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.
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
- a smaller version of the Saab Type 612 design.
![]()
So the ongoing Walrus replacement competition throws up many submarine business, political and technical issues and realities.
Pete and Anonymous
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 divisionis 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.
Naval Group (NG) are used to building Scorpenes and larger 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