Sub engine slipups

Re: “Wuhan trip to clear engine doubts,” (BP, Jan 30).

This article needs some comments as there are some errors, in my view.

1. Having checked the details of the various ships in service with the RTN (source Wikipedia), there are no ships using the MTU 396 diesel engines, as stated. Various ships are fitted with MTU engines but mainly type 20V1163 TB 83 diesel engines.

2. MTU GERMANY did refuse to sell the selected engine as they’re not allowed to export any equipment that could be used for military purposes to China. This regulation should have been known to both contracting parties at the time of contract negotiations and when the contract was signed!

3. The comments attributed to Yutthapong Charasathian, deputy leader of the Pheu Thai Party, that a contract was signed for the supply of a submarine with no engines seem incredulous.

No party would sign a contract in such a way, and the debate regarding the engine issues clearly refutes that allegation.

The real question is related to why the change of engines.

When the award of the contract was announced, the RTN and the Ministry of Defence said a comprehensive study has been performed covering all available diesel-driven submarines (assume this covers Germany, France, Spain, China, plus others who build submarines under licence from original equipment manufacturers).

It was announced that the submarine from China best suited the needs of the RTN.

It is assumed this study covered all aspects of the performance of the submarine, including propulsion.

Question: why request a change to the propulsion system? Such a change would result in redesign work in the build of the submarine.