The Defence and Security Department's Politics and Engineering Working Group analyses current political developments in the defence sector. It provides independent facts and interpretation from engineers' technological knowledge and experience.
The working group has the following recommendations on the DMP-B of 16 June 2022 by the Secretary of State for Defence for replacement of Royal Navy auxiliary vessels. These have been prepared based on publicly available documents and defence technology knowledge and experience. The comments and questions concern technological or related aspects only. As part of KIVI, the working group is independent of political parties, governments and companies.
The working group took note of this DMP-B document with interest and considers it a good choice to abandon the "commercial off the shelf" principle, as had been indicated in DMP-A. After all, as also indicated in our opinion of 7 May 2020, there is no standard market for diving vessels, torpedo work boats and support vessels.
The working group has only a few comments, mainly related to about the "climate neutral" technology applied.
Seagoing support vessels
With regard to the fourseagoing support vessels, the word climate-neutral seems somewhat euphemistically chosen, as diesel oil or non-green methanol will certainly continue to be used for a number of years from delivery between 2026 and 2030.
Methanol from biomass is not uncontroversial as a fuel, and with the current turbulent developments in energy transition, it is not impossible that within the lifetime of these vessels, other energy sources, such as synthetic diesel, hydrogen, or others, will be structurally chosen by society.
It seems important to explicitly take into account a technical need or policy desire in vessel design to substantially change propulsion during its lifetime. For example, easily replaceable or modularly adaptable engines, diesel-electric propulsion where the diesel generator can be replaced by another energy source, etc. It should be avoided that this will meet financial, technical or operational objections in the future. For instance, because the vessels would have to be taken out of service for a long time or the hull and superstructure would have to be drastically rebuilt.
The working group also points out that transferring the risk by means of a DBFMO contract to a third party in the conservation phase could have undesirable effects. After all, a contractor will not want to take on the risk of as-yet unknown renovations.
A shorter(er) cyclical replacement than only after the - in the DMP-A - specified useful life of 30 years can also limit the technical risks of the rapid developments of climate technology.
Port diving vessels
The working group is disappointed that fully electric propulsion is not chosen for these four vessels. The small distances and short sailing periods of these vessels give every reason to do so. The working group assumes that within the lifetime of these vessels, electric propulsion will become mandatory by law for this type of use. With these harbour diving vessels, the Royal Navy could indeed make a positive contribution to climate-neutral technology.
The concepts of the MIN I&W-supported organisation "Zero Emission Services (ZES)" for inland navigation may offer good starting points. Meanwhile, experience gained from the MS. Alphenaar could be useful in this regard.
Safety
The letter indicates the need for additional safety measures due to the use of methanol as one of the (financial) drawbacks. The working group points out that the use of ZES technology mentioned in the previous paragraph could probably tie in with the certification already obtained for the MS Alphenaar, for example.
Launching customership
The working group welcomes the plan to act as a launching customer and recommends this approach in other acquisitions, especially in the Navy.
Incidentally, the concept of Launching customer is often used differently by Defence than in other sectors of the economy. There, the concept of "launching customer" is broader and includes concepts such as "innovation partnership" and "financial project guarantees". after all, 100% investment by the government need not always be the consequence of "launching customer".
Procurement strategy
The working group believes that it may not be most effective to order two categories of ships in one order from one supplier. Substantial technical differences between the two categories would then exclude a large number of specialised yards.
In addition, the working group recommends that if a DBFMO contract is still chosen, a form of pay-for-use should also be considered for this business case, as promised in response to Belhaj motion 35300 X 10 of 30 Oct 2019.
Download a PDF of this commentary here.
_____________________________
The Hague, 24 Jun 2022
More information on the Politics and Defence Technology Working Group can be found via this link.
Do you have any questions? If so, please contact the working group at E: dv@kivi.nl
Would you like to receive the working group's comments and opinions by email? Sign up via this link.
Disclaimer: The facts and opinions given are based on open sources and on the knowledge and experience of working group members.
This is not an official position of KIVI. The association accepts no liability for anything put forward by the working group or its members.
Photo: Ministry of Defence
