The June 1, 2018 Damen-Saab Netherlands submarine replacement design details via Dutch site De Telegraaf (then via other Dutch sites and English language sites) seems to be old news, little changed from 2015. It appears to be Damen-Saab advertising for just one of the Netherlands Walrus replacement submarine possibilities.
The Netherlands government and commercial entities have had ongoing talks with competing submarine builders over the last few years on possibilites for the Walrus replacement. These include:
- TKMS (perhaps offering an enlarged Type 209, 212 or 214)
- Naval Group (enlarged Scorpene or small Shortfin) and
- Navantia, as the S-80 Plus (also at) will already displace 3,300 tonnes it may not need a size
adjustment for the Netherlands).
The Netherlands has been actually mid-life overhauling/upgrading its current four Walrus class submarines to continue operating through the mid to late 2020s. So replacement submarines, from any of the four competitors, might only be launched from 2029 onwards.
Submarines Matters has recorded Netherlands-Swedish discussions since 2015. See
"Sweden and the Netherlands Replacement Submarine Needs, February 19, 2015"
"Saab-Damen Agreement
Since mid-late
January 2015 there have been several
reports that Saab and Dutch shipbuilder Damen Shipyards Group have signed
an exclusive teaming agreement. This is to:
- explore future opportunities in the international submarine
market including bidding jointly on submarine procurement programmes, and
- explore development of a potential Walrus-class submarine
replacement for the Netherlands.
...Possible Swedish Role
While Sweden is building its own two A26s Sweden might build the two to four Walrus replacements or at least supply the components for assembly in the Netherlands.
Sweden's 3 Gotland Class
submarines (launched 1995-96) need replacing by 2025 and 2 Sodermanland
class (relaunched 2003) for replacement by 2035(?).
Some extra issues/questions are:
...4. Would there be some technical, industrial and political
overlap in the Walrus-class submarine replacement and development and
construction of Sweden's future submarine A26?
5. Would the Netherlands find only 2 Walrus replacement submarines an effective number, given the "rule" of three and usefulness to the US alliance experience with the 4 Walruses.
6. Could the Netherlands continue to justify unusually large SSKs or scale down to the usual European country own use maximum of around 1,900 tons surfaced?"
and in 2017
Dutch Submarine Talks With TKMS & Kockums, not with DCNS, March 2, 2017
"...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..."
It is also old news that Saab is developing a diver swim out/UUV launch "Multimission Portal" horizontal tube in the torpedo tube room.
See Saab Website "Story" of 21 April 2015:
"[Multimission Portal] Saab's A26 design includes a
new innovative 6m x 1.5m Multimission Portal flexible payload capability with a
lock system in addition to its conventional torpedo tubes. The lock system
makes it easy for commandos to enter and exit the boat, and is large enough to
allow the launch and retrieval of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles."
Note the diver swimout Multimission Portal tube at the bow of the above Saab A26 design. This Saab design artwork was in a Saab "Story" dated 21 April 2015. So the June 2018 Saab-Damen news announcements contain little new.
---
Like the glacial paced Australian Future Submarine program the Netherlands Walrus Submarine replacement may well take a decade till launch.
Pete
5 comments:
The Dutch next generation of submarines will be again fully oceangoing and crossing the atlantic to the Dutch Caribean solely. Also sustaining arctic conditions. Keep in mind the Walruses are in high demand by NATO when German and Britisch subs are kept in harbor for technical issues. These subs can dive deep and evenso preying silent on short distances to enemy navies in shallow waters by it's excellent trim skills. Not an easy class of sub to succeed. Definately not by of the shelve designs.
All offers will be around 2600 and 3000+ tons submerged to accomodate the sailors for long duration of time. The demand is for 4 new built submarines, not 2 or 3.
The offer from Saab & Damen is aiming for 2900 ton, 8 meters diameter and 73 meters long. The Telegraaf article was highly promotional for Dutch industry involvement, got some traction under naval enthousiasts, but this is not a must.
The Swedish A26 is a lot shorter and smaller in diameter, wich concludes us as definately another class of ship. Mainly for the Baltic Sea. Shorter duration at sea and maybe less divingdepth. Ofcourse there will be technical commonality with the Dutch A26 Oceanic Extended version.
The French study from Naval Group (DCNS) called SMX3.0 will also be 3000 tons submerged. We can expect this study is aimed for high demanding navies like The Netherlands. Basically an even more shortened version of the shortfin-Barracuda lineage. Naval Group also offers Dutch industry involvement. Though it's at this moment a paperstudy, this is serious competition for the Dutch-Swedish industry team-up.
Big difference between the Australian Shortfin-Barracuda compared to the Dutch: Australia asked for high transit speeds. I haven't heard anything like that on the Dutch proces. Making is cheaper and less headaches on propulsion & sonar technology.
TKMS (formerly HDW) is in cooperstion with the Norwegian defense company Kongsberg working on a new Type 212CD submarine. But the first indications give it stays at 1900 tons submerged. Larger than the Type 212, but not large enough for 6 weeks of operation without resupply. We can expect TKMS will come up with a shortened Type 216, let's say "Type 215". But can TKMS design and develop two different high-end submarines at the same time?
There was a bilateral talk between Dutch and German admirals. Be we don't know exactly what kind of cooperation they talked about. Most likely possible explanation is it was about surface fleets, these talks are frequent. But it can also be schooling submariners, intelligence share or commonality in sensor systems. If Germany was trying pleasing the Dutch with secundary sweeteners in the proces of submarine acquisition, cheating is not appreciated in Dutch defense politics.
The Spanish S-80 is a derivative of a French blueprint and had some troublesome first years. Probably good equipped sensorsuite and combat systems, but not seen as a succesful product.
SAAB-Damen's chances of securing the Dutch submarine contract just got a whole lot bigger :
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/shipbuilders-union-calls-on-thyssenkrupp-to-keep-naval-division
As did TKMS' chances of losing the Norwegian deal... , if the German Navy will have to forego the acquisition of the type 212CD due to a lack of money, i doubt Norway will proceed with the project on its own.
By the way...there is some news on the Saab Damen offer :
https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Details-voorstel-Saab-Damen-nieuwe-Nederlandse-onderzeeboot-010618.html
This would be a much more interesting SSK+AIP design
http://www.hisutton.com/USN_Submarine_Concept.html
The only thing I would change is the pump jet since you are crawling along near the seabed floor, you will not be doing 10 knots anyway.
KQN
Pete,
Haven't heard from you for a while. Are you OK?
Post a Comment