DEBATE. Denmark must ensure security of supply in the maritime area, the government has previously announced. However, the solution is not to establish a naval shipyard and produce the hulls yourself, believes former project manager Peter M. Legêne, who here gives his take on how the project should be approached.
Almost a year ago, the consortium Danske Patruljeskibe K/S offered itself as a total supplier for the Swedish Navy's future patrol ships. Most recently, the National Partnership has come forward with a report on the socio-economic potential of building new ships in Denmark . The purpose of the report is to examine the possibilities of expanding and maintaining a national shipbuilding capacity. The report recommends, among other things, that ship hulls be built in Denmark.The Labor Movement's Business Council's forecast for the development in Denmark shows that we lack 99,000 skilled workers in 2030 . Creation of a new Danish shipyard for hull production of steel hulls for Danish naval vessels will reinforce the lack of labour.
Production of ship hulls in Denmark will drain personnel resources (shipbuilders, blacksmiths, electricians, etc.) from existing Danish shipyards and companies, which today and in the future must repair and maintain the Navy's ships and vessels, and lead to a shortage of labor there. Lack of labor will traditionally lead to wage pressure, wage increases and increased inflation, which we do not need at the moment.
It is claimed in the report that building ship hulls in Denmark increases security of supply. Is it the hull itself that increases security of supply? The answer is no! Ship hulls in the Swedish Navy have traditionally had a lifespan of 30-40 years. On the other hand, the critical supply is the systems that are built into the hull, namely propulsion machinery, auxiliary machinery etc. as well as sensors, information systems and weapons.
Production facilities will cost billions
Propulsion machinery, auxiliary machinery and most weapon systems are not produced in Denmark, so it is surprising that it is precisely the hull production that must take place in Denmark in order to increase security of supply.Military systems are typically updated once or twice during the lifetime of the ship's hull and, as mentioned, are typically purchased from companies abroad. Hull production in Denmark is still dependent on imports of shipbuilding steel from abroad. So it's like that with increased security of supply.
I have noted that in the National Partnership's report (recommendation 4) it is recommended that the Armed Forces make demands on the use of robotic technologies. I just want to mention that it is not good Latin to make demands on the manufacturer's choice of technical solutions. This reduces his options for creative and cheaper solutions.
I have also noted that the Partnership recommends that the Norwegian Armed Forces commit to a strategic plan for ship procurement over a period of 20-25 years. The binding probably also applies to the political level – those who grant the acquisition! Who can say what the security political situation will look like in just five, ten or fifteen years?
Karstensen Shipyard (KS) delivered the third unit of the "Knud Rasmussen" class to the Norwegian Navy in 2016. The vessels were delivered at the agreed time and price. The ship's hulls were produced in Poland and subsequently towed to Skagen for completion in the shipyard's and the Navy's workshops. Today, KS owns its own shipyard in Poland.
Establishing production facilities in Odense will cost several billion. An amount of NOK 2.4 billion is mentioned, but to this are additional costs for location in relation to quay facilities, land, etc. So additional billions will probably have to be set aside for the project. Finally, the robot technology must be fully developed – it must be considered a development project with the uncertainty associated with it – so that further years can pass with increased costs.
Built in Poland, and fully equipped in Denmark
In order to fulfill the Defense's wish for the delivery of the first patrol ship, a decision on the establishment of a hull production facility must be made in mid-2024, cf. Danske Patruljeskibe K/S. So the delivery date has already been exceeded. Politically, the acquisition must be approved, but the political situation may make it difficult for a timely decision to be made, so further delays must be anticipated.An existing solution that does not require multibillion-dollar investments is therefore right in front of you: KS produces the six ship hulls at their shipyard in Poland, and the capacity of the larger Danish shipyards is used to fully equip the units. A monopoly agreement can be entered into with the larger Danish shipyards, where the profit is locked in on a negotiated basis. The proposed solution is absolutely the most risk-free investment for the acquisition of new vessels for the Norwegian Navy.
In response to my initial question, whether hull production for patrol ships should be carried out in Denmark, the answer is NO. Defense funds can be better spent elsewhere.
I have noted that the future patrol ships (read: corvettes) are designed to be part of the solution to the marine environment task. There must have been a technological breakthrough! It has previously been investigated whether requirements for a warship could be reconciled with the tasks that environmental ships must solve. This was not possible. Instead, from the political side, the procurement of environmental ships should be initiated. It is high time.

OLFI - Skal der etableres et nyt orlogsværft for skrogproduktion i Danmark?
For knap et år siden tilbød konsortiet Danske Patruljeskibe K/S sig som totalleverandør til Søværnets kommende patruljeskibe. Senest har Nationalt Partnerskab

Whilst I understand the economic pov of the article. It's a very common approach to "defense" in Denmark.
The question I feel compelled to ask is: Is it possible to have a hybrid shipyard that does both. All for the purpose of retaining shipbuilding capability, and competent workforce.
If not, a cooperation among the Scandinavian countries would be preferable, especially because of historic cooperation and that would be a better solution. The work force in these countries are moving around freely so it would contribute to retaining the said competencies and knowhow.