Royal Netherlands Navy

[walter]

First i'd like to say hi to everyone here,i'm new here.

Now my question;

Being dutch(you've guest it)and proud of our naval history.

I always ask myself this:why is it so hard for other countries to buy dutch ships?(now,i know they're wanted second hand)

Is it because they're too expensive,overcomplicated,radarsystems,or simply not good enough?

f.e: i know most of them use cwis Goalkeeper and you'll have to go through the deck to mount them(even better design the ship a bit around them),but hey it's the "dirty harry"of cwisses,personally i'd like to have dirty harry on my side,lol.

I mean when i look at the designs(7-provincien class,holland class,rotterdam or even karel doorman class)i'm looking at very modern(in my opinion sexy looking)ships.

so why is this?

thanks in advance,just curious.

gr,walter

 

[walter]

Ok,seems to be a difficult/perhaps sensitve question(sorry if i brought it up)

Just wanted to hear all of your opinions(i know that Damen is very succesfull),but was talking about the navy classes.

ok,then,gr to all ,walter

 

[Todjaeger]

Ok,seems to be a difficult/perhaps sensitve question(sorry if i brought it up)

Just wanted to hear all of your opinions(i know that Damen is very succesfull),but was talking about the navy classes.

ok,then,gr to all ,walter

No sure it is/was a sensitive question. More likely your initial post was captured by a filter as possible spam. It happens sometimes to new members who are making initial posts, especially if they are creating a new thread. It is unfortunate, but given the frequency that DT gets hit by spammers...

As for the initial question, why would other nations purchase new Dutch warships?

One needs to remember that many, perhaps even most, nations able to afford new, high-end warships also have the ability to at least construct them, if not the overall design work required.

Those nations which lack the ability to build their own modern warships, often also cannot afford to import such designs.

For those handful of nations which cannot build, but can afford to purchase/operate advanced warships, Dutch shipyards have to compete with shipyards from the US, UK, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, China, South Korea, etc.

With that amount of competition, as well as the degree of overall systems available from some of the other nations (I mean more systems than just those found aboard a warship) some of the other nations are more likely to win construction contracts. There is also the fact that many nations like at least partial local build/fitout from warship orders, and companies that are experienced in supporting such builds tend to do better.

From my POV it has very little to do with the quality or even range of 'products' available from Dutch shipyards, and much more to do with can the overall package compete with what is available from the yards/companies of other nations.

 

[walter]

No sure it is/was a sensitive question. More likely your initial post was captured by a filter as possible spam. It happens sometimes to new members who are making initial posts, especially if they are creating a new thread. It is unfortunate, but given the frequency that DT gets hit by spammers...

As for the initial question, why would other nations purchase new Dutch warships?

One needs to remember that many, perhaps even most, nations able to afford new, high-end warships also have the ability to at least construct them, if not the overall design work required.

Those nations which lack the ability to build their own modern warships, often also cannot afford to import such designs.

For those handful of nations which cannot build, but can afford to purchase/operate advanced warships, Dutch shipyards have to compete with shipyards from the US, UK, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, China, South Korea, etc.

With that amount of competition, as well as the degree of overall systems available from some of the other nations (I mean more systems than just those found aboard a warship) some of the other nations are more likely to win construction contracts. There is also the fact that many nations like at least partial local build/fitout from warship orders, and companies that are experienced in supporting such builds tend to do better.

From my POV it has very little to do with the quality or even range of 'products' available from Dutch shipyards, and much more to do with can the overall package compete with what is available from the yards/companies of other nations.

I understand that and offcourse every nation wants to "protect" their ship building and design capabillities,no problems there.

what i actually mean is f.e.(taking about nations who can afford these ships offcourse)why don't they do more "combined" fleets?

For instance the dutch could have bought 2 zeven provincien,2t-45 and the patrol boats(holland),the brits could have bought 4 t-45,2 zevens(sevens) and a couple off hollands(since they need them aswell,patrol boats i mean)the combinations are endless(french,spanish,italian,german etc),and we keep it all european style.

So you get 2(possibly more,asian style for instance)and american style fleets both different but well capable for the task they need to be doing.

That was my initial thinking behind this.

(now i'm not talking about budget)and let the "richest" navies do other things like the ssn's and ssbn's.
Smaller navies like ours could (as they do now)do the ssk's(i know we're working together right now with kocken/saab and Damen to look what the possibillities are to design new subs to replace our walrusses,mabe interesting for britain too.

gr,walter

 

[Goknub]

I'm not the most knowledgeable on shipbuilding but I'll what I can.

Firstly, mixed ship classes add additional costs that have to justifiable. Each ship class comes with its own list for spare parts and training requirements. It also becomes more expensive to build. It's far more advantageous to have as few as possible. The number of ships you suggested would be far too small.

I'm aware there has been talk about rationalising European shipbuilding (amongst other things) to create efficiencies of scale but the challenge is always the same. Whilst many talk of "Europe", most nations are out to defend their own interests first. Convincing politicians to forgo their national shipbuilding industry for the greater good of Europe is a very hard sell.

 

[walter]

:dance

I'm not the most knowledgeable on shipbuilding but I'll what I can.

Firstly, mixed ship classes add additional costs that have to justifiable. Each ship class comes with its own list for spare parts and training requirements. It also becomes more expensive to build. It's far more advantageous to have as few as possible. The number of ships you suggested would be far too small.

I'm aware there has been talk about rationalising European shipbuilding (amongst other things) to create efficiencies of scale but the challenge is always the same. Whilst many talk of "Europe", most nations are out to defend their own interests first. Convincing politicians to forgo their national shipbuilding industry for the greater good of Europe is a very hard sell.

Don't pinn yourself on the numbers(it was just an example)

I know more classes mean more costs,but most navies today have more than 1 class(not of the same sort ship,but ok)

For the numbers,i'd love to see the dutch navy buy 7sevensdance)and 6T-45 a couple of new cruisers etc,but that's not going to happen :bum

I mean we(europe)could say "ok we need new dd's(who designs them best,let all those countries work together and design the "ultimate" dd,and so for frigattes,korvets,patrol boats,cruisers,etc,etc(should keep cost down)and let built each country built their own ships(needed);but with minimum requirements(numbers i mean,f.e minimum 4)not all have to buy/build cruisers etc

Radarsystems each can use own designed(again for work)but they have to be compatible with each other.best would be to let the best design again(together)and make ,again the "ultimate"radar.

Than you'll get a much more "uniform"(european)navy,again good for costs,training,working together.

But i think that will be a pipe dream(unfortunately),i think all would be bether off but just my thoughts.then i think even the"poorer" navies can buy new ships(since prices can go down,hoping)

ps,i think i'll have to rename this thread in"The new european designed navy ships for the future":dance,and maybe a"yes we can" as a wink to the u.s

 

[swerve]

I understand that and offcourse every nation wants to "protect" their ship building and design capabillities,no problems there.

what i actually mean is f.e.(taking about nations who can afford these ships offcourse)why don't they do more "combined" fleets?

For instance the dutch could have bought 2 zeven provincien,2t-45 and the patrol boats(holland),the brits could have bought 4 t-45,2 zevens(sevens) and a couple off hollands(since they need them aswell,patrol boats i mean)...

gr,walter

But the Type 45 & Zeven Provincien have the same roles. Buying two classes for one role means more training & maintenance costs. It also complicates crewing, because of having to spread crews trained on different systems across the fleet when a ship is in reserve or refit.

It would have been logical to have bought one common type, e.g. a joint design with, e.g. SAMPSON (UK) & SMART-L (NL) radars, & so on for other systems, but the NL wasn't interested in that, preferring to work with Germany, & the UK tried to produce a common design with France & Italy that turned into two designs.

 

[walter]

Well that's what i said in my last post,too bad we'll can't work together.

And with that all is said here,i think,no?

 

[AegisFC]

Go look up the history of the Common NATO frigate. It should provide some insight into how political the process can be even among nations that have the "same" requirements.

 

[walter]

Go look up the history of the Common NATO frigate. It should provide some insight into how political the process can be even among nations that have the "same" requirements.

I know that every country has his/her own "hidden"agenda.
I know for a fact(to give an example)when "dirty harry" came out(goalkeeper)that the usa (fully knowing that it was the best system there was then and even now 30 odd years later still one of the best)put a lot of pollitical pressure(wich they tend to do a lot,other countries too,but not as much weight)to still go for the phalanx(wich was not as good(even now,specially with the new upgrades,goal)it's all got to do with keeping the money in your own country,as well as that may be,here's another thought:

So it's more important to keep it "in house"but what about the crews these systems have to protect?

If i was buying i take the best system around,knowing then that i've done all i can to protect them(offcourse this is no garanty,but still),if you get my drift.

developing together is possible,f.e.they now started the developement for the new leo3,this group contains;germany,netherlands,france,belgium and a few others,so it's possible.

gr,walter

ps now we have to hope offcourse that the french in the end not decide to go with another AMX version,but buy the original version(i think nobody has to tell the germans how to built tanks,even the abrahams uses a german gun to give an example)

 

[AegisFC]

"Best" is always debatable. Both systems have their positives and negatives and both systems were designed to meet specific requirements. Phalanx was designed to be a light weight system (Goalkeeper is almost twice the weight) that could be pretty much bolted in place anywhere there was room, run power and cooling water from the fire main to it and that's it. It doesn't need a parent combat system to operate, it can be completely stand alone. Smaller navies often have a small pool of Phalanx's that rotate through deploying units.
Goalkeeper on the other hand is a permanent installation, it requires significant deck penetration and the ship pretty much has to be designed with it in mind. Space and weight on a ship are always at a premium and having an easily upgradable, easily removable and self contained system is appealing to a lot of customers.
The UK used to operate both and now has switched to Phalanx, and I'm sure it wasn't due to pressure from Raytheon.

 

[walter]

"Best" is always debatable. Both systems have their positives and negatives and both systems were designed to meet specific requirements. Phalanx was designed to be a light weight system (Goalkeeper is almost twice the weight) that could be pretty much bolted in place anywhere there was room, run power and cooling water from the fire main to it and that's it. It doesn't need a parent combat system to operate, it can be completely stand alone. Smaller navies often have a small pool of Phalanx's that rotate through deploying units.
Goalkeeper on the other hand is a permanent installation, it requires significant deck penetration and the ship pretty much has to be designed with it in mind. Space and weight on a ship are always at a premium and having an easily upgradable, easily removable and self contained system is appealing to a lot of customers.
The UK used to operate both and now has switched to Phalanx, and I'm sure it wasn't due to pressure from Raytheon.

First of all i know the differences between these systems(pressure i was talking about was waaaay back when goalkeeper was introduced,you can look it up)
Why Phalanx?well as you said you can switch them between ships,more cost effective.as in goalkeeper you'll mount 1,it stays with the ship,so you'll have to buy for each ship(cost more)and when it was introduced ,goalkeeper,was the best system arround(but as said higher price,weight,etc)There's an article/thread on this forum about cwis-systems,in wich someone here(Kato to be precise,hope i'm not offending him here by mentioning him)says that after each and every 0.2 sec burst it makes an assesement(target)and then adjusts if needed(quite important me thinks),as for Phalanx it shoots a 2 sec burst and then adjusts(when dealing with missiles a 1.8sec difference approx is an eternity(as you will agree,i think)and therefore it's a true multipule target system(there's a video,on wich you can see this,think it's british navy combined with the dutch with 3 rockets(life incomming)all destroyed,offcourse these were"slower" rockets(exocet,etc)but still(to be fair the system's based around the awesome GAU8).But i'm not here to say that 1 is better than the other(i'll leave that up to each and everyone's opinion)merely saying that (as i said)if i was buying wanted the best possible systems(think you can't put a price on someone's lfe,is what i meant.
As for the changing,well nowadays the "beancounters"want it as cheap as possible(everywhere a problem)So it seems nowadays you can put a price on someones life(as long as it's cheaper)

Wich i think is a bad developement(but that's me)

ps system is now being upgraded(electronics etc)to cope with the faster moving objects(read newest missiles) and the possible use against f.i. pirateskiffs/surface targets)

 

[StobieWan]

Well, to wade in here on the subject of GoalKeeper - from a fleet perspective, if money is tight, would you rather have the option to put a CIWS system on any ship you might send into combat ? That's pretty much the option that the RN took by dropping GoalKeeper and switching to 1b. Goalkeeper is probably the system I'd prefer to be sitting behind if all else has failed but let's not forget - CIWS is a last ditch system which is intended to act as a back stop to the ships main AWD fit, and also any soft kill systems like decoys etc.

As to why no euro frigate, we've been down that route twice before and neither are happy stories - the various navies want different things of their ships and even the Franco-Italian FREMM is very different between the two nations - the Italian one has a different drive arrangement (CODAG as opposed to CODOG or CODLOG,for the French FREMM - and now the Italians are talking about extending their later batch FREMM by a fair few meters.

The problem is, everyone wants to preserve their ship building facilities and there's not anywhere near enough work to keep them all open if production is pooled in some way.

 

[walter]

Well, to wade in here on the subject of GoalKeeper - from a fleet perspective, if money is tight, would you rather have the option to put a CIWS system on any ship you might send into combat ? That's pretty much the option that the RN took by dropping GoalKeeper and switching to 1b. Goalkeeper is probably the system I'd prefer to be sitting behind if all else has failed but let's not forget - CIWS is a last ditch system which is intended to act as a back stop to the ships main AWD fit, and also any soft kill systems like decoys etc.

As to why no euro frigate, we've been down that route twice before and neither are happy stories - the various navies want different things of their ships and even the Franco-Italian FREMM is very different between the two nations - the Italian one has a different drive arrangement (CODAG as opposed to CODOG or CODLOG,for the French FREMM - and now the Italians are talking about extending their later batch FREMM by a fair few meters.

The problem is, everyone wants to preserve their ship building facilities and there's not anywhere near enough work to keep them all open if production is pooled in some way.

i understand what you're saying about the differences between french and italian Fremm's(but in the basis they're the same design,or i must be mistaken)it's true that every country want's to have their own weapons,drive,etc on them but i think that's ok(you'll have to support you're local industry,no probs there),but as i said all the ships ordered can also built locally.And i'm still convinced(if poss off course)that if we had 1 "ultimate" design for let's say a korvet we'll could buy much more of these ships(price in numbers,the more you make them,the "cheaper" they get),but that's my idealistic thinking i suppose.

as for the cwis,as said if money's tight the tendency is to go for the cheaper solution/more interchangeble.
And i get why the dutch navy(with her massive aheuhm budget)clings onto the goalkeeper(as said to preserve the local industries,we're lucky that's a very good and well loved system,i know of british navy personal who would have loved to keep it) but isn't it a shame that(if possible)the RN could have had much more ships as other navies could have had if there was some sort of standerd for each and every class(wishfull thinking)

 

[StobieWan]

You can save on a standard design if it's built in a single yard - there's in fact a trade off between the amount saved from having a competing yard and how much you save by having one yard make the same ship.

What you can't see much of a saving in is in by getting a slightly different design made in three or four yards in different countries - it's inefficient. You can save some design costs if everyone co-operates but the last time we had a stab at this with the international frigate, the USN's design criteria were quite strict with the RN's coming in a close second, while the remaining partners wanted to spend a bit less on structural items like trunked access to compartments and various other DC measures.

 

[walter]

You can save on a standard design if it's built in a single yard - there's in fact a trade off between the amount saved from having a competing yard and how much you save by having one yard make the same ship.

What you can't see much of a saving in is in by getting a slightly different design made in three or four yards in different countries - it's inefficient. You can save some design costs if everyone co-operates but the last time we had a stab at this with the international frigate, the USN's design criteria were quite strict with the RN's coming in a close second, while the remaining partners wanted to spend a bit less on structural items like trunked access to compartments and various other DC measures.

get it on the inefficient part(slightly different design built by more shipyards),there fore i was talking about 1"ultimate" design.As for regulations By the USN,why don't we design more ships for european needs(i mean the specs for a US ships will be different as let's say european ships,because they're doing different things and operate in different areas)What i can see however is that navies like let's say the British,Australian,New Sealand is that their ships will be more alike because they operate more in fast ocean aria's(Offcourse the more "european" designed will be able to do that too(but not their maintask)
I think we must go to a stuation in europe where(as i said before)we let those countries design(and possibly built)the ships(classes)in wich it's shown they're very good(historicly)
-Let the germans/swedes/nowegian/danish)netherlands built/design ssk's,in wich those countrie i think are the forerunners(and only users in europe)
-Let the british/france/italian maybe even germans/netherlands built/design cruisers/dd
-let the danish,netherlands,swedes built/design korvets
-let the brits/french built/design ssn

and soforth and so on.

In short let each group do the things they're good in and them i'm sure you'll get worldclass ships and cheaper as they're now(1st thing will be offcourse that each and every country,tones down a bit on the nationalistic sentiments and that politics(european)strives in achieving same goals(made clear in front offcourse)
Then europe could have more than enough ships and all being state of the art(let's say to be bold at least as good,in their tasks,as let's say the americans got.I think it's got nothing to do with quality,technical,design,etc(i think we're,europe,are at least on par with that in comparing the USA.Even now(i'm sure)there are ships in european navies wich the USN would love to have aswell.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think we must go to a stuation in europe where(as i said before)we let those countries design(and possibly built)the ships(classes)in wich it's shown they're very good(historicly)
-Let the germans/swedes/nowegian/danish)netherlands built/design ssk's,in wich those countrie i think are the forerunners(and only users in europe)
-Let the british/france/italian maybe even germans/netherlands built/design cruisers/dd
-let the danish,netherlands,swedes built/design korvets
-let the brits/french built/design ssn

and soforth and so on.

its a bit impractical, navies use platforms that fit their force construct and overarching govt intent. they use diff combat systems, they acquire to support local industry, and they select capability often around the issue of common alignment issues with allies, be it doctrine, training etc....

I wouldn't subscribe to the notion that some euro countries have greater proficiency in designing specific capability types over other euro or nato partners either.

eg ssbn/ssn's france and uk have fundamentally different doctrine, diff design intent, and no desire to share any of that tech that is central to providing advantage

 

[walter]

its a bit impractical, navies use platforms that fit their force construct and overarching govt intent. they use diff combat systems, they acquire to support local industry, and they select capability often around the issue of common alignment issues with allies, be it doctrine, training etc....

I wouldn't subscribe to the notion that some euro countries have greater proficiency in designing specific capability types over other euro or nato partners either.

eg ssbn/ssn's france and uk have fundamentally different doctrine, diff design intent, and no desire to share any of that tech that is central to providing advantage

Well firstly i don't quite agree with you on the design matters(but that's what a forum's for,otherwise we would all agree,end off discussion)As i said these groups(off wich i gave an example,nothing more,not a suggestion)to be fair are in the top off design in speciffic classes(my thoughts,no evidence,just my 2 cents)

As for the not sharing part,that's what i meant by comming down from sentiments,assumptions,etc(we're 1 europe,at least that's the meaning of this project,isn't it?I know there will have to go a lot off water under the bridges(don't know if i'm saying this rightbefore we're convinced of that,but the point is we'll have to work together(on this side off the pond)will we have the slightest off hopes to mean something if something(god forbid)will happen.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well firstly i don't quite agree with you on the design matters(but that's what a forum's for,otherwise we would all agree,end off discussion)As i said these groups(off wich i gave an example,nothing more,not a suggestion)to be fair are in the top off design in speciffic classes(my thoughts,no evidence,just my 2 cents)

As for the not sharing part,that's what i meant by comming down from sentiments,assumptions,etc(we're 1 europe,at least that's the meaning of this project,isn't it?I know there will have to go a lot off water under the bridges(don't know if i'm saying this rightbefore we're convinced of that,but the point is we'll have to work together(on this side off the pond)will we have the slightest off hopes to mean something if something(god forbid)will happen.

well I do have some first hand understanding of the things you are testing your theories on.

eg the UK will not share some of its design elements on nuclear subs with france because they use tech bound by ITARS restrictions

 

[walter]

well I do have some first hand understanding of the things you are testing your theories on.

eg the UK will not share some of its design elements on nuclear subs with france because they use tech bound by ITARS restrictions

So in short they use American technology wich they can't share.(wich is a bit strange in my eyes,because i thought we were all on the same side,but hey that's just me,maybe it's got to do with the countries they sell arms to,but you can regulate that.and also it was originally a "cold" war idea(bit outdated)

If all technology were to be european we wouldn't have had this problem(my thoughts)and i'm sure that we're (europe)are more than capable to do just that