• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Dutch ships and designs and the possibilities for Canada

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
First and foremost a good evening to everyone here,i'm new here on the forum(so excuse me if this has been asked earlier)

I!used to be in the RNLAF but not anymore(that was a long time ago,used to be with 3GGW(Guided  Weapons Group)327 sq based in Blomberg Germany(patriots)and was a Stinger shooter)First as Inlisted later(4 yrs)professional,went to the Gulf(Dessert Storm)

My interest always lied with the Navy,howecome?my family(father and uncles where  marines(divers,elitetroopes,etc),so far for introducing myself.  [:D

Here's my question:

Since Canada and us did co develop (or wanted to)a few things ,what i can't understand is why Canada didn't buy the same kit as us(or the Germans for that matter),i mean we worked together on the developement of the APAR,JSS and neither are availeble now for the Canadians,seems weird to me(because we have a same sort of nay(small,with not a lot of money,but sort of similar demands)

What also always surprised me was when you bought the Oberon replacements noone looked at our Walrus(strange because it was considered the most advanced conventional submarine when they came out)great range,stealthy and i might add looked perfect for the Canadian Navy aswell.

So in short you could've had :

-Walrus class subs(that worked,first time right)
-Zeven Provincien Class Frigates/F124 Sachens
-A JSS(or maybe more),Karel Doorman Class
-and for OPV's the Hollands
-Enforcer LPD'S

I mean you started to do things together with us and could have had a very modern(not big) navy

And could've worked together with the replacements(comming ahead)

Hope i didn't offend anyone,just wanted to know why(since Canada has allways been more "european" orientatet then f.i. the USA.(sorry for my spelling in advance. [:p

gr,Walter

Subject title changed ( to be more descriptive of topic ), as per OP. - mm
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Hello and welcome, Walter.

The short answer is political will and it must be built in Canada doctrine.  I agree, no cooperation was opportunity lost for both sides and we will be poorer for it in the long run.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Well first let me say th Jolly to your quick respond,Built in Canada ,maybe that was possible(don't know working in tandem with f.i. Damen,Schelde,etc) and for the poorer part i agree we could've worked closely together and "reaped" the benefits.


walter

ps we now face a bow wave in investments(due to postponing new projects here in the Netherlands)for example replacement Walrus,M class,Alkmaaar Class,a new LPD/JSS,etc(so the the "political will"to invest in defence is as "great" or even less over here(i'm actally concerned about the KM,since we were allways a great seafaring nation,now an in the past equall might i add to England,France,Spain,certainly in the past we seem to loose all that)
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
There is always hope, Walter, that as doors of opportunity open up we will walk through and take advantage of them.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
295
Points
1,030
Karel Doorman said:
What also always surprised me was when you bought the Oberon replacements noone looked at our Walrus(strange because it was considered the most advanced conventional submarine when they came out)great range,stealthy and i might add looked perfect for the Canadian Navy aswell.

We did look at the Walrus class.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Committee/381/NDDN/Reports/RP1773092/nddnrp01/nddnrp01-e.pdf
Thus, in the early 1990s, the Navy again found itself looking for a
replacement for its old Oberons. Vice-Admiral (Retired) Peter Cairns, who was the
commander of Maritime Forces Pacific and later commander of the Navy prior to his
retirement in 1994, confirmed in his testimony to the Committee that between 1989
and 1993, the Navy examined many types of conventionally powered submarines
as possible replacements for the Oberons. The candidates included the Walrus
class submarine produced in the Netherlands, the German Type 209 and the
British-made Upholder class then entering service with the Royal Navy.
The Navy
favoured submarines with enough range and other capabilities to operate in the
oceans far from their home port rather than those designed more for coastal
defence.

Why did Canada go the route that it did for replacement of the O-boats?  Money.

The supporters of the acquisition point out that the significant submarine
capability provided by the Upholders was obtained at a fraction of the costs Canada
would have incurred if it had purchased new submarines from a foreign shipyard or
had contracted a Canadian company or a consortium of companies to construct
them in this country.
The option chosen by Australia which involved the selection of
a foreign hull design, in this case Swedish, the construction of the new vessels in
Australia, and the design and manufacture by Australian companies of the
electronic and other equipment installed in the submarine, with all the integration
problems this entailed, has often been cited during the Committee’s meetings on the
acquisition. As in Canada, Australia’s acquisition of submarines is very
controversial, but for different reasons. Australia has constructed six new Collins
class submarines at a total cost of over A$5 billion, but the planned expenditures for
2003-2004 included another A$773.7 million for additional work to correct the
shortcomings identified in initial trials and in an Australian government report.36
Indeed, Australia is also receiving help from the U.S. Navy to rectify some of the
problems. Thus, Australia has acquired six new submarines at a cost of almost
A$1 billion each while Canada acquired four relatively new vessels for
$800 million.37 For the advocates of the Upholder acquisition, the low costs of the
purchase compared to the significant sums being paid by Australia and other
countries to build new submarines from scratch highlights the advantages of this
purchase. The problems encountered by the Australians have also been used to
illustrate the potential pitfalls of constructing new submarines and the complexity of
submarine technology, if only to show that Canada’s submarine problems are not
unique.

It is only hindsight that shows the obstacles that resulted from this decision.  At the time, the options were probably either cheap subs or no subs.

 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Thanks Blackadder,for your response?

All is offcourse in hindsight. 8)

Nobody new at the time that these "things" would be as good as they've shown to be.(Walrus),but on the other hand someone must have known(we've operated subs for more than 100 years now,so(without sounding to proud)we've must have known how to built these things.(remember snorkel?)

gr,walter
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
The APAR window is still open and with the new shipbuilding strategy going on we will most likely pick that for our new main radar (fingers crossed).  As for other things Canada has worked closely with the Dutch in the past for many things regarding military procurement,  you bought our old Chinooks, we bought your old tanks and both armies use the C-7 and C-9, with a few local mods.

But at the end of the day its a political decision regarding purchases for many things.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Underway said:
The APAR window is still open and with the new shipbuilding strategy going on we will most likely pick that for our new main radar (fingers crossed).  As for other things Canada has worked closely with the Dutch in the past for many things regarding military procurement,  you bought our old Chinooks, we bought your old tanks and both armies use the C-7 and C-9, with a few local mods.

But at the end of the day its a political decision regarding purchases for many things.
I would hope so, as we've been a partner on APAR since day one. Also, when they complete the upgrade on the Smart-L the range will be way beyond any other system.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
235
Points
710
Walter

You are asking the same questions many of us have been asking on this site for a long while.

One thing that has always come up, along with the politics, is the money.

You are brilliantly placed to answer a couple of questions.

Can you come up with the real price - as paid out of the Dutch treasury - for each of those vessels you named?  Both capital and operating costs if you can find them.

And the second question is:

I understand that the Dutch decided to stop seeking industrial offsets (kickbacks from suppliers to the national economy) because it was not found to be cost effective.  Can you confirm that and find any relevant government reports?  I remember seeing one a long time back but I lost it.

Cheers, Chris.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Chris Pook said:
Walter

You are asking the same questions many of us have been asking on this site for a long while.

One thing that has always come up, along with the politics, is the money.

You are brilliantly placed to answer a couple of questions.

Can you come up with the real price - as paid out of the Dutch treasury - for each of those vessels you named?  Both capital and operating costs if you can find them.

And the second question is:

I understand that the Dutch decided to stop seeking industrial offsets (kickbacks from suppliers to the national economy) because it was not found to be cost effective.  Can you confirm that and find any relevant government reports?  I remember seeing one a long time back but I lost it.

Cheers, Chris.

Well first of all th all for the answers:

And Chris i will look for those numbers(if possible),as for "actively"searching for kick backs,well it's still said that 1 or the other(plane for example)is better for our economy so i think whether or not it's true,they will stay it to the public.
My personal vieuw for example to the F-35 ,is why did we choose such an expensive plane(even co opped in a then non exicisting plane),i mean 140 milj(euros )a pop is ludacrous.

Here are some porjectcosts(no inflacion)

Group Force Commander leiding kan geven aan operaties. De twee andere LCF’n zijn voorbereid voor
deze command & control-faciliteiten.
Een vergelijking van de verschillende projecten, resultaten en projectkosten per land:
Land Projectnaam Aantal Tonnage Lengte In dienst € per stuk
NL LCF 4 6200 144 2002 – 2005 525 miljoen
Spanje F-100 4 6250 147 2002 – 2005 600 miljoen
Duitsland F-124 3 5700 143 2003 – 2006 700 miljoen
Italië Orrizonte 2 5600 153 2007 – 2008 700 miljoen
Frankrijk Horizon 2 5600 153 2008 – 2009 1,35 miljard
GB Type 45 6 8000 153 2009 – 2012 1,2 miljard
De projectkosten zijn niet voor inflatie gecorrigeerd


gr,walter

ps,it's :country-name of project-number-weight-length-year-price per ship.

will look for operating cost(if poss)
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Hi all,

and found something about the KD(JSS)


Our government by postponing a decision about this vessel made "sure" it costed a lot more then originally planned:


Het schip dat oorspronkelijk zo'n 250 miljoen euro zou kosten, kostte 407,9 miljoen. (it says orig. planned 250 milj.actually,let's say 408 milj.

gr,walter
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Chris Pook said:
Many thanks Walter.

Here's another one(complete)

Walrus-class subs:procurement (in 1994' money)2 billion for 4,makes 500 million a pop.Latest updates 100 million.(optics,sonar,masts,electronics)

Post Kosten per jaar (in miljoenen euro's)(costs per annum in million euros)
Personele kosten * 19,65        (personal,375 pplxwages of about 50K euros+alowances)
Jaarlijks onderhoud 10            (yearly maintenance)
Op zee en buitenland ** 0,6    (fuell,logistical)at sea and abroad   
Instandhoudingsprogramma *** 2,9  (maintenaceprogrammes) for life of 35 yrs(divided)
Afschrijvingen **** 25                  (depreciation) excl rest worth
Totaal 58,15 miljoen euro
* 375 pers. x middelloon van 50.000 euro plus vaartoelagen
** brandstof, logistiek, etc.
*** bij gemiddelde levensduur ozbt van 35 jaar
**** excl. restwaarde

this number is about 0.83% of total defencebudget(about 7 billion)
every sub has about 50 ppl on board.

gr,walter

ps will search further. ;D
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Blackadder1916 said:
We did look at the Walrus class.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Committee/381/NDDN/Reports/RP1773092/nddnrp01/nddnrp01-e.pdf
Why did Canada go the route that it did for replacement of the O-boats?  Money.

It is only hindsight that shows the obstacles that resulted from this decision.  At the time, the options were probably either cheap subs or no subs.

And sorry if i'm repeating Blackadder,but at the time of our procurement they(Walrus)were about 500 million a pop not 800 for the Upholders,so at the time they were "cheaper"(don't know offcourse what Canada would've had to pay for them,but the logicall thing says,for me,if the series was not 4 but let's say 8 i think they would've been even "cheaper")
-And worked first time around flawlessly,nothing else heard myself(ever since actually),more money saved 
But as said hindsight,just such a shame.(we could've worked on upgrading them together(mony saved again,etc,etc)

Here's a "kicker" from what i've heard(will look into this because it ineterests me too,)the US was also interested in the designplans for the Walrus,but the Dutch wouldn't "fork" them over for zilch.

gr,walter
 

Scoobie Newbie

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
KD could you possibly in the future put a space between letters and brackets. KY jelly(is ok)but not your best option vs. Astroglide (is the cats pyjamas) as many will attest. Same deal with comma's and periods. This is ok,but harder to read. Vs. I'm not trying to be an ass, but I can appreciate people thinking that.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Sheep Dog AT said:
KD could you possibly in the future put a space between letters and brackets. KY jelly(is ok)but not your best option vs. Astroglide (is the cats pyjamas) as many will attest. Same deal with comma's and periods. This is ok,but harder to read. Vs. I'm not trying to be an ***, but I can appreciate people thinking that.

Sheep Dog  th and i will try to do that,no probs.

gr,walter
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Here's a(unbiased )view on the frigates of the world.(seems like we're doing OK,for such a small navy)  [:D

http://defencyclopedia.com/2016/01/02/top-10-most-powerful-frigates-in-the-world/
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
295
Points
1,030
Karel Doorman said:
And sorry if i'm repeating Blackadder,but at the time of our procurement they(Walrus)were about 500 million a pop not 800 for the Upholders,so at the time they were "cheaper"(don't know offcourse what Canada would've had to pay for them,but the logicall thing says,for me,if the series was not 4 but let's say 8 i think they would've been even "cheaper")

I think you may have misunderstood the link that I provided in my previous post.  While the actual dollar amount may not be as identified in that 2004 parliamentary report, the $800 million figure that they used for the acquisition cost of the used Upholders was for all four boats (i.e. $200 m per sub).  Now compare that to your quoted "$500 million a pop" for the Walrus class (which I understand is for each submarine).  Additionally the original hoped for purchase plan included unique financial arrangements, which, however, did not turn out as planned - though it was probably a good selling point in getting government (and public) approval for the sub replacements.

financing arrangements included an eight-year, interest-free, lease-to-buy
arrangement, a bartering “of Canadian lease payments on the four submarines for
the costs charged to the U.K. for continued training of British Forces in Canada at
bases in Wainwright, Suffield and Goose Bay” (according to the backgrounder), and
a nominal sum at the end of the lease of one pound Sterling to purchase each
submarine.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Blackadder1916 said:
I think you may have misunderstood the link that I provided in my previous post.  While the actual dollar amount may not be as identified in that 2004 parliamentary report, the $800 million figure that they used for the acquisition cost of the used Upholders was for all four boats (i.e. $200 m per sub).  Now compare that to your quoted "$500 million a pop" for the Walrus class (which I understand is for each submarine).  Additionally the original hoped for purchase plan included unique financial arrangements, which, however, did not turn out as planned - though it was probably a good selling point in getting government (and public) approval for the sub replacements.

Ah OK,as you said i misunderstood you/link.Thought it was 800 million a piece,and the additional financial arrangements.(strong selling tactics from the Brits)
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Ok Boys and Girls(sorry couldn't help myself  >:D )and i'll keep the updates(Dutch Navy) in this thread,if it's allright for everybody here.

In the next 2.5 months there will be talks in parliament about the replacement of the Walrus class(about 2025),budgetwise, now there is  2.5 Billion for 4 in the kitty (which is way to small a budget)

will be around the 3000 tons,and at least the same capability as the Walrus(diving depth,stealth,etc)but offcourse modernized and when possible better.(AIP is not a wish,because of the latest battery developments)

Maybe an opportunity for Canada as well?

Publieksbijeenkomst over Onderzeedient

http://www.kvmo.nl/nieuws/nieuws-kvmo/item/328-publieksbijeenkomst-over-onderzeedient.html

This was the open public meeting about the sub service.

Let's hope it will all go well(but i think NAVO will push for new subs,at least 4,were/are too important for NAVO)

Whislist of the subservice(AIP is not as important anymore,is about 1 year old)

Wishes Submarine In 2015, the requirements of the navy be drawn to the new submarines. These are called staff requirements. In anticipation summed Group Senior Submarine KTZ Hugo Ammerlaan wishes that he had, during an interview in mid-2014 Marineschepen.nl: (See here for the full article.) - Broadly the same hull as the Walrus class; - Technically at the level of 2025; - As quiet as other submarines in 2025; - Ample space for special forces with their equipment; - More room for crewmembers; - Air Independent Propulsion (besides diesels); - A means / weapon in order also to give a warning (with torpedoes can not, of course); - Weapon against helicopters; - Missile against ships and other targets on the coast (no weapon as Tomahawk); - Upper and underwater drones; - Internet above and below water; - A real galley space and no food or only microwave ovens; - Technology should be compatible with the above-water ships; - Suitable for men and women

The building of these new boats will be  simultaneously with Sweden and Norway.


 
Top