Re: [FT]Modular Ships

Alan Brain wrote:

> 
> >Reconfigurable warships should be more expensive than standard
> >because of the increased access points needed in the wiring,cabling,
> >ducting,plumbing and structural systems to allow them to be
> >configurable.
> 
> But as soon as the mid-life refit occurs, they become quite a bit
cheaper.

How does this change the initial cost?
> 
> >Lastly, the reconfigurable ship is less reliable because there
> >are many more things to go wrong, but they are easier to fix because
> >of all that accessability.
> 
> YMMV in either case. My own experience with Wet Navy vessels is that
modular
> ==
> reliable.
> 
> Have a squizz at http://www.armada.ch/e/2-00/005.htm and look for
"Cosys".
> 
> Actually they understate the case: the COSYS-100 series is for
corvettes
> (various versions have 1-4 consoles), but there's a COSYS-200 variant
that
> will
> suit a small aircraft carrier ( 16+ consoles ). The only difference
between
> the
> series is that for small ships you can get away with a smaller,
cheaper data
> 
> bus. The actual consoles are identical. The software is almost
identical
> too,
> just a few configuration tables changed. OK, a lot of tables changed.
But
> 99%
> of the code is common.
> 
> >There is a reason that no wet navy has tried this, even though it is
> >nice on paper.
> 
> Ummm... the very successful MEKO classes of German Corvettes, Frigates
and
> Destroyers have been using this for years. And the Danish STANFLEX
corvettes
> 
There is a huge world of difference between modular construction and 
reconfigurable construction.  Modular construction is designing an
unmanageably
large thing to be built out of manageable components.  CVN-76 and CVN-77
are
both modularily constructed, but the modules are hardwelded together.
The reconfigurability of FT ships discussed on this list is akin to
saying:

"The USS Vincennes will be operating in the High Arctic, so the clipper
bow 
will be swapped out for the ice breaker bow, and to add the necessary
power,
the helicopter hanger will be replaced with another engine room.  We
expect
the work to be completed in two weeks."

Show me a wet naval ship that has had 10% of its total mass changed to
suit
a particular mission, was returned to its original configuration
afterwards,
and did not need to be out of service for a long time for the changes,
then
I will entertain the notion that configurable warships are doable.

The many variants of Leanders (exocet, ikara, see wolf, broadbeam ...)
shows
that ships can be modular, but we didn't sea the ASW Leanders converted
to
AA Leanders for the Falklands War (which would have been dreadfully 
convenient).