, the much more expensive (and not just in power plant) nuclear boats the US fields have a longer design life, IIRC.
The oldest few still in service are some Los Angeles class boats that entered service from 1981 and will be decommissioned in the next couple of years, but most that entered service around that time were retired earlier (between 20-25 years.)
Which is to say, 30 years is, by any measure, old for a sub.
The Taiwanese are still operating a submarine which was launched in 1944.
So yeah, a 30-year-old submarine is merely middle-aged. On the other hand, Argentinian maintenance standards are not exactly the envy of the world (cf http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/argentine-destroyer-... )
One can get a lot of mileage out of something designed to be airworthy and reliable and maintained by a careful lineage of owners.
And second, we have a level of systematic corruption that has eroded many institutions, including the military. Noticeable so, the state of military aircraft is in shambles and many army people died because the funds for maintenance where stolen. A famous documentary by a former pilot details these issues.