Netherlands Undecided How Fast it Needs New Submarines

One of the Netherlands four large conventional Walrus class submarines that need to be replaced.

---

The main islands (Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire) of the Dutch Caribbean are an ocean away from the Netherlands, but uncomfortably close to Venezuela. The constant long range blue-water responsibilities of the Netherlands' submarines mean they need to be larger than usual Western European conventional subs.

---

The Netherlands is running a replacement process for its four large Walrus class submarines with the aim to have the first new submarine operating by 2024-25. The Netherlands again wants large subs due to its commitments to the islands of the Dutch Caribbean and other long range tasks. It has quiet intelligence gathering commitments in the Indian Ocean area which includes (at a better known level) anti-piracy. 

At Comments in http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/sweden-and-netherlands-replacement.html Kevin provided some interesting insights into the Netherlands’ needs. The Dutch have with the Walrus class a unique position within NATO. The Walrus is the only sub in NATO capable of both littoral operations and long range ocean patrols. The Walrus replacement must be in the 2500 to 4000 ton range, depending on the company designing the sub.

The Dutch rekenkamer (general Audit committee) have released a devastating June 2015 report on the state of the Dutch subs (and the military in general). Most of the equipment of the Walrus is not supported anymore and spares cannot be bought from the suppliers, putting into doubt operation of the Walrus out to 2024.

In the Walrus replacement process the Netherlands has been talking to Sweden, Norway and Germany. 

It is well established that SAAB-Kockums seeks to design and perhaps build the four relacements. SAAB in January 2015 announced an "exclusive teaming agreement" with Dutch shipbuilder Damen. That is the reason why Damen shipyards is talking to SAAB/Kockums. Damen only has experience in maintaining subs not building them. The Netherlands would need to build any large Swedish designed sub not SAAB-Kockums. SAAB/Kockums need to reconstruct Sweden’s submarine building industry but the Dutch cannot wait for such rebuilding if the Walrus replacements are to be ready from 2024-25. The SAAB - Damen corporate alliance does not prevent the Dutch government from selecting another design such as the Type 216 [or Shortfin Barracuda?].

Another plan is (or was) to build the new subs domestically in partnership with Norway. Yes Norway !  see “While the [Dutch] MoD is currently exploring a variety of options it sees Norway as a potential partner for co-developing and building submarines.” This is even though Norway would probably be seeking a much smaller sub. An immediate problem of a Dutch-Norwgian alliance is that the company that built the Walrus class no longer exists and Norway has never built subs. 

Another alternative is buying the German Type 216 design and building 216s in Dutch Damen shipyards. Kevin believes “The Type 216 can be operational in 2020”. Kevin indicated “It will be more logical if a German design will be selected. The German subs will at the end of 2015 be under Dutch Command [presumable this is under NATOs ComSubNATO arrangements?]. It will be more cost effective if the logistics of the 2 countries are the same.” 

EU guidelines prevent the Dutch government from buying military equipment outside the EU, (the exception are items that cannot be bought in the EU like fifth generation fighters). So buying Japanese subs to replace the Walrus subs is not an option for the Netherlands.

WHY A LARGE SUBMARINES? - STRATEGIC NEEDS

Since becoming operational in 1992 Walrus subs have had long range responsibilities to support Dutch and broader NATO objectives in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. It is known for the past few years that Walrus subs operate near the Somalian coast for NATO anti-piracy duties and in the Caribbean for the gathering intelligence on drug smuggling. According to wikipedia following the Cold War, the subs have been tasked for many highly confidential intelligence gathering operations in the Yugoslavian region, Iran and Iraq on request of NATO Allies, including the US.

A more specific objective for Walrus subs has been deterring Venezuela's claim to Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire islands of the Dutch Caribbean. Former president Hugo Chávez of Venezuela threatened in the early 2000s to invade these islands - a threat countered by Dutch and US warships. For the last decade a Dutch warship is always present in the Caribbean and a Dutch forces equivalent to a battalion are stationed on the islands of Aruba and Curacao as a deterrent. 

The decision on the Walrus replacement may occur in September 2015. 

Please connect with Submarine Matters:
-  Sweden and the Netherlands Replacement Submarine Needs, February 19, 2015

Pete

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 AM, as 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"

Option of TKMS for Dutch Walrus Submarine Replacement Program

The Dutch Government has a Walrus Replacement Program calling for at least 4 medium-large conventional diesel-electric submarines for launch in the mid-late 2020s.

On October 9, 2018 Anonymous examined technical issues for a Saab A26 concept meeting the Walrus Replacement requirement. 

Now Anonymous, in comments from October 21-23 2018, is looking at technical details involved with Germany’s TKMS meeting the Walrus Replacement requirement.

Drawing from those comments Walrus replacement concept could be a very large version of the TKMS 212A/CD, 214 or non-AIP 209. Assuming the South Korean 3,000 ton KSS3 is based on a TKMS design (lets call it a TKMS Type 3000). A 2,900 ton (submerged) Walrus replacement could also be a Type 3000.

Within the 2,650 ton (submerged) current Walrus class’s double hull structure (light & pressure hulls) there are 3 x MAN Diesel & Turbo owned SEMT Pielstick 12 PA4 V 200 SM [1] diesels (width ca.1470mm, not 12 PA4 200 SMDS) could be installed in parallel. Distances (ca.400mm) between diesel-diesel and diesel-pressure hull are small (ca.400mm).

In the Walrus replacement concept, 3 x 12 PA4 V 200 SMSD diesels could be installed in parallel, but the separation distances could be somewhat greater (ca.600mm). These latter diesels could be more powerful to propel a larger 2,900 tons submerged Walrus replacement [and/or charge Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) more quickly]. As result of these exchange of diesels, Walrus-concept becomes more powerful. See Appendices [1], [2], [3] and [4] below.

MAN Diesel & Turbo or SEMT Pielstick (now operate as a brand by MAN Diesel & Turbo) has the following three generators which are sometimes confused. Correct data are as follows:

-  8 PA4 V 200 SM, cylinder bore 200mm, V8, single supercharger (mechanical output 700kW). A26; (2 starboard + 1 port) x 8 PA4 V 200 SM (2,100kW)

-  12 PA4 V 200 SM, cylinder bore 200mm, V12, single supercharger (1,060kW).  Walrus-class; 3 parallel x 12 PA V 200 SM (3,180kW)

-  12 PA4 V 200 SMDS, cylinder bore 200mm, V12, single supercharger + single turbocharger (1330kW), Walrus -concept; 3 parallel x 12 PA V200 SMDS (3,990kW)

  

The next Dutch submarine will need much space to accommodate some female crew, for additional quieting measures and additional weapons spaces (possibly for anti-ship missiles, land attack missiles and UUVs, etc). 

A double hull structure may be required for the stern drive sections (see red/blue in the 212A diagram above). This is if the Walrus replacement is an enlarged Type 212A/CD, 214 or 3000 equipped with LOx cylinders (diameter ca.1.7m) outside the pressure hull. To fit these cylinders the outer diameter of pressure hull in the drive sections would be considerably smaller (diameter ca.5.6m) than the 212s beam (of 6.8m) and would be an inefficient use of space. Also, the strength of pressure hull material for the 212A/CD is not high.

The Walrus replacement would need floating decks to insulate/isolate vibrations thereby reducing noise effectively, but, are not in 212A/CD or 214s. Floating decks also mitigate shock from outside thereby protecting equipment and crew. Floating deck are used in US nuclear submarines and already in the Stirling generator section of (LABs + AIP) Soryus.  Floating decks will also feature in the future Japanese Soryu with LIBs 29SS (to be launched in 2 to 4 years).

TKMS fuel cell AIP is more efficient than combustion type Stirling AIP. But fuel cell AIP, owing to its use of hydrogen is less safe than Stirling. For fuel cell hydrogen containers are placed out side the pressure hull (see red O2 Tanks and H2 Storage in diagram above). Meanwhile the Kawasaki Stirling AIP, licensed by Kockum’s Stirling, for use in LABs + AIP Stirlings, are very expensive.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus-class_submarine

3 diesels, diesel-electric, 5,430 shp (4 MW): They confuse 12 PA4 V 200 SM (right) with 12 PA4 V 200 SMDS (wrong)

[2] Electrical output = 0.8 x mechanical output

[3] https://marine.man-es.com/docs/default-source/shopwaredocuments/pa4-sm-smdsfba3ca1740b144429518d4e002fd7d6f.pdf?sfvrsn=6f128e3a_3

[4] Some discussion of a TKMS option

 https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/03/23/emerging-german-dutch-naval-tie-up-has-industry-abuzz/

Pete Comment

The Netherlands may not use any AIP (fuel cell or Stirling) due to the Walrus' replacement need to travel long distance missions (maybe 8,000nm) from the Netherlands to the Dutch Caribbean and back. This is similar to Australia’s and Japan’s long transit missions making AIP inefficient (especially with high weight and imbalances of LOX tanks). Thus Australia in the 1970s and Japan now have decided against future placing of AIP in their submarines.

But Japan is obviously attracted to the submerged range and speed advantages of LIBs. TKMS and Naval Group are also marketing the advantages of their LIB solutions. See discussion of this tomorrow. 

TKMS corporate ownership changes/problems may be of concern to the Dutch government. Hence this may favour the A26 solution raised by a SAAB-Damen consortium or Naval Group.

Anonymous and Pete

Political Concerns of the Walrus Replacement Program

On February 8, 2021 the inexhaustible Locum commented:

"Many talk the Talk, but when start, do they walk the Walk?

The official Walrus replacement process started at the beginning of 2013. With the Netherlands signing a MoU about submarine cooperation with Norway and Germany. 

In this process there are two sides. One side wants to import a cheap MOTS submarine from abroad. The other side [the Navy and Ministry of Defense] wants a Walrus 2.0.  

The cheap MOTS side, consists of politicians and civil servants who differ greatly from the Defense Ministry’s Walrus 2.0 aspiration. The “cheap MOTS side” are afraid of a repeat of the Walrus troubles. [Pete comment see "The purchase of today's submarines, the Walrus class, was a headache." at marineschepen March 15, 2013 ] 

In the 1980s, politicians decided to save a large shipyard consortium (RSV) by speeding up the Walrus design phase. [RSV collapsed in 1983.] Then, the same happened during the "JSF" [F-35A?] System Development & Demonstration phase. The construction had already started, but many drawings were not ready or had not been made at all.

During the development, the specifications also changed because of the increasing Soviet submarine threat. Costs skyrocketed while time milestones were missed. The Navy’s leadership made the mistake of not reporting this to the politicians. The Walrus (troubling) affair was born. [Pete comment: see “Construction: complex, full of delays and problems” at this other marineschepen article].

There are not only 2 sides with totally different views about the Walrus replacement. Other Departments interfere in this project too. In this kind of large defense project there are financial, economical (trade & jobs), industrial and Foreign Affairs aspects too. Unfortunately, the Ministries of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Trade, Internal Affairs and the Prime Minister himself, all fit the expression “Too many cooks in the Kitchen”. [Also reported in this previous SubMatts article.] All those Ministries have opposing views about the Walrus successor. 

Our Netherlands economy depends a lot at international trade and has an open character.

So the foreign relations aspects are important for the Netherlands. Two contenders (Naval Group and TKMS) are from the most powerful EU members. This plays a significant role in the choice of the new sub.

All those factors have made the Walrus replacement a highly politically sensitive matter.

According to the current time schedule, in:

2021, the decision will be made for the Staff Requirements, design and shipyard.

2022 the contract will be signed in [Pete comment: Finally? :-]. 

2023 or 2024 the start of construction will begin. 

2027 the Walrus replacement must be delivered to the Dutch Navy, and 

2028 enter service. 

Well, that's a challenge !

Many experts, insiders and other interested people in The Netherlands are following the Naval Group designed for Australia Attack class project. [See here and here.]

Many Dutch do not like the French and do not favour the shortened Barracuda version.

Why? because the Dutch see the French as too dominant, too selfish and unreliable.

According to the Dutch General Accountability Office (Algemene Rekenkamer) one of the 3 contenders is too expensive for the Dutch budget. But this candidate is also the best performing one. Many Dutch suspect that this is the shortened Barracuda. 

[Pete comment. See the relevant Dutch General Accountability Office's "Report on the Replacement of the Submarines" here of 10 December 2020, which, once translated, states: “According to the [Minister of Defense], a better design that could handle all tasks with 3 pieces would be rejected due to excessive costs.”] 

Because political factors play the main role in this project. There is a realistic chance that the Walrus replacement ends up 'a train-wreck'. In other words: they get, what they don't need.

Locum
___________________________________

Artwork from Dutch General Accountability Office's "Report on the Replacement of the Submarines" 10 December 2020, here. Looking at the words and pictures translated by Pete, to the effect:
---

Major Costs Investigated

4 Submarines

Including Anti-ship missiles

Land attack missiles

Torpedos

Submarine midlife update

Support ship

Additional Costs

Equipment and Fuel

Personnel Costs

Repairs and maintenance, need including in the Defense Budget

Transition costs, costs (unknown). [It may be significant that the accompanying artwork shows a new submarine with a Barracuda style pumpjet.] 

________________________________

PETE COMMENT

I suspect that TKMS which is offering the Type 212CD E can demonstrate its costs most precisely to the Dutch Government because 212s have been operating for many years. Germany like the Netherlands works loosely in the NATO command structure. However, the Germans, like the French, are also seen as a powerful, dominant, EU member.

Sweden, with Saab, offering the A26, is a similar small-medium European country as the Netherlands. The A26 is less costed as it has yet to be launched/operated and Sweden is not in NATO. But Saab may be offering the best industrial build-in-Netherlands agreement which would please many Dutch ministries, voters and trade unions. 

Interesting Saab-Damen Presentation on their Walrus Replacement Plan

(Courtesy Saab), the following is an infographic, text and Youtube presentation of some Saab-Damen industrial plans to replace the Netherland's 4 Walrus submarines. Pete has added some background and comments in square [...] brackets.

"How the Saab-Damen consortium will meet the Dutch requirement in replacing the Walrus class

02 March 2019:

See larger, clearer infographic here.

---

Saab and Dutch shipbuilder Damen Shipyards Group [website] have joined forces to develop an expeditionary submarine for the Netherland´s Walrus Replacement Programme (WRES). 

[Backgound on the Netherland's Walrus subs and replacement here. Pete comment - there will most likely be 4 Walrus replacement subs, (weighing 2,350 - 2,650 tons) in service in the early 2030s.]

Take a look at the infographic above to get an overall understanding of the various steps of the program, or watch the film below. The production process will see sections made in Sweden and then assembled in Vlissingen in the Netherlands.

3 minute Saab youtube published March 15, 2019.
---

“Replacing the Walrus-class submarines requires a unique approach. Swedish modular submarine design and production techniques coupled with the Dutch shipbuilding tradition bring together the capabilities needed to deliver an assured operational capability”, says Gunnar Wieslander, Senior Vice President, head of business area Saab Kockums.

The Expeditionary Submarine builds on the capabilities of the Swedish A26 [Saab is building 2 x A26s for the Swedish Navy - see some Saab details] combined with Dutch Submarine technology and puts into practice the experience of the Dutch designed Walrus submarine class and of the Swedish designed Collins-class submarine [Wiki] in-service with the Australian Navy.

“The result of the collaboration will be a customer-adapted submarine for expeditionary missions. This will ensure that the Royal Netherlands Navy continues to play an important role in European waters as well as globally”, says Hein van Ameijden, managing director of Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding.

In addition, the Walrus replacement will also benefit from the operational lessons reflected in the Swedish Navy’s Gotland [Mid Life Upgrade]. As a result the Expeditionary Submarine will be equipped with state of the art technology whilst benefiting from de-risking on four submarine classes. Saab and Damen are thereby creating one of the most modern [Saab ("Kockums") Stirling] Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines in the world, which if selected by the Royal Netherlands navy, will be done in consultation with the customer using a ‘design to cost’ approach.

Having secured the cooperation of many Dutch companies, Saab and Damen are set to enhance the domestic submarine competence. This cooperation will also extend beyond the Dutch submarine project, as the two companies see a growing market for this type of advanced conventional submarines.

Both Saab and Damen are based in relatively small countries, which means that both companies must naturally be extremely good at collaboration to be able to operate successfully on an international level; it almost seems to be embedded in the DNA of both organisations. This in combination with a similar design philosophy based on cost-efficient quality and adaptive modularity means that Saab-Kockums is a perfect partner within the Dutch triple helix."

See the original on the Saab WEBSITE: at https://saab.com/stories/2019-03/how-the-saab-damen-consortium-will-meet-the-dutch-requirement-in-replacing-the-walrus-class/

Sweden and the Netherlands Replacement Submarine Needs

A Dutch Walrus class submarine. Note the serrated fin - probably for quieting and/or improved hydro-dynamic efficiency.
---

The issues of the Dutch Walrus class submarine replacement and the future Swedish Saab-Kockums A26 development-construction are relevant to Australia's future submarine selection. This would become more important if the Soryu is not selected for whatever reason, forcing Australia to seriously consider European submarine designs. 

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. 

Netherlands' Situation

The Netherlands operates 4 teardrop hulled Walrus class submarines which are a development of the Dutch Zwaardvis class (2 Zwaardvis were sold to Taiwan). The Zwaadvis was based on the US teardrop hulled Barbel class (the US's last conventional subs).

Walrus specifications:

- 4 launched 1989-1992

- displacement 2,350 tons (surfaced)

- range 18,500 km at 9 knots (snorting) vs Collins 17,000 km at 10 knots (snorting)

- 20 US weapons Mark 48 torpedos and Harpoon missiles (weapons the same as the Collins. Collins has 22 torpedos) which suggest part use of a US combat system already.

- US heritage

- no reliance (like the Collins) on AIP

- like the Collins it has four combined rudders and diving planes in an "X" configuration

- with most NATO submarine being either nuclear or brown water Baltic the Walrus are considered blue water submarines. 

The Netherlands envisages acquiring just 2 submarines to replace the 4 Walruses. Just 2 may mean the Netherlands might want to use/select a common-overlapping design with Sweden. Maybe the Netherlands may settle for modified A26s. 

[As at mid March 2015 the Netherlands' requirements remain unknown.] 

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:

1. How many A26s does Sweden intend to build? Two or five (?) - given the rising Russian threat and the Gotland-Sodermanland two tiered "gap".

2. Will the A26 have the same specifications as provided on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine (1900 tons surfaced? A mixture of regular 533mm torpedo tubes and unique 400mm tubes?). Saab-Kockums' own website does not give specifications of diplacement or range. 

3. Will the A26 be built with Lithium-ion batteries?

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?

Pete

2015 News: Damen & Saab Long Been Talking Netherlands Submarine Replacement

COMMENT

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..."

SAAB "MULTIMISSION PORTAL" - HORIZONTAL TUBE

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

TKMS & Navantia Likely Dropped in Walrus submarine replacement competition

For business, political and technical reasons it appears that the Dutch have dropped Germany's TKMS and Spain's Navantia from the Walrus submarine replacement competition. This is for 4 new medium-large conventional submarines, for delivery by the late 2020s-early 2030s.

Supporting this contention my thanks to Anonymous for the February 20, 2019 comment which provides this link. This is further supported by this Dutch article (right-click mouse to translate).

POSSIBLE DUTCH REQUIREMENTS

For the Walrus replacement I'm estimating the Dutch want to continue to retain performance achievements of the Walrus, which include:

-  a 2,200+ tonne (surfaced) submarine for oceanic travel. This is larger than the normal European

   1,600 tonne (surfaced) mid-size submarines (adequate for European waters). 

-  long range 10,000+nm (18,500+km), up to 70 day mission endurance. adequate for: 

   :  Netherlands to the Dutch Caribbean and Return missions and  

   :  Netherlands through the Mediterranean or even around Africa. This is to monitor Middle

      East/North African nations/pirates/smugglers/terrorists and Return missions. This is on behalf of 

      the Western alliance eg. NATO). Such monitoring might be closer inshore than already 

      over-tasked US SSNs are willing to go.

-  submarine size, range and possibly Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) supported by a

    3 x diesel solution instead of Euro subs 1 or 2 diesels. Three diesels increase safety if one breaks

    down on a long mission.

-  Complement of 50 to 55 officers and "men" to operate on a 3 watch system to reduce long mission

   fatigue, handle some illness, and increase safety by providing larger damage control crew

   measures. 

-  More living space is needed. Some female submariners are expected from 2019 ie. "mixed

   crews". The hardship of hot bunking (aka hot racking) is increasingly unacceptable. Also Dutch are

   statistically taller - all meaning greater facilities for bunks/showers/toilets are required.

-  perhaps retaining the Walrus's no AIP characteristic. The replacement may have no AIP due to

   AIP's diminishing utility on long missions. Even the Collins and the newest Soryus fave no AIP.

   AIP's LOx and especially Hydrogen are fire/explosion hazards. Buoyancy changes are more major

   than usual as LOx is expended. There would be little or no AIP chemical refueling facilities on long

   range missions (eg. in the Dutch Caribbean). 

So for Dutch requirements the AIP (even the most advanced working AIP that Germany-Spain provide) isn't so important. This might explain why TKMS and Navantia have. according to rumour-int, been dropped.

Also the rumoured or actual corporate change in ThyssenKrupp effecting the status of its submarine division is unsettling. Lack of spare parts and perhaps underbudgeting of Germany’s own Type 212A squadron would not have boosted Dutch courage. Concern is even greater in that the Netherlands wants an extended joint venture with a winning main foreign supplier.

Meanwhile Navantia has not launched a new submarine since the 1980s Agostas and even those were French designed and mainly French developed. The problems experienced by the not-yet-launched S-80 (aka "Isaac Peral class") have not inspired confidence. Also the possible Spanish strength of advanced SENER-TKMS AIP is not a benefit if the Dutch don't need AIP.

SO WHY IS THE SHORTLIS POSSIBLY REDUCED TO NAVAL GROUP AND SAAB/DAMAN

Naval Group (NG) partnered on February 7, 2019 with Royal IHC (a Dutch ship and other marine components builder) for the submarine competition. NG are used to building Scorpenes and larger nuclear submarines (also now designing the Shortfin). These larger subs are capable of operating further than relatively short European distances. If the Walrus replacement does not require AIP then the lack of operating advanced AIP on NG subs is not a problem. Hence NG is still on the Dutch reduced shortlist. 

Saab's Stirling AIP may also be of low Dutch interest. However Sweden is significantly not a powerful neighbour (unlike Germany and France). Larger countries sometimes exhibit an overbearing attitude (reflecting economic reality?) inevitably making the small Netherlands a junior partner in a Walrus replacement joint venture. 

After Sweden's Saab builds its first 2 x A26 submarines to be delivered in 2022 it will need 2 more in late 2020s to replace the (30yo by 2025) Gotlands, thus making a 4 x A26 force. If the Netherlands' Damen want to work with Saab (see Damen website) to build 4 x even larger Walrus replacement then that represents a fair bit of economic equality with consequent shared decision making. 

Maybe Damen is looking at a: 

-  Saab A26 Oceanic extended range (ER) design, and/or

-  a smaller version of the Saab Type 612 design. 

Computer Artwork comparing the Dutch Walrus (left) to Saab's A26 Oceanic ER (extended range). (Courtesy Armada International, October 24, 2018)

--- 

So the ongoing Walrus replacement competition throws up many submarine business, political and technical issues and realities.

Pete and Anonymous