Color me surprised, I thought that the Saab-Damen consortium had it in the bag. Who would've thought that KM will be the first operator of Shortfin Barracuda? That of couse is if this Bloomberg article is true, of couse.
Saab-Damen’s only real edge is domestic workshare. Huge amounts of technical and schedule risk due to the need to scale up Sweden’s A26 design, Saab’s difficulties in delivering that program, and their overall relative inexperience in sub building (compared to TKMS and Naval Group).Color me surprised, I thought that the Saab-Damen consortium had it in the bag.
Naval has drastically undercut the other two, which is raising suspicion that they could only do so because they're partially nationalized.
Color me surprised, I thought that the Saab-Damen consortium had it in the bag. Who would've thought that KM will be the first operator of Shortfin Barracuda? That of couse is if this Bloomberg article is true, of couse.
Naval has drastically undercut the other two, which is raising suspicion that they could only do so because they're partially nationalized.
And of course it also raises the suspicion that there's going to be cost overruns
Oh no, fair enough on all of that. I'm saying what perception is being formed right now, not what is actually happening.Naval Group don’t need subsidies to be competitive. They’ve got the whole front section of the sub already designed and coming off a hot production line, and the design of the back section (the conventional propulsion modules) already paid for by Australia. They have the largest scale in terms of sub production facilities and order book, and the lowest design risk compared to the others as they don’t have to scale up a smaller design.
Those are significant natural cost advantages when bidding, which the others don’t have. Nothing to do with being partly government owned (indeed they still must turn a profit just like any private enterprise - otherwise Saab, TKMS or Fincantieri would all be able to sue in EU court for illegal subsidies).
For Saab, there are some parallels to their challenges selling Gripen against larger US and European fighters. If you don’t have scale, it’s hard to compete. What Damen-Saab seem to be hoping for is a political decision to override what seems like a fairly legit competition.
I thought that the Aussies had canceled before there was a whole lot of detailed design work done on the conventional engineroom?The Dutch showing Australia how it’s done. They’ll get their first sub in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost, with 40% offsets.
This old bubblehead would strongly recommend that they double-crew the subs.I wonder if the Dutch will be double-crewing their new subs (like the French do) to maximize sea time of this limited asset?
They still spend something on the order of two billion dollar for preliminary design. Some odf that is probably going into these subs.I thought that the Aussies had canceled before there was a whole lot of detailed design work done on the conventional engineroom?
No bet. They'd be foolish not to, especially if they can drop a completed design on the Canadians.Anyone want to take a bet that the French are going to offer this design to the Canadians too?
Granted. I'm still betting that there's at least another $4bn US in detailed design to happen.They still spend something on the order of two billion dollar for preliminary design. Some odf that is probably going into these subs.
No way. The entire detailed design of the Barracuda SSN class cost €1.5 billion - of which 1/3rd was for the nuke plant. The Dutch design shouldn’t cost more than a few hundred million.I'm still betting that there's at least another $4bn US in detailed design to happen
Shouldn't, no.No way. The entire detailed design of the Barracuda SSN class cost €1.5 billion - of which 1/3rd was for the nuke plant. The Dutch design shouldn’t cost more than a few hundred million.
The Aussies paid an arm and a leg for design because they insisted on full transfer of technology - ie. paying for their own (very well paid and expensive) engineers to learn how to design a sub. Basically reinventing the wheel. Plus they picked an extremely complex and high risk work arrangement.
A key difference is that this time they will almost certainly be built in France with Dutch industry chipping in support rather than being built in Australia with French industry support.Shouldn't, no.
How far behind schedule was the Attack-class when AUKUS was announced? 5 years? So I fully expect Naval Group to try something like that again.
It's a provisional decision, a new Dutch cabinet might decide otherwise....they will almost certainly be built in France...
As much as I like Damen as a company, and the idea of rebuilding our submarine building knowledge, the navy needs those subs ASAP. The program has already been delayed by five years because of all the political bullshit, and Naval is willing to put a hard date on the first delivery.It's a provisional decision, a new Dutch cabinet might decide otherwise.
Ahhh just another example of how the AUKUS lobbying campaign won in the media storytelling… In fact the Attack class was actually tracking close to schedule per the contract negotiated in 2018 and regular audit reports.How far behind schedule was the Attack-class when AUKUS was announced? 5 years?
Indeed, a new government could skunk the whole deal. Such is life. I'm just pointing out that the plan as it stands now would be a great deal more straightforward than the Aussie plan.It's a provisional decision, a new Dutch cabinet might decide otherwise.
Agreed. I hope a final decision follows soon, but traditionally, an outgoing cabinet does not decide on issues with such far-reaching consequences unless in dire need....the navy needs those subs ASAP...
I can already hear the screams of anger when a final decision is made before a new cabinet is ready. Sometimes it's easier to apologise than ask for permission. As has happened before....The program has already been delayed by five years because of all the political bullshit...
Francophobia starting all over again. Give them a break and mind your own business - complicated enough.Shouldn't, no.
How far behind schedule was the Attack-class when AUKUS was announced? 5 years? So I fully expect Naval Group to try something like that again.
Naval Group, Saab and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems were in December 2019 shortlisted to compete to supply four boats to replace the Royal Netherlands Navy’s four ageing Walrus-class submarines. Naval Group was offering a conventional variant of its Barracuda design known as Blacksword; Saab’s business area Kockums, teamed with Damen, was proposing the C718: An enlarged expeditionary derivative of the A26 submarine being built for the Royal Swedish Navy; and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems has bid an evolved ‘Expeditionary’ variant of the Class 212CD design already ordered by Germany and Norway.
The names of the four new submarines of the future “Orka-class” will be:
Naval News understands the next steps include a court hearing on June 26 with TKMS who filed a protest to contest the award decision. The court verdict is due in mid-July. According to Dutch news website Marineschepen, the current offer is valid until 28 July. This leaves little time but the contract is ready to be signed.
- Orka
- Zwaardvis
- Barracuda
- Tijgerhaai
Huh, controllability is better with bow planes, but you need to do a good job on sound deadening to avoid bow planes interfering with your sonar.@Grey Havoc Interestingly this official Dutch MoD rendering looks like it has been updated to reflect the latest proposed design (i.e. hydroplanes are on the sail, not in the bow)… and look, a pump jet (!).
Breaking news, TKMS objections overruled by court.TKMS to court over Dutch submarines, Saab-Damen leaves it to Parliament
TKMS to court over submarines, Damen leaves it to Parliament
The Dutch Ministry of Defence has confirmed that TKMS is starting an objection procedure over the provisional contract award for four new submarines to Naval.swzmaritime.nl
The Dutch Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) is starting an objection procedure over the provisional contract award for four new submarines to French Naval Group. The third contender for the contract, the Saab-Damen combination, leaves it to Dutch Parliament to review the decision.