October 11, 2019

Dutch Navy Document Clarifies Dutch Future Submarine Competition

Anonymous has identified an excellent Dutch article that, to an extent, clarifies the issues of the Walrus Replacement Program (ie. Dutch future submarine competition). The article is centered on a Dutch Navy document.

The article is by Olof van Joolen and Niels Rigter in the Dutch language De Telegraaf,
October 2, 2019 titled “Angling fishing for submarines” at

(Pete has translated it into English, bolding some parts and adding the links)

"THE HAGUE - The four new submarines for the Navy must be of Dutch origin as much as possible. The large trade unions and the employers' organization VNO-NCW advocate this at the [Dutch] House of Representatives and the Cabinet.

They are doing this just before the matter is raised at the central political structures at The Hague [The Hague is the seat of the Dutch Cabinet, the States General, the Supreme Court, and the Council of State.]. From an internal comparison that De Telegraaf was given insight into, the Dutch / Swedish combination Damen / Saab seems to have the “best papers” for the multi-billion euro selection but the French Naval Group is chasing the consortium.

The unions, including FNV, CNV and De Unie, have already put agreements with Damen on paper that the shipbuilder use Dutch personnel, Dutch knowledge and development and production sites on Dutch soil as much as possible. The unions have also made agreements with the yard about internships, flexible staff and the remuneration of freelancers. “The parties will sign the agreements next week.”

This means that those involved anticipate things. With the Swedish Saab, Damen is only one of the four candidates to develop and build the replacement for the Walrus submarines now in use by the Navy.

Rough

However, the purchase of the four new submarines is not going smoothly. Ministries involved all want something different. Moreover, there are concerns about the risks of the multibillion euro project.

Pros and cons. An internal candidate comparison document written by the Dutch Navy shows which of four yards (in the race to build the future submarines) has the best characteristics. Saab / Damen scores best for Dutch industry and for maintaining strategic knowledge. The Swedish-Dutch consortium can also show sufficient projects (frigates and submarines) to inspire confidence in the piece that De Telegraaf was given access to. A 'risk management plan' is essential. Not unimportant for a project that costs at least 3.5 billion euros.

Injection

The [Dutch Navy's] candidate comparison shows that the role of the Spanish submarine builder Navantia “has been played out.” [eliminated?] The German TKMS is second to last in the ranking. The French Naval Group is chasing Saab / Damen. If the [Dutch] navy were in charge, the choice had already been made. The Netherlands would have Saab design the new submarines, have them built at Damen, with a pendulum of Dutch companies on board. After all, a good injection for Dutch industry and the Netherlands as a knowledge country. Moreover, Dutch defense would remain hooked on the very latest military technology and get exactly the boat it wants.

But the Navy is not in control. And the Ministry of Defense cannot decide independently. The Department of Economic Affairs and Climate is also on board and seems sensitive to the Dutch industrial map that Saab / Damen have drawn. But Finance, Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs and General Affairs are also involved. They want something different. An "initiate" [insider]  summarizes it as follows:

"Broadly speaking, the

Defense organization wants a state-of-the-art submarine quickly,

Department of Economic Affairs and Climate wants a boost for the Dutch defense industry,

Finance wants as cheap as possible,

Home Affairs (with D66 minister Ollongren at the helm) wants TKMS, because it is European, and

Department of Foreign Affairs wants to maintain a good relationship with the French. ”

Prime Minister Rutte would also be sensitive to this.

The decision about which party or parties will continue to the next round therefore becomes more a political than a technical decision. It should have been decided last year. It is now expected in the coming weeks.

The postponement is due to a change in direction of this government, in which the importance of Dutch industry became more prominent, followed by a strongly intensified lobby by two participating parties. The German TKMS promising to place the construction of the Dutch submarines with the naval company in Den Helder and the French teaming up with the Dutch dredger IHC builder.

Risk

Since the 1990s, Damen has built all large ships for the Navy, but not yet a submarine. This is a  risk. Moreover, making boats that are completely tailored to the wishes of the Navy is much more expensive. The fact that the defense budget is not rising as fast as expected means that a new submarine built on Dutch soil is far from certain.” ENDS

Pete Comment

So the competition continues to be undecided. The decision timeline is still vague. Being “more a political than a technical decision” (a reality suffered by submarine selectors in many countries) adds to uncertainty. 

If risk is a worry then an enlarged version of a submarine that does not yet exist (eg. the A26, S-80 Plus and Type 212CD) is risky. The Dutch may see a large version of Naval Group's Scorpene as less risky than a small version of the not yet developed conventional Shortfin Barracuda.

Other major issues include do the Dutch require Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) and/or Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) or neither?

Next week Pete will describe Naval Group's progress in developing second generation AIP.

Anonymous and Pete

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Naval Group, SAAB and TKMS have proven submarine with similar dimension; Scorpene AM-2000(displacement 1870t; length (L) 70m; beam (D) 6.2m, L/D=11.2) and A26 (1930t, 63m, 6.4m, 9.8), Type 218SG (2200t, 70m, 6.3m, 11.1), respectively. To achieve displacement of 3000t (requirement?) by simple hull extension of these submarine, estimated L/D=15-18 considerably deviates from the optimal L/D=7-10[1]. SAAB and TKMS proposed new submarine with bigger beam to optimal L/D, presumably based on existing or well-designed submarine (Collins-class, Type 216). Unless Naval Group offer submarine with optimal L/D, a successful bid will be a long shot.

Indiscretion Ratios (IRs) of SAAB-DAMEN (three MTUs, LIBs, Stirling-AIP) and 212CD (Two MTUs, LIBs, FC-AIP) are roughly estimated [2]. IRs of SAAB-DAMEN is slightly smaller than 212CD (4.2%), thanks to three diesels. These IRs are much superior to those of LAB-submarines (ca.12%).

There are two strategies to achieve low IR by using LIBs, one is combination diesels and AIP, and another is adoption of high power diesels. To achieve 4% of IR without AIP, SAAB-DAMEN needs five MTUs or two latest KAWASAKIs.

[1] “Optimum L/D for Submarine Shape”, by M. Moonesun, et al., Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, vol.45(1), Jan/2016, pp38-43
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0bb4/68b6b618d564c401285ecf31129312e677a2.pdf,
(Conclusion, page42) Main achievement of this paper is the suggestion of L/D=7-10 as the optimal range for cylindrical middle body submarine.

[2]
Assumption: AIP is used for 50-days submerged surveillance in 70-days mission. Power consumed per hour is 0.2MW(c=hotel load 0.15MW+propulsion input 0.05MW). Then, total energy to be consumed for the surveillance is 240MW(e=c*24 hours*50days) consisted of energy supply from AIP (d = c*24hours*submerge period by AIP (a)=4.8*a) and that from diesel (j=240MW-d). IR is related to daily energy supply (g = j/50days) from diesel with electrical output (b), namely, IR = 100*g/(24*b).

SAAB-DAMEN: a=20days, b=3*MTU=3.12MW, d=96MW, j=144MW, g =2.88MW, IR=3.8/%
212CD: a=28days, b=2*MTU =2.08MW, d=134.4MW, j=105.6W, g=2.11MW, IR=4.2%

Submerge period by AIP, hotel load and propulsion input are estimated by various articles.

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous [your October 12, 2019 at 1:13 PM]

Thanks for the data, comments and links. I have published them as an article of October 14, 2019 at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/10/3-submarines-by-lengthdiameter-ratios-2.html.

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Anonymus,

Your definition of IR is just related to time but not to area.

An enemy has a given capability to detect a submarine at a specific noise level. The Saab-Damen submarine is according to power 3/2 times more noisy than the TKMS submarine at reloading batteries assuming same damping levels. - I doubt Saab has a better damping system than TKMS. Provide some physics and not just PR. -

On a shallow ocean like the West Indies noise emission is channeled into a 2-dimensional problem due to reflections. Do get the same signal strength the perimeter around a 3/2 louder submarine has to be 3/2 larger. Then you receive the same amount of energy per area. Perimeter is 2 x pi x radius. Linear equation so Saab-Damen's radius would be 3/2 of TKMS. The area where an enemy can detect you is therefor 9/4 to 1 in favor of TKSM. Power is not always useful.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Pete said...

Hi MHalblaub

With some serious natural disasters in some areas of the world I am hoping Anonymous's ability to reply will not been too delayed.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

The Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) places more emphasis of redundancy and safety. Two diesels are not enough for them. At least three diesels are needed to satisfy RNLM. Bigger beam is hidden requirement.

Regards

Spaniard said...

It looks like Spanish design solution, not sea-proven yet, is closer to the requirements than the current position in the tender shows. Enlenghten a submarine is a nightmare for submarine dynamics and can force severe design changes that are a very high risk of changes and therefore delays, cost issues and performance degradation. The Spanish design should have been solved those issues by the time S80 Plus dives for the first time (in two years from now as scheduled).
Apart from that Navantia is highly experienced in teaching experienced ahipbuilders to build first class Naval vessels and submarines, such as AWD (Australian Destroyers) or Indian Scorpene class, Program that has been strongly supported by Navantia not only in the design phase (roughly half of the submarine has been designed in Spain) but also in the building phase where Navantia has supported the manufacturing at Mumbai.
Obviously, Navantia has not the commercial and political power that other tenders have, but S80 Plus is a first class design to fit RNLN requirements.
Regards

MHalblaub said...

Hi everybody,

what safety and redundancy levels does the RNLN wants in case of two MTU diesel not being sufficient? German Type 212 runs on one diesel and we fly today on two jet engines over every ocean. Diesel engines are still more reliable than jet engines.

The submarines for RNLN are there to protect the people of the Netherlands and not the needs of some officers or who want jobs at Damen or workers at Damen. Spain, France and Germany can offer something Sweden can not that good: offset deals with military products. Maybe Germany is interested in one ore two Rotterdam-class ships.

Saab/Kockums did built good submarines at home but a good license build is something different. In case the Dutch could ask one nation with such experience.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Pete said...

Hi Señor "Spaniard"

As Spain - without help from a French partner company - has not independently launched a submarine for many years Spain has much work to do before it can compete.

How many years ago did Spain last design, launch and commission a submarine totally independently of France?

I understand the S-80 Plus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-80_Plus-class_submarine is years away from being launched AND it does not have a working AIP system.

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Hi MHalblaub

If the Netherlands customer wants 3 diesels the supplier must supply.

Also the optimum power output of 2 diesels would be below that of 3. Two diesels (compared to 3) ay be run at too high a rate on the long Netherlands-Carribean-Netherlands mission which may impact on reliability/maintenance.

Also there may be some scenarios when Netherland's submarines want to run at the full power of all 3 diesels for higher submarine speeds (in knots) than 2 diesels can achive.

In terms of jobs, would not mainly German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTU_Friedrichshafen be happier to sell the Netherlands 3 MTUs per submarine rather than just 2?

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

my point was just some officers or may just one officer of Royal Netherlands Navy seems to want 3 Diesel engines aboard just because they had experience with French engines for a time.

What the Netherlands want is not for sure right now. There is even a discussion about size and numbers. So maybe 12 engines for 4 bigger submarines or 12 engines for 6 smaller ones? I can imagine Type 212CD to have a decent and reliable price. I still think more smaller submarines located close to the action are faster than even a few big ones stationed somewhere.

The offer by Saab-Damen for a non-A26 submarine is very risky. Even the S-80 Plus must be considered less risky. A26 maybe ready in 2025 for Swedish Navy but not a bigger version. On the other side TKMS is already building a three engine submarine for Israel's Navy. Two of these 2,000 t + (surfaced) submarines are already in service. One is nearly ready and 3 more are expected. - I still have doubts about the real configuration of Dolphin-II-class except of displacement and big torpedo tubes. -

The big question is, what does the Netherlands want to do with their army? The question is not, what submarine some officers would like more.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Time expression of diesel load of hypothetic Walrus with 2diesels (case 1),Walrus with 3diesels (case 2) and Type 212A with 1diesel (case 3) was roughly compared.

Diesel load increased case 1 > case 2 >> case 3 = 60:40:1. For long range mission, damage in 3 diesels system is 33% lower than 2 diesel systems, and 1 diesel system is unacceptable. On the contrary, Type 212A will show extremely low damage in the Baltic Sea, but, it should not be used for long range mission.

These results show transport of 212A by cargo ship to Somali and requirement of 3 diesels for post Walrus are both reasonable, and one diesel system will be never applied for 212CD.



Case1 (mission by hypothetic Walrus with 2diesels)
Round transit (distance 7000km x 2) from Netherlands to the Caribbean Sea at 8knot/h (using one diesel with mechanical output of 300kW) and 50days-patrol at 3knot/h and 1.5hour snorkeling (using 3 diesels with full mechanical output of 1050kW x 2).

Operation time per diesel at round transit, 7000km x 2/(1.852km/knot x 8knot/h x 2) = 472h(a).
If damage of diesel is proportional to square of mechanical output.
D is equivalent to full power (1050kW) operation period, 472h x (300/1050) x (300/1050) = 38.6h(b)
Full power operation period, 1.5h x 50= 75h(c)
Total full power operation period per diesel(d) = (b)+(c) =113.5h

Case2 (mission by actual Walrus with 3diesels)
Round transit (distance 7000km x 2) from Netherlands to the Caribbean Sea at 8knot/h (using one diesel with mechanical output of 300kW) and 50days-patrol at 3knot/h and 1hour snorkeling (using 3 diesels with full mechanical output of 1050kW x 3).

Operation time per diesel at round transit, 7000km x 2/(1.852km/knot x 8knot/h x 3) = 315h(f).
If damage of diesel is proportional to square of mechanical output.
A is equivalent to full power (1050kW) operation period, 315h x (300/1050) x (300/1050) = 25.7h(g)
Full power operation period, 1h x 50= 50h(h)
Total full power operation period per diesel (i)=(g)+(h) =75.7h

Case3 (mission by Type 212A with 1diese)
Round transit (distance 500km x 2) from Kiel to center of the Baltic Sea at 8knot/h (using one diesel with mechanical output of 200kW) and 14days-patrol at 3knot/h without snorkeling.

Operation time per diesel at round transit, 500km x 2/(1.852km/knot x 8knot/h) = 67.5h(j).
(j) is equivalent to full power (1200kW) operation period, 67.5h x (200/1200) x (200/1200) = 1.875h(k)

Comparison of cases 1, 2 and 3 =(d):(i):(k)=60 : 40 : 1

Mechanical output at 3knot/h was estimated from data of Soryu (propulsion input at 4knot/h, hotel load, displacement, speed being proportional to square of output at low speed) and submarines (displacement).

Regards

Pete said...

Hi MHalblaub [your October 18] and Anonymous [your October 19]

From all this I make generalisations that:

- the longer the mission, the larger the submarine require hence the more diesels required. This is because .

The longer the mission, the larger the submarine

A. because more diesel fuel must be carried

B. longer distances between repair facilities requiring more diesels engines for redundancy/reliability engines and more spare parts carried

C. More diesel engines to propel larger submarines

D. the longer the missions the greater the periods/distances between ammunition reloads measured in more heavy weight munitions (torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, land attack missiles, mines and UUVs)

E. longer missions-larger submarines to carry greater crew numbers for more watches/shifts to avoid exhaustions and to compensate for illness of some crew.

So short mission 212A - 1 diesel

Medium km mission Soryu - 2 diesels

Long mission (many days on station for nuclear deterrence) Dolphin 2 - 3 diesels

Long mission Walrus - 3 diesels

Long mission Collins - 3 diesels

Very long mission Attack class (against China coast) - 4 or 5 diesels

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) will be applied for propulsion motor to reduce power for propulsion [1, 2]. JEUMONT Electric and Siemens (PERMASYN) both manufacture PMSM, i.e., MAGTRONIC and PERMAYN, respectively. Structure of MAGTRONIC and PERMAYN are perfectly different. While MAGTRONIC is presumably consisted of two armatures [3], PERMASYN currently has one armature. From the viewpoint of redundancy, PMSM with two armatures or tandem combination of PMSM [4] with one armature is desirable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armature_(electrical)
[2]According to Toshiba, PMSM reduced power consumption of 50% . In my calculation by using data of Victoria-class (DC motor) and Soryu (PMSM), nearly same result was obtained.
[3] One armature is used at low speed range, and two armatures are used at middle and high speed ranges. Even if one armature is failed, another armature can be used.
[4] Siemens seems to be developing tandem PERMASYN.

Regards

Pete said...

COMMENT REPEATED HERE FOR REFERENCE

Hi /Kjell [at December 10, 2019 at 5:26 AM]

Thanks for "Cabinet Postpones Choice of Submarine Builder" at https://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/208088/dutch-cabinet-postpones-decision-on-new-submarines-to-2021.html

I think the Netherlands prudent decision to life extension overhaul its 4 Walrus subs by 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus-class_submarine#Upgrade_program has allowed this delay in decision making till 2021.

Dutch prudence also means the risky choice of (not even [yet completed] for Spanish Navy) Navantia S-20s is out.

The article https://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/208088/dutch-cabinet-postpones-decision-on-new-submarines-to-2021.html ties in closely with SubMatt's https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/10/dutch-navy-document-clarifies-dutch.html of October 11, 2019.

Regards

Pete

originally posted December 10, 2019 at 8:45 AM"