Submarine Matters has
been monitoring the Netherlands' Future Dutch Submarines (aka Walrus-class submarine replacement) process since 2015.
All credit to a (likely)
Dutchman (codename “Kevin”) and more recently non-Dutch /Kjell for describing
the Netherlands submarine needs and the replacement process. See this overview
of the process.
On November 16, 2022 Netherlands
Ministry of Defense Press Release (reproduced by Naval News) indicated:
Today, as previously discussed
with the House, the Ministry of Defense has [issued a Request for Quotations (RFQ)] for 4 new
submarines from 3 candidate shipyards. The candidate yards are Naval Group ,
Saab Kockums and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. They are expected to submit
their bids around the [northern summer - June to August] 2023.
Defense then needs a number of
months to analyse the detailed bids. Based on predetermined requirements and
award criteria, the Ministry of Defense decides which yard is allowed to build
the boats. One of the award criteria is the participation of Dutch companies in
the development, construction and maintenance of important systems of the boat.
Defense also wants as much Dutch involvement as possible to strengthen the
technological and industrial base. The winning yard must sign an agreement for
this with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy.”
++++++++++++
On November 27, 2022 /Kjell identified
the Naval News Youtubes, with the intrepid
Xavier Vavasseur, interviewing the 3 bidders and Dutch DMO to the extent
possible, including:
Naval Group - Around Nov 24, 2022 “Naval Group's Conventional Barracuda” 1:25 maybe pumpjet, benefitting from France’s Barracuda SSN [and maybe Attack-class SSK] programs. Mediterranean, Caribbean seas, Atlantic, Indian oceans, seabed capable. All quieting technologies included https://youtu.be/B3Agdn7_CJA
SAAB Damen - Around
Nov 24, 2022 “Saab C71 Submarine (based on A26)” Offering Multi-mission Portal,
UK Sonars offered. Can have modular extensions, Dutch technical/maintenance autonomy important. https://youtu.be/oaRwYfxRpJA
TKMS - Youtube around Nov 25, 2022 “Type 212CD E” ie. the 212 Common Design, Extended Range sufficient to transit Netherlands to Dutch Caribbean several weeks on station, then transit back. Maybe 3,200 tonnes submerged. At 1:40 what look like 10 vertical launch doors are apparent https://youtu.be/91OaZFdprTY
Dutch DMO Requirements - Youtube around Nov 23, 2022 “Dutch Naval Programs at NEDS 2022: Submarines” Dutch Admiral (Director Defense Materiel Organisation (DMO)) saying new subs will need to have all capabilities of the Walrus class [implicitly range, so same/more diesel fuel, so higher displacement likely] https://youtu.be/vj_oFLqsfww . Portion on subs is at 1:40 to 7:10.
++++++++++++
The Nov 16, 2022 Press Release was foreshadowed in an earlier, September 30, 2022 Netherlands Ministry of Defense Press Release https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2022/09/30/belangrijke-mijlpaal-vervanging-onderzeeboten-offerteaanvraag-gereed indicating ability to carry “long range missiles” is a requirement.
+++++++++++++
Pete Comment
It is unknown whether the
Dutch Navy requires Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) and/or AIP for the future subs.
Some past commenters have considered Naval Group and TKMS less likely winners
because the Dutch don’t like being dominated by these large neighbours. Then
again, having lost the Australian order Naval Group’s SSK Division might be very
hungry – thus maybe offering the lowest price. But who knows?!
16 comments:
Hi Pete
Problems in Attack-class submarine development (behind schedule, reduction in local procurement ratio and huge increase in cost) might adversely impact on Barracuda proposal. If Barracuda win and repeat the same problems, the Royal Netherlands Navy will have great difficulty to persuade taxpayers.
Regards
Hi Pete
Following the 3 presentations , emphasis is different ,and that's the various "message" I got
-Damen/Saab :"the best deal for NL taxpayers , Integration of Damen (half the talking..) and Saab.." .Features ,Sea bed vehicle,excellent UK sonar (Thales?)..
-TKMS: an enlarged version (for higher range probably) of the Nor/Ger latest CD212 (the" most modern technology") , stealth design .Dutch suppliers would be integrated in future TKMS orders ("soft"in my perception)
- Naval , a "truly oceanic sub (Carib, Indian, Med.) ultra silent, combat and weapon systems sensors..specifics..for the needs of the NL navy" .Vague on Dutch cooperation (ToT)..
To summarize my personnal perception of these Mktg messages
Damen: the Indusrial logic
Naval: the Product
TKMS : Not as clear
In my opinion TKMS could market the benefits of then four allied navies (Italy, Germany, Norway, Netherlands) having very similar, ideally identical, submarines. Training, mixed-crew operation, spares, through-life-innovations, you name it... Submarines are an expensive hobby. Better to use synergies with your friends.
SAAB submarine is equipped with Babcock VLS. Tomahawks are desirable. If cost and power supply requirements are satisfied, Sonar 2076 by Thales are also desirable.
@Anonymous Nov 29, 2022, 8:36:00 PM
The 212CD project has already a unofficial 3th country hows name shall not be spoken
The Rumour is that (Dutch) type 212 CD E Submarines will fall in between the standard 212 CD and that of the 3th country.
The economy of scale make this a very interesting option
Kevin
@Anomymous Nov 30, 2022, 11:22:00 AM
Its not clear if the VLS module is desirable for the C71 (Dutch A26)
The extra length can interfere with the literal operations of the submarine
We will see by summer
Kevin
SAAB has proactively introduced BABCOCK in its submarine presentations for Netherlands.
Hi Anonymous @Nov 28, 2022, 11:10:00 PM
I suspect (hope for the Netherlands sake :) that the problems besetting Australia's Attack-class deal will be avoided, because:
1. Naval Group (with the benefit of years of Attack-class design progress) have arrived at a more predictable, costed, conventional propulsion insides of a Barracuda hull
2. The ability to speak French (and broader cultural understanding) is much more developed in the Dutch than we Aussies.
3. The Netherlands has had more than 100 years of constructing many submarine types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Netherlands so should be better at picking and building them than Australia
and
4. The Dutch have alloted more years to seriously studying the competing bids than Australia's Federal electorally driven desperation to choose the Winner in April 2016 a few months before the Election https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2016/04/embattled-turnbull-government-possible.html
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous @Nov 29, 2022, 1:17:00 AM
Yes. It is difficult to choose between the publicly expressed words of the 3 bids.
Its all too close for me to call.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous @Nov 29, 2022, 8:36:00 PM and Welcome Back Kevin @Nov 30, 2022, 9:28:00 PM
I'm under the impression Italy has diverged from the German designed 212CD with the below 2,000 tonne(?) 212NFS design https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/10/type-212nfs-submarines-with-lithium-ion.html
Along with Type 212CDs for the German and Norwegian navies I'm guessing the Israeli Navy (with the future Dakar-class/Dolphin III) will be the third "allied nation" customer with a slightly larger 212CD design - see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/02/diamond-hull-patent-dolpin-3-type-212cd.html
I also suspect South Korea's KSS-III benefitted heavily from Germany's 20 year Type 212CD design effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSS-III_submarine . However, out of non-proliferation sensitivities (already experienced with the Dolphin Is and IIs) Germany/TKMS do not want to admit they helped design the KSS-III - an SSG that may one day carry nuclear tipped SLBMs.
Yes Kevin, I agree the 212CD's Economies of Scale with TKMS designing, selling and building 2,500+ tonne submarines, may make a 212CD E a very interesting option for the Netherlands.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymouses @Nov 30, 2022, 11:22:00 AM and @Dec 1, 2022, 3:20:00 PM
and again Welcome Back Kevin @Nov 30, 2022, 9:33:00 PM
Yes it might be of marginal value for the SAAB C71 submarine bid to offer VLS - maybe for the literal operations concern Kevin mentions. In all Current Conventional subs (except the KSS-III to my knowledge) any missile firing is through the horizontal torpedo tubes.
Also the KSS-III may sacrifice much submarine range in favour of carrying its 6 to 10 VLS tubes. But the Walrus-replacement can be expected to value submarine range more highly, especially in the missions to the Caribbean and back.
Regards Pete
Hi Pete
Two cents opinion!
We do not know exactly what are the Netherland Navy defense scenarii..
The integration of their national navy yard , Damen,("experienced in sub" ..20 years ago..)is probably critical economically but also for the maintenance/upgrade ect is obvious
However
-They need apparently to have oceanic capabilities to cover the carribean but also their Nato role inthe N Atlantic and the Mediterranean/Indian areas were they are the most reputable SSK operator.Sub needs to operate in tropical to artic water temperature. Long endurance
-Do they neeed VLS for SLBM (which missile?, which system ?for what?)
The SK and Israelis have developped their own missile (No tomahawk export authorized) as a substitute for SSBN for probably N deterrent (or future ) and in that context large VLS provide large diameter for extended range..For topical land attack Tomahawks, they have it already, (or MdCN fairly similar) launched from torpedo tubes is adequate ?
-Do they need to protect their coast in the N sea (very shallow, covered already by a multitude of sensors (including very modern sub robots used in mine hunting with modern sonars covering 20 km2/hr !) with subs ..?In front of the UK coast (Allied for hundreds of years)?Littoral sub ? for the baltic or the venezuelan coast?
-Stealth is interesting . As subs are now silent the only way to detect them is thru active sonar pulses..which has to be emitted closely..by dipped or robot Sonars...but close to the coasts,.( probabilities.!). Is stealth more relevant to littoral boats..? What are the compromise on the nautical performance?
-Delivering a vehicle or divers or robots close to critical infra (cable, pipe line ect)or for special forces action ,is probably a must
If our assumption are correct
Damen and SAAB are probably close..(while Damen producing a Barracuda would be even closer,
(relevant boat , wrong partner). TKMS is difficult to position(really oceanic ?, made in Germany not in Holland..Atlas/ Hensold , track record vs Thales (very significant in radars in Holland) or Safran or L3 Harris.. in sonars, optronic masts ,combat system, inertial nav.. ,ect?Howeever solid industrial story..
Thanks Anonymous @Dec 2, 2022, 9:22:00 AM
For yours views and questions.
Most should be clarified when the Dutch will likely choose the winner (maybe revealing many of the technical requirements) probably in 2024.
Regards Pete
Das Boot, Which Boat ? Part I
The 73 meter long Type 212CD submerged tonnage is 3.200 (metric) tonnes. While the 80+ meter long Type 212CD E submerged displacement is 3.500 tonnes.
The prototype and launching customer for the Type 212CD E is the ... 'Dolphin 3' / Dakar class.
The English Wikipedia page of the Dutch Walrus class states incorrectly that TKMS offers the Type 212CD. In fact TKMS offers a Type 212CD E derivative that has 80 - 90 % commonality with the Type 212CD E. For comparison: the French Tigre and Aussie ARH Tiger have a commonality of 80 %. The 212CD E for The Netherlands comes without the VLS. And the standard DM2A4 Sea Hake torpedo's will be swapped for the Mk 48.
Long range cruise missiles in the eventually Dutch 212CD E's will be launched via the torpedo tubes.
The Dutch navy originally specified the Thales 2076 sonar. Because since WW 2 they cooperate with the Royal Navy's submarine service. However, the sensors equipment has a significant inpact at the overall submarine design. Therefore the integration of the Thales 2076 into for example the Type 212CD E or Shortfin Barracuda will also cost considerably a lot. So the Dutch navy dropped this requirement.
Politics & industrial Participation.
The Walrus wiki page is correct about 2 conflicting groups. One group, the Dutch navy and NL industry wants a Walrus 2.0. So the Dutch navy has the most freedom to fullfil their requirements and the Dutch industrial participation will be maximal.
The other group wants to import a submarine, at the lowest possible costs and risks.
Wiki is incorrect, that the Walrus replacement process started in November 2014. The then Secretary of Defense Hennis signed already in the first half of 2013 Memoranda of Understanding with Norway and Germany regarding close submarine development (then Type 212 NG). The planned in service date for the first replacement-Walrus was 2025.
January 2015. Damen Schelde and Saab-Kockums signed a deal to design a Walrus replacement together. (In fact the offered Type 712 of C71 is a purely Swedish design.) The reason for this is that The Netherlands lost the capability for self creating submarines already in 1994. In 1994, the Dutch government decided not to replace the 2 Zwaardvis (Swordfish)class boats. Therefore the Dutch submarine service was cut form 6 to just 4 boats. The Dutch submarine manufacturer RDM (Rotterdam Droogdok Maatschappij, Rotterdam Drydock Society) managed to survive until 2004. After that, the Dutch lost at least 20 % of their submarine building knowledge.
The then SecDef Hennis was cerntainly not pleased by this Damen - Saab-Kockums cooperation. Because it made her choice for the winning shipyard more difficult. However, this cooperation was backed by the Dutch navy and Dutch industry.
Locum.
Consensus & compromise.
The Dutch Low Lands are mostly flat and have often a low sky of clouds. If you are sticking out your head with a great idea or achievement, it will be 'chopped off'.
And ten Dutchmen have 10 often conflicting opinions.
So in The Netherlands decisions are always taken when there is a consensus by compromise between these often conflicting groups / parties.
With no consensus in 2013 - 2015, first the decision for a new boat was delayed with 2 years. Not only the Department of Defense, but also the Department of Finance, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs, Dept. of Trade (Economic Affairs) and the Dept. of General Affairs (the prime mininster) became involved. Five departments with often conflicting political agenda's.
So a 'sounding board' (klankbord) replacement Walrus was set up. A small group, which included a former Air Force general and a former Shell Oil CEO, but had no (former) Dutch navy official. Their conclusion: a options list for the r-Walrus:
1. expeditionary boats, 2. homeland defense (coastal) boats, 3. unmanned / autonomous boats, and 4: no replacement at all.
Next step was an approx 1 year research period to set up a "future vision" for the Dutch submarine service. While the Dutch navy already in 2012 - 2013 expressed their general requirements for an expeditionary r-Walrus, in a crystal clear and public way.
2017. The SecDef, 'just to make this process easier', added Navantia and DCNS, now Naval Group, to the shortlist.
2018 - 2019. The r-Walrus process was delayed again by approx 1 year. Because politicians wanted to secure the Dutch industrial participation in the r-Walrus.
The resulting Defense Industry Strategy (DIS), was in fact '20 year old wine in new bags'.
December 2019, Navantia was chucked out, the afterwards given reason was that the S-80plus boat did not offer enough functionality. The Acquisition phase was started with the dialogue sub-phase by submitting the third (!) Request For Information to Saab-Kockums, TKMS and the Naval Group.
In the spring of 2020, the r-Walrus process was delayed again, because the Dutch General Accountability Office (Algemene Rekenkamer) wanted an audit.
In this audit , the same questions are asked again, as in the "sounding board (klankbord) of 2015 / 2016.
December 2021. The current 'purple' (DodD wide)Dutch Defense Materiel Organisation (DMO) is smaller than the former 'blue only' Directorate Materiel Royal Dutch Navy. This DMO lackes the capacity and capability to do this dialogue with 3-4 shipyards at the same time. Because the Dutch still made no choice for a shipyard. Their Request for Proposals had to be vague, in order not to give away classsified specifications to third parties. And the shipyards 'kept their cards against their chests' too.
This made the dialogue phase in-effective and was stopped at the end of 2021.
The process was made faster and simpler, by setting up a Request For Quotations, which were sent at November 16 2022.
The 3 shipyards need approx 6 - 9 months to set up their quotations. The Dutch DoD expects that the winner will be announced at the end of 2023. The Dutch DoD demands that the time from building to commissioning takes a maximum of 10 years.
The current plan is that the first 2 r-Walrus boats enter service between 2034 - 2037.
Locum.
Thanks Locum
For your Dec 5, 2022, 8:12:00 AM and Dec 5, 2022, 8:13:00 AM comments
I've turned them into article "Walrus Replacement Process: Excellent Description" of December 6, 2022
at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/12/walrus-replacement-process-excellent.html
Regards Pete
Post a Comment