Yesterday, 3 June, Dutch Members of Parliament debated the intentional award of the Dutch submarine order to French Naval Group with the State Secretary of Defence Christophe van der Maat and Minister of Economic Affairs Micky Adriaansens. Several delicate issues came up, including the Central Government Audit Service (Auditdienst Rijk, ADR)’s access to Naval’s financial data, Dutch industry’s share of the order, whether or not Tomahawk missiles are an option and a possible capability gap.
Last week, Dutch naval website Marineschepen.nl and Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant reported that the requirements for the French yard were adjusted during the tender process to keep the yard in the race. Marineschepen.nl wrote: ‘It is not possible for the Netherlands to independently investigate the bid of French shipyard Naval Group. This was a requirement of Defence, but according to French law, no foreign audit department is allowed to investigate French tenders. Defence adjusted the requirement during the tender, without informing the House of Representatives or the other shipyards.’
The State Secretary strongly denied this claim during the debate. He confirmed that French auditors were present when the Dutch ADR checked the financial data, but that the Netherlands did have and will have full access. In addition, he denied Naval was able to win the contract as a result of state support. According to Van der Maat, the tender process was a clean process, which was also confirmed by the Court of Audit (Algemene Rekenkamer).
Also read: TKMS to court over Dutch submarines, Saab-Damen leaves it to Parliament
Dutch defence industry
Once again several Members of Parliament expressed concerns over the involvement of Dutch industry in the multi-billion-euro contract. It was Minister of Economic Affairs, Micky Adriaansens that went into this issue.
She explained that the involvement of Dutch companies has been recorded in an Industrial Cooperation Agreement (ICA). Adriaansens stated: ‘There are firm commitments and these become legal obligations when the contract is signed. And we make sure that the yard fulfils these commitments. The checks are done by the ADR.’
In addition, several media reported that if Saab-Damen had been selectd, more money would be spent in the Netherlands, but the Minister denied this. She said: ‘If I compare the financial value of industrial cooperation – Naval and Saab’s ICAs – with the value of the bids submitted, the ICAs of the two yards are similar. But there are some differences. Naval Group does relatively well on critical systems from design to subcontracting (which mainly concerns matters such as platform automation, acoustic panels and sonar) and Saab is particularly keen to place integration work with Damen and involves fewer companies supplying critical systems. Naval works with a wide group of companies, without one dominant partner. Saab mainly wants to set up very close cooperation with one Dutch partner and create a shell of supplying companies around it.’
Van der Maat later added: ‘The economic footprint is just the same. There is no alternative before us that would entail more economic footrpint on the hardness of the offer than the current proposal.’
Also read: Serious doubts over government decision on submarine replacement
Maintenance
When it comes to maintenance, Van der Maat explained: ‘The supply agreement includes agreements on transferring user rights for maintenance during the boats’ lifespan up to and including future disposal. Those agreements enable the Naval Maintenance and Sustainment Agency (DMI) to carry out core maintenance activities independently. It is up to the Ministry of Defence to then outsource maintenance to Dutch industry. How maintenance activities will be shaped further will be worked out in the coming period.’
Also read: Damen on submarine contract award: ‘Foundation of Dutch naval construction swept away’
Tomahawk missiles
In 2022, the Dutch government decided it wanted American Tomahawk missiles on its new submarines. Last week, Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf stated this may become a problem as the Americans would not want their missiles on board a French sub. Of course, the State Secretary of Defence was questioned on this matter as well during the debate.
Van der Maat explained that no certainty has been provided by the Americans for any of the three suppliers, because it was not decided until 2022 that the boats should be suitable for the missiles. According to Van der Maat, the article in De Telegraaf ‘does not paint an accurate picture of precisely the careful steps we want to take with the Americans to enable the procurement of the Tomahawks.
He added: ‘The next steps for equipping the new submarines with the Tomahawk cruise missiles which are that after the final choices for the submarine yard are made, we will further work out the detailed integration mode in consultation with America. On the basis of which formal permission will be sought from America to share the necessary integration information with the yard. Ultimately, the US Congress must give approval to these plans.’
Also read: Dutch submarine contract provisionally awarded to Naval
Capability gap
The debate ended with a number of motions that Dutch Parliament will vote on next Tuesday, 11 June. Most important for whether the contract signing will go ahead is a motion by Dutch political party SGP (and backed by some other parties) to delay a decision on the new contract until the new Dutch government has been formed.
However, the outgoing State Secretary stressed that a capability gap is already a real risk. The current Walrus class will remain in service longer to wait for the new submarines. To do so, two of the current four submarines will be taken out of service to provide spare parts for the other two. But this extension cannot go on forever, and of course there is always the risk of further delays during design and construction of the new boats. Delaying the decision on the submarines even more, will definitely lead to a capability gap and will leave the Netherlands without submarines for a period of time, according to the State Secretary.
He concluded with a response to the motion to delay the decision: ‘With everything I have in me, I discourage this motion. The moment this motion is passed, I will never implement it.’
Court case
In addition to having to wait for the motions on Tuesday, there is still a court ruling to wait for before a contract with Naval can be signed. The third contender for the contract, German Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems, decided to taken the Dutch government to court over the choice for Naval. According to Marineschepen.nl, this court case will take place on 26 June.
Picture: Artist impression of the new submarine (by Dutch Ministry of Defence).
