Talk:S-80 Plus-class submarine

File:S-80 Class Submarine.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:S-80 Class Submarine.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources, rename?

There's some good history of the early history on pp5-6 of this report going back to the origins of the S-80 in the 1980s - the original design (which became the Scorpène) was unveiled at Le Bourget Navale 1990. There's also an article from Jane's in December 2007 which has a lot of detail on the history and design - this article needs a complete rewrite and that Jane's piece would be a very good place to start. I would also suggest that the article makes a better distinction between the S-80 (the original 6.2m-diameter design derived from the Scorpène) and the revised 7.3m-diameter, 2,430tonne S-80A design that Navantia claims is completely new and nothing to do with the Scorpène. I know that in the English media, S-80 is often used as a WP:COMMONNAME - I can respect that and am not completely opposed to it, but I think more liberal use of S-80A would help clarify the relationship between the two designs.Le Deluge (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"sinking to the bottom?"

I sugest editing the text that states "a weight unbalance that renders the sub unable to resurface after diving" .. the overweight problems doesnt make the submarine sink like a stone..it still could sail.. but it seriously compromises its boyancy reserve wich is still a grave problem and makes it unfit for service until the problem is solved.. but the 2 articles cited are senationalist media.. the sub will not sink but it cant operate in the current conditions. the article should mention the overweight unbalance issue but not sensationalist media made jokes like that it cant even float.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.166.57 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's going to be christened the Isaac Peril class.

Introduction sounds like marketing materials

The language and assertions made in the introduction and further sections of the article are highly speculative (especially given the future tense use). They do not contribute factual information to substantiate the claims nor comparison with other classes of submarines. The "Ad" template was added in order to highlight this fact. Szymon (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree most of this page seems to have been written by someone who does not know submarines, or by the manufacturer themselves for the aforementioned audience. 142.78.8.4 (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

NSM Submarine launch capability has been canceled

The source currently given for the claim that S-80 will carry NSM-SL appears to be taking a hypothetical use of NSM-SL on S-80, made in a footnote in a Spanish navy journal, article[1][2] as definite confirmation that NSM-SL will be fielded on the S-80. The development of submarine launch capability of NSM was canceled in 2021. After searching further I've found no references in Spanish or elsewhere claiming that the S-80 Plus-class will get NSM-SL. NonCredibleDefense (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

References