Dutch sub program in bed with the Swedes: Would it make any sense?
The Dutch submarine HNLMS Walrus sits moored to the pier at Submarine Base New London. (John Narewski/U.S. Navy)
The Netherlands’ new batch of submarines may come from the alliance between Dutch and Sweden shipyards. The decision is an attempt to save a dying industry, in a show of solidarity between European Union countries. But investing in Europe while NATO is the main defense provider on the continent is mixing apples and oranges — especially since Sweden isn’t a NATO member.
After many years of loyal service, the small fleet of Walrus-class submarines will soon be retired out of the Dutch Navy. They have served well, despite their old age, and can no longer be extended or upgraded. The new subs will have to be non-nuclear, but top of the line, as the Netherlands expects to keep up the good work it has been providing within NATO operations until now.
In recent years, with the resurrection of Russian military power, an increasing number of incursions into the Baltic Sea, North Sea and Bothnian Sea have been spotted, with the Russians gathering intelligence and re-establishing their blanket of power. The U.K. is no longer able to contain the mountain threat and needs partners inshore (such as the Netherlands), as explained by British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson: “In 2010, a Royal Navy ship was called on just once to respond to Russian Navy ships approaching U.K. territorial waters. Last year we had to respond 33 times.” Dutch submarine crews have done a good job hounding them so far, much to the satisfaction of NATO, and intend to do even better with the new ships.
So far it is rumored that the ships will be built by a consortium including national shipyard Damen, Swedish shipyard Kockums (a division of Saab) and maybe even German partner ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems — if TKMS survives that long. But this arrangement brings about many questions, and leaves observers puzzled.
The first worry to come to mind is technical and industrial. If Damen and Kockums do get the deal, it will indeed represent a breath of fresh air. Kockums hasn’t received an international order since the 1990s, which means that all its experienced engineers are now retired. The future Dutch subs not being nuclear doesn’t make them simple. Indeed, diesel-electrics are not a thing of the past: In fact, their technology is still roaring and developing fast. A long streak with no contracts, or the outright discovery of such technologies, will come with many trials and errors.
This challenge will be further complicated by Kockums’ recent past. After a heinous divorce from German partner TKMS (who would like to get back in the game), Kockums was reacquired by Saab in 2014, under government pressure. New partnership, new technology, new headquarters, low-production capacity: a lot of “ifs” for one of the most complex armament programs to exist.
Of course, the argument of European solidarity does stand. Europe has had the fantasy to tighten its military cooperation for many years, with regular mentions of a European army, even. Given the unlikelihood of such a development in the near future, starting with armament cooperation does make sense. Or does it?
So far, European defense has been an urban legend more than anything else. There has been some level of cooperation, a few experimental tries and even low-intensity military operations. But the fact remains that Europe is indeed well-defended, but not by Europe. NATO has been the cornerstone of European defense for decades and will likely remain so for many more.
Given that Sweden is an EU member, but not a NATO member, doesn’t building a submarine program with the Swedes amount to feeding the wrong horse? The Netherlands should know, as they are themselves very active NATO members, and fully appreciate, as continental defenders, the concept of military sovereignty.
Sovereignty: the keyword in the matter. In the old days, submarines were little more than underwater ships. Practical, indeed, but just another piece on the chessboard. Nowadays, with the evolution of submarine roles and capacities, they are sovereignty vector.
Submersibles now represent a military capacity to strike anywhere in the world, at a small or large scale, and to be everywhere and nowhere: the very definition of power. But sub programs are immensely complex and sensitive. To be successful, their design must be top notch, secret and properly implemented, and the builder must stay alongside the program throughout its life for maintenance, upgrades and troubleshooting.
The Damen-Kockums partnership, on the other hand, amounts to entrusting a foreign, non-NATO, private company, with limited technological command, with the Netherlands’ most valuable sovereignty vector. Kockums’ last order was the Australian Collins class, which was poorly designed and required levels of maintenance which Kockums struggled to provide. And things would probably get even worse in the case of a joint venture with former partner TKMS, who sold three submarines to bankrupt Greece but didn’t bother delivering them, and whose latest warships were thrown out by the German Navy over defects.
The EU is not a military force, nor will it be anytime soon. There is much to be said about intra-European cooperation, but do the Dutch actually want the country’s (and NATO’s) most valuable military asset to be within the hands of a foreign private company that still has everything to prove in its capacity to successfully carry out submarine programs? NATO has been asking European members to ramp up their defense efforts. For one of Europe’s main defenders to keep on defending Europe, it needs submarines that work.
Günther Hoffmann is a former officer of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Since retiring from the service, he has worked as a part-time civil servant for the Dutch Ministry of Defence, acting as an adviser on technological and industrial issues for the Navy.
http://www.thefifthcolumn.xyz/Forum/viewthread.php?tid=368&page=3Abraços