March 2, 2017

Dutch Submarine Talks With TKMS & Kockums, not with DCNS.

If TKMS were selected by the Netherlands to build a new Dutch submarine its size is likely to be between the 2,000 tons (surfaced) Type 218 and the 3,000 ton (surfaced) DSX-3000 that TKMS is likely designing for South Korea (diagram above) and Israel (what I call the Dolphin 3).
---

Kevin has provided unclassified information on Dutch Submarine Walrus overhaul and replacement matters for the last two years, Kevin’s thoughtful comment 1 of 25 February 2017 prompted me to write:


-  I’m also using Kevin’s 25 Feb comment 1, his followup 1 March 2017 comment 2 and other background to write about Dutch Walrus submarine replacement issues. 

The Dutch Government continues informal talks with Germany and Sweden on Walrus submarine replacement issues. Surprisingly there was not the previous firm resolve from Dutch naval high command that replacement subs be built in the Netherlands. 

The Midlife Overhauled Walruses will likely operate to 2025 and the last may operate until 2031.

A replacement submarine program may be influenced by the following timeline:

-  June to August 2017 formation of a new government
-  if there is no replacement submarine program authorisation then the Dutch Navy would start
   dismantling the Submarine Service in 2027
-  but if the Dutch Cabinet authorises replacement formal talks with potential foreign governments
   and company partners can begin in 2017
-  2018 continuing discussion with foreign partners and with major component contractors (eg.
   combat systems, weapons, sonar suites, submarine launched UUVs, etc)
-  2020 onwards sign major contracts
-  2027 launch first New Dutch Submarine (NDS).

Likely Foreign Company Partners

TKMS and/or SAAB Kockums

- “With Germany and Sweden you can more easily negotiate to modules and
    packages for your systems and software, so you options are wider.” 
-  “What [I, Kevin] personally think is that the NDSs are going to be a German build with modules
    and packages from Sweden.”

"Not DCNS"

-  “No, not France...It's hard to break in the France defence industry [that makes customization of 
     hardware for the NDS difficult - see original words].
-  “France is open to make a bid but will have a low chance.”

The Netherland’s shipbuilder Damen "will get in the same time period mega orders totalling 16 ships (12 minehunters and 4 frigates) from the Belgian and Dutch governments so Damen will have its hands full."

“Japan is [“cool” OK] but not an option.”

European country (eg. Dutch) policies favour selection of weapons from:
-  European Union (EU) members (eg. Sweden, France and Germany), and
-  NATO countries (eg. Germany, France and the US, but not Sweden).

Earlier Reports From Kevin's Comments 

-  http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/poland-contemplating-joint-submarine.html see

   KEVIN’s BACKGROUND

Kevin and Pete

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Judging from position of torpedo tubes, bow sonar of Scorpène seems to be bigger than German subs.

Regards

MHalblaub said...

Dear Anonymous,

size of bow sonar and count of torpedo tubes is rather irrelevant.
Bow sonar of Scorpène can be seen here:
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_SSK_Scorpene_OHiggins_Cutaway_lg.gif
and the outside here (black area):
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/news/the-first-scorpene-submarine-for-the-indian-navy-has-left-its-main-hall/

Type 214 (mind the bumps):
https://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/U-Boot-Klasse-214-001.jpg
Type 212 (mind the bumps):
http://i.imgur.com/vTMzxF5.jpg

Today the round bow sonar or even spherical ones like on US submarines are just useful for rather loud sources. For quieter sources like electrical submarines flank sonar (visible on pictures above) and towed arrays are used.

With the right torpedo and a fiber wire backlink to the submarine a forward positioned bow sonar is gained.

Regards,
MHalblaub

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

Germany has 5 more K130 corvettes on order. Damen may build some hulls for Germany right now and TKMS will build submarines later on...

Regards,
MHalblaub

Josh said...

@MHalblaub

Is the bow sonar not of the right frequency to be more useful? My understanding was that towed arrays offered the least turbulence and self noise, but that the best acoustics for any hydrophone actually physically on the submarine were in the bow where there was the least boundary turbulence (and in USN boats, a baffled area limiting self noise). In US designs the lateral sonars seem optimized for range resolution, in fact I've come across one source that explicitly states that the WPA actually can only be trained onto a target already detected by some other sonar. Actual fact of course may be different.

Cheers,
Josh

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [at 3/3/17 9:13 PM]

What you describe is a very rational European shipbuilding strategy.
- Damen specialises in corvettes
- while the Netherlands utilises the greater economies of scale of TKMS building subs for the German, Norwegian and Dutch navies.

I think there may be some delay (2018-2019) for Netherlands politicians to finally agree on new Dutch submarines.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I have no idea when the decision for the subs will come, it's up to the new government.
The timeline i have posted is most current i have got from the navy.

The navy lobbyist are pushing to get it on the agenda after the summer break if the formation of the new government is success full. And is also why the navy invites peopel like me, so we can push our political parties to accept the agenda (and to increase funding :P).

Kevin

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete & Mhalblaub(3/3/17 8:57 PM)

According to submarine expert, size of bow sonar and number/arrangement of tube is relevant.Virginia class with huge sphereical bow sonar has amidship arrangement of tubes. Mordern submarine has flank array and tow array.

Regards

Peter Coates said...

Hi Kevin

Your advise is very useful.

On my limited research - the composition and defence policies of a new government, after the 15 March 2017 Election are very unpredictable. If it were a goverment opposed to high defence spending (especially after the F-35 purchases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operators need to be paid for) I am just guessing submarines might not be approved very quickly.

On possible Election results http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/11/2017-dutch-elections-rutte-and-wilders-draw-their-battle-lines/

"Parties also differ on other important issues such as...defence spending." "Despite these diverse policy differences, most parties have so far treated each other with a certain level of restraint as they realise they may well need to reach coalition agreements following the election. Predicting how these alliances might develop is exceptionally difficult given the complex picture in the Dutch party system."

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear folks,

the problem with the bow sonar is related to speed and turbulent flow on hull. For a high speed nuclear powered submarine the bow is the best region for a sonar.

For sure size matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#Explanation
The size is even bigger in case your submarine can use the flank array.

US Navy is switching from spherical to more conformal ones:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/ssn21-array.jpg
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_SSN_Virginia_Block-III_Bow_Mods_lg.jpg

A spherical sonar provides data in a simpler way for later analysis. I guess with increasing computer power it is better to position the sensors at best place.


Type 212A with 6 torpedo tubes and a black chin below:
http://i.imgur.com/hSM0R54.jpg
(There I have a geometrical problem. Inside pictures always show a 2 row of 3 tubes above each other?)

Type 212A with just 2 torpedo tubes and a black chin below:
http://files.balancer.ru/forums/attaches/2015/05/14-3834034-212a-1.jpg
http://www.mtu-report.com/Portals/_default/assets/0/831/492_3_14mrMAR_04.jpg
The black chin ends where the flank array starts.

Type 209 bow sonar:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/ARASanLuisS32.jpg/280px-ARASanLuisS32.jpg

Here a picture to guess where the array is located on several submarine Types:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uV8XfMsqfo8/TizHD57HoZI/AAAAAAAAAns/1jVmTS6QTqM/s1600/209%2B-%2BAIP.jpg

Some rare picture of an actual spherical bow sonar:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/Sonar_submarine_SSN-711_nose_damage.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)

Regards,
MHalblaub

Josh said...

@MHalblaub:

My understanding is that the Large Aperture Bow array is primarily a cost cutting feature, due to the water backing making construction simpler than the air backed sonar spheres going back to the 60's. I suspect you are correct that the odd horseshoe shape made bearing resolution more complicated but is resolved with superior computing power. Also I wonder if having the active source separate from the receiving hydrophones also complicated data processing.

As far as sonar performance at speed, while the bow is the best place on the ship, the tail is the sensor with the highest wash out speed. In USN boats my impression that primarily the 'fat line' array would be used for detection at higher patrol speeds as opposed to the bow array. That said, I don't see why the hull mounted sonar on a D/E would have superior detection capabilities to the bow mount at typical 3-5 knot creep speeds, though I could see it providing better bearing resolution given its length.

Cheers,
Josh

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete,

At the moment I'm not gonna speculate about the political landscape after 15 march.
At the moment the majority of the voters still doesn't know on with party that will cast they vote. We have traditionally a high turnout on election day, so everything still go`s.

But most parties are in favor of increased spending on the military by .5 to 2.5 biljoen Euro a year, till we are on the EU average. Only the Greens, Socialist and Animal parties don't want to. (Thats 3 of the 27 ;) )

Kevin

Anonymous said...


Hi Pete

I eatimated reltative array gain and enemy detection distance by bow cylindrical sonar for three cases: case 1(submerged displacement 4200ton, beam 9.1m), case 2(1810 ton, 6.9m), and case 3 (910ton, 5.5m).

Results are as follows: case 1(reltative array gain 0dB, enemy detection distance 10km), case 2 (-4dB, 6.3km) and case 3 (-9dB, 3.6km) under the certatin in certain conditions.

For example, large submarine (case 1) detects at 10km of distance, while middle and small subamrines detects at 6.3km and 3.6km.

At 4knot/h of surveillance speed, detection timing of middle and small submarines delay 30min and 52min than large submarine.

Regards

Peter Coates said...

Hi Kevin [at 6/3/17 6:03 AM]

Your description of Dutch politics and Defence sounds similar to Australia's political landscape. Most Australain parties (including the major Liberal and Labor parties) support:

- the US alliance, and
- purchase of expensive F-35As
- medium-high defence spending over 1% GDP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Australia's Greens Party is also Socialist, pro Animals/Environment and renewable energy.

There are also many smaller minor parties and Independents who hold the balance of power in the Upper House of Parliament and almost hold it in the Lower House.

All this adds to unpredictability and long vote counting periods after elections. See the fun we had in last years Election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2016

We also have a Royal/Sovereign Head of State.

The significance of the Netherlands' 15 March for subsequent Defence decisions will be interesting.

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Anonymous,

I have questions about your calculation results especially about "relative gain".
In case the gain is relative to the area of a spherical bow sonar the ratio is proportional to the square and not cubic.

10*log10(6.9/9.1)² is about -2.4 dB (cubical -3.6)
10*log10(5.5/9.1)² is about -4.4 dB (cubical -6.6)

Geometrical transmission loss is equivalent to surface. Twice the surface half the energy or -3 dB.

So it depends also on how depth water is and presence of a thermocline. Within a thermocline or shallow waters the surface increases proportional to radius and not proportional to the square of radius.

Your -4 dB would be either 6.3 km (spherical) or even 4 km (flat).

The array gain won't help anything in case you have a bad signal to self noise ratio.

Here you can estimate the size of a flank based sonar system:
U35: http://i.imgur.com/AO4xfzg.jpg
U36: http://bilder4.n-tv.de/img/incoming/crop18825711/0594997895-cImg_16_9-w680/39496869.jpg
Type 212A: http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Gerwalker/media/U212/flankarray.jpg.html
U36: https://www.welt.de/img/regionales/hamburg/mobile116216059/4451626727-ci23x11-w1280/Brennstoffzellen-U-Boot-U36-fuer-die-Deutsche-Marine-in-Kiel-getauft.jpg
(Mind the chin section - any guess about the white pimples slightly above widest part of hull?)

The length of a TAS is not limited by submarine beam or length.
U36 - mind the ladder: https://www.spitzenstadt.de/plauen/plugins/galerie/galerien/U-Boot-Taufe%20Kiel/4.jpg
Type 212A: http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Gerwalker/media/U212/towedarraywinch.jpg.html
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Gerwalker/media/U212/tas.jpg.html

Type 212A sonar systems:
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Gerwalker/media/U212/212system.jpg.html?sort=3&o=35
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Gerwalker/media/U212/sonar.jpg.html

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete & Mhalblaub (7/3/17 9:29 PM)

Thanks for pictures of 212A.

I showed rough image of effect of hull size on array gain by using model subamrine. We can understand hull size has significant effect on detection by bow sonar. Effects of flank/towed array sonars and others were not considered, because of complexity and lack of information. Following procedure by submarine expert was used for estimation by bow sonar detection.

When diameter (D) of array is enogh bigger than wave length (λ) of target sound, then array gain (AG) is discribed in eq (1), where S is wave receiving area.
AG=10*log(4πS/λ^2) (1)
When beam formation is conducted at 1/3 of S, then AG for cylinderical array is discibed in eq (2), where H is hight of cylinder.
AG=10*log((4π*πDH/3)/λ^2) (2)
AGs are estimated at H =D/3 for D =9.1λ, 6.9λ and 5.5λ, respectively.

Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete,

Thats why youre governments can work well together ;-)
Are you are Submarines commanders also trained in the Netherland?


This the list of all the partis for this election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_2017

Minimal 11 of them will make it to the parliament, the biggest will be lucky if it will break the 25 seats barrier (of the 150 total). Fragmantation will be high this cycle. The Greens are growing at the moment and they have a chance to become part of the new coalition. The socialist party and animal party are stand alone parties in the Netherlands, the Greens are pacifist liberal with a green agenda of course.

I myself, i'm part of the 2 Liberal party`s ;)

Kevin

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete & Mhalblaub (7/3/17 9:29 PM) Part II

I find mistake of calcuration and admit that MHalblaub (7/3/17 9:29 PM) showed correct neumeric values of -2.4dB and -4.4dB. I am sorry.


Following equations are correct.
AG=10*log(4πS/λ^2)-----(1)
When beam formation is conducted at 1/3 of S, then AG for cylinderical array is discibed in eq (2), where H is hight of cylinder.
AG=10*log((4π*πDH/3)/λ^2)-----(2)
AGs are estimated at H =D/3 for D =9.1λ, 6.9λ and 5.5λ, respectively.
Ratio of output voltage (Vout) and input voltage (Vin) is discrive in eq (3)
Vout/Vin=10^(AG/20)----(3)

But, I used wrong eqs (1x) and (2x), and got twice larger figure becasue of transformation mistake in eq (3).
AG=20*log(4πS/λ^2)-----(1x)
AG=20*log((4π*πDH/3)/λ^2)-----(2x)

Displacement (W) of model submarines is described in eq (4) based on large submarine model.
W = 4200*(D/9.1)^3-----(4)
9.1/D is ca.0.75 and ca.0.6 for middle and small submarines, respectively.



I eatimated reltative array gain and enemy detection distance by bow cylindrical sonar for three cases: case 1(submerged displacement 4200ton, beam 9.1m), case 2(1810 ton, 6.9m), and case 3 (910ton, 5.5m) by using simple model. Sonar system of real submarine and situation are much complicated than these models.

Results are as follows: case 1(reltative array gain 0dB, enemy detection distance 10km), case 2 (-2.4dB,7.6km) and case 3 (-4.4dB, 6km) under the certatin in certain conditions.

For example, large submarine (case 1) detects at 10km of distance, while middle and small subamrines detects at 7.6km and 6km.

At 4knot/h of surveillance speed, detection timing of middle and small submarines delay 20min and 32min than large submarine.

I showed rough image of effect of hull size on array gain by using simple model submarine.

Regards

MHalblaub said...

Dear Anonymous,

for a certain wave length the formula is reduced to constant multiplied by D^2.

Logarithmen of 9.1^2 is 19.2 and 5.5^2 is 14.8. The difference is 4.4 and not 6.6.

Gain is of no use in case background noise of own submarine is to load and is also amplified.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi Kevin [at 8/3/17 3:34 PM

Australia's submarine Commander qualification course (known as "Perisher") was a UK affair from Oberon days to Upholder SSKs, but then the UK RN went all SSN. Aussies training on SSNs lacked realism.

So, yes, our submarine Commanders-to-be now become qualified through the Dutch Perisher course on Walrus SSKs.

Thanks for the Dutch Political Parties site. Regarding Australian parties, luckily the Liberala and Labor Parties have a greater proportion of seats, so a little more legitimacy, but not much. Factins within those Parties also make them fragmented and ineffective.

The submarine policies of the world's political parties are always of interest.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi, a election update.

The ruling Liberal people's party (VVD) has gained the most votes in this election with 33 seats (from 41 steats). The freedom party of Wilders (PVV) is second with 20 followed by Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Liberal Democrats 66 (D66), bothe 19. The Greens (GL) has jump from 4 to 14 seats. And the ruling Labor Party has a major defeat from 38 to 9!!

We have a parlement of 150 seats so you need 76 seats for a goverment.
Lucky VVD, CDA en D66 are natural allies. But thos are only 71 seats.
So a fourth party need to be found. The small left christians (CU) has 5 seats and is the most logical option programme wise to join the new government (76 total smallest possible majoratie).

The VVD CDA D66 and CU parties are pro on defence so the ministry of defence can expect a major increas of the budget. So good news for the submarine serves!!

But 2 problems with this coalition.
1. its the smallest possible majoratie with the smallist mandate and the VVD has the tendency to lose seats du in fighting in the party.

2. D66 and CU can work well together on socio economic issues but are opposite ideological. D66 is big on liberal valeus (legal Drugs, euthanasia and equal rights). CU is big on christian values (pro life, war on drugs and traditional family). CU has ruled out any cooperation on the new euthanasia laws of D66 and veto it in the election debate. The new euthanasia laws of D66 became a thing during the election debate in a big favor of D66. D66 will now not let go of these laws.

The second coalition option is VVD CDA D66 and GL and is good for 85 steats.
GL is the big winner of this election and will be offered a seat on the negotiation table before CU. Its the best electoral outcome of this election for the voters.
CDA and D66 can work around the wishis of GL, but the VVD stands at the moment too far from them.

GL has expenses wishes for the environment and that will go to cost of the defense budget.
So this coalition can be bad news for the submarine serves.

The negotiations will be long and difficult, i don't expect a new government installed before september.

Regards,

Kevin

Peter Coates said...

Hi Kevin [at 17/3/17 6:33 AM]

Thanks for the update. Looks like a many partied future coalition.

Interesting euthanasia is legal.

Will tougher counter-terrorism laws be likely?

I'm hoping the old, now new (?), Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, is a pro-submarine kind of chap?

I assume "don't expect a new government installed before september" will delay new submarine decisions?

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi

"Interesting euthanasia is legal"

By the efforts of D66 euthanasia made legal for the terminally ill way back in the 1990`s. But the new laws of D66 will also include elderly of 75+ how are tired of living, so they can die after counsel at the moment of their own will.

"Will tougher counter-terrorism laws be likely?"

I dont think so, the Dutch counter-terrorism laws are already tough.
D66 and the CU has in a extra goverment coalition (the old PvdA and VVD coalition had no majority in the Dutchs senat) 2~3 years back re directe funding for the for the Dutch intelligence bureau`s. All like they will increase it again.

"I'm hoping the old, now new (?), Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, is a pro-submarine kind of chap?"

Yes he is!! He know the value of the Dutch submarines.

"I assume "don't expect a new government installed before september" will delay new submarine decisions?"

yeh I assume that also :(

Regards

Kevin

Peter Coates said...

Hi Kevin [at 18/3/17 5:30 AM]

Thanks for your response.

There remains a euthanasia debate in Australia but no progress after 30 years.

I think for occasional submarine buyers/builders (like the Netherlands and Australia) the high costs and complexity of thwe programs the longer wait for decisions and build.

Much easier for Japan and the US that have Continuous Build of attack submarines (SSKs/SSNs)

Regards

Pete