December 6, 2022

Walrus Replacement Process: Excellent Description

Giving great insights into Dutch politics “Locum” made very interesting comments on the Walrus Replacement Process, on December 5, 2022 at 8:12 AM and 8:13 AMas follows.

"Das Boot, Which Boat?

[Which submarine type may replace the Netherland’s 4 Walrus-class submarines?]

The 73 meter long TKMS Type 212CD submerged tonnage is 3,200 (metric) tonnes. While the 80+ meter long Type 212CD E’s submerged displacement is 3,500 tonnes.

The prototype and launching customer for the Type 212CD E is the [Israeli] 'Dolphin 3' / Dakar-class

The English Wikipedia page of the Dutch Walrus class states incorrectly that TKMS is offering the future "Type 212CD". In fact TKMS is offering the larger Type 212CD E derivative that has 80 - 90 % commonality with the Type 212CD. (For comparison: the French Tigre helicopter and Aussie Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) have a commonality of 80 %). The 212CD E [offered to] 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. This is because since WW2 the Dutch navy have been cooperating with the UK Royal Navy's submarine service. However, the sensor equipment has a significant impact on the overall submarine design. Therefore the integration of the Thales 2076 into, for example the Type 212CD E or the Shortfin Barracuda, would be [excessively expensive]. So the Dutch navy dropped the Thales 2076 requirement for the Walrus replacement.

Politics & Industrial Participation

The Walrus wiki page is correct about 2 conflicting groups. One group, the Dutch navy and Netherlands industry, want a Walrus 2.0 [as large and capable as the existing Walrus subs]. So the Dutch navy has the most freedom to fulfil 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 [this would be a smaller typical Eurosub, perhaps only 2,200 tonnes submerged].

Wiki is incorrect, in stating that the Walrus replacement process started in “November 2014”. The then Dutch Secretary of Defense Ms Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert had already signed in the first half of 2013 a Memoranda of Understanding with Norway and Germany regarding close submarine development (then called Type 212 NG [Next Generation]). The planned in-service date for the first Walrus replacement was, at that stage, envisaged to be 2025.

January 2015. Damen Schelde and Saab-Kockums signed a deal to design a Walrus replacement together. (Saab-Kockums offered the Type 712 or C71 a purely Swedish design [based on the future A26].) The reason for this is that the Netherlands had already lost the [indigenous capability to design and build submarines 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, which translates as Rotterdam Drydock Society) managed to survive until 2004. After that, the Dutch lost at least 20% of their submarine building knowledge.

The then SecDef Jeanine Hennis was certainly not pleased with this Damen-Saab  cooperation. Because it made her choice for the winning shipyard more difficult. However, this Damen-Saab cooperation was backed by the Dutch navy and Dutch industry.

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 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 Minister) became involved. Five departments with often conflicting political agendas.

So a 'sounding board' (klankbord) [committee] for the Walrus replacement was set up. This small group, included a former Air Force general and a former Shell Oil CEO, but had no (former) Dutch navy official. Their conclusion: was an options list for the Walrus-replacement:

1. [large] expeditionary subs,
2. [smaller] 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. [But] the Dutch navy had already, in 2012-2013, expressed their general requirements for an expeditionary Walrus-replacement, in a crystal clear and public way.

2017. The SecDef, 'just to make this process easier' [not], added Navantia and DCNS (now Naval Group) to the shortlist.

2018 - 2019. The Walrus-replacement process was delayed again by approx 1 year. Because politicians wanted to secure the Dutch industrial participation in the Walrus-replacement process.

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-80 Plus-class 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 Walrus-replacement process was delayed again, because the Dutch General Accountability Office (Algemene Rekenkamer) wanted an audit.

In this audit , the same questions were asked again, questions same as those asked by the "sounding board (klankbord)" of 2015 / 2016.

December 2021. The current 'purple' (joint DoD wide) Dutch Defense Materiel Organisation (DMO) is smaller than the former 'blue only' Directorate Materiel Royal Dutch Navy. This DMO lacks the capacity and capability to do this dialogue with 3-4 shipyards at the same time. Because the Dutch have still made no choice for a shipyard. Their Request for Proposals had to be vague, in order not to give away classified specifications to third parties. And the shipyards 'kept their cards close to their chests' too.

This made the dialogue phase ineffective and it 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 Walrus-replacement boats enter service between 2034 - 2037.

Locum"

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

„The prototype and launching customer for the Type 212CD E is the [Israeli] 'Dolphin 3' / Dakar-class.“
This is incorrect information. Not too many similarities there.

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous @Dec 7, 2022, 7:28:00 AM

It is possible the TKMS Dakar/Dolphin 3s will be a variant (say 70%? commonality with baseline (if any) Type 212CD E). The Dakars may be unique in their Popeye Turbo SLCM launch modes - be they via possible VLS tubes in the sail or at least 4 × 650mm torpedo tubes (like the Dolphins 1 and 2) likely for the Popeyes. This is with the future CD Es and Dakar designs both being more than 80m long.

The most authoritative information on the future Dakars may have been put together by Oleg7700, from Israel, reported on February 3, 2022 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/02/diamond-hull-patent-dolpin-3-type-212cd.html see:

[2] ...."With a length of more than 80 meters the new [Dakar/Dolphin 3s] will be the largest submarines ever built in Germany."

At https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/02/diamond-hull-patent-dolpin-3-type-212cd.html section [3] the tonnages are a bit more ambiguous.

Can you provide more details about the future Dakars?

Regards Pete

Anonymous said...

A large boat having the role of à SSBN (w/o the the N ) as the SK or Israeli vision (close to parking!) is not an « oceanic » sub,probably not
An oceanic sub is not a larger sub with extra fuel food..it has to accomodate huge differences in buoyancy (40/50T for the walrus ?always tricky as Navantia experienced with the initial S80 that could not surface a any more)
She has to sail much faster,much farther away (L/D high),her navigation systems are more sophisticated (INS in particular )as well as her sensors

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous @Dec 7, 2022, 9:06:00 PM

I suspect you know more than you admit.

Could it be the Israeli Dakars/Dolphin 3s will have larger than usual AIP chemical and diesel storage to cruise at 4knots (say) 200km from their Haifa Base so their Popeye Turbos remain in range of Tehran? With 2 Dolphin 1 and/or 2s always at sea on Popeye Turbo launch readiness.

Meanwhile TKMS Type CD E's being offered to the Dutch may have smaller or no AIP facilities as they have much longer range missions, to the Caribbean, Mediterranean or Arabian seas?

Regards Pete

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anon before. A large boat for different purposes will differ significantly in the systems and selected components.
Demands on speed, range, underwater endurance, indiscretion rate etc. for example influence the propulsion plant's layout, size, cost, development risk. Lots of compromises to be made.
I could imagine the above named navies have different demands in this regard and many others, too.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

I'm sure you'll be largely tuning out until NY - many happy returns, etc!

I thought I'd just add a late + parting comment on sonar 2076 and my hobby-horse of power consumption on non-nuke boats: Wiki says 2076 has "...processing power of c. 60 000 home PC's...". Thats a pretty casual figure I'm sure, but lets works with it for a moment. The first key point here is this is just "processing", not amplification and other audio drivers. We could argue for any typical power consumption of a home PC from 20W to 200W, but whatever figure you choose, that means processing ALONE (aside from all that awesome amplification we have discussed) will come out at an eye-watering power draw.

Ergo, my flippant theory is that the Dutch balked at the power draw of 2076 as much as the physical build complexities: I doubt any non-nuke boat could drive that disco rig long enough to play an Abba album, let alone trawl broadband across the Atlantic...not unless you want to snorkel every time you flip the record over.

C

Pete said...

Hi C @ Dec 20, 2022, 5:06:00 PM

I thought of an extra Hotel load item making the Dutch reject Sonar 2076.

That extra something is air circulation/air conditioning to cool down all this electrical/electronic activity.

All these Hotel Load activities mean SSKs are limited in what they can handle – pointing to the advantages of much higher SSN power availability – hence greater capabilities for Australia’s future SSNs.

Bye for now. Hope you have a good break over Christmas and New Years Day

Cheers Pete

Anonymous said...

Absolutely! In one of my prior comments I noted that processing is always a double-whammy for energy consumption in closed environment. Most of the worlds “normal” (IE not located in Lapland or some such place) data centres energy load is about 50% computing, 45% for cooling and 5% incidentals.

The corollary is also true, every watt in processing saved, is really almost 2W saved.


C