Re: [FT]Modular Ships

Richard Bell wrote:

>>>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.

Then, to use your terminology, the MEKO and STANFLEX ships are
"reconfigurable" and not "modular". The equipment modules aren't
hardwelded to the main hull; IIRC it takes less about six hours and a
good crane to change a STANFLEX equipment module for another. Sample
equipment modules include gun modules, anti-ship missile modules,
anti-air missile modules, anti-sub modules and probably a number of
others as well that I can't remember right now. The MEKOs are similar.

>"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."

Not exactly. What it means is this:

"Next week the USS Vincennes will be used for ASW duties, so tomorrow
we'll lift out her anti-surface missiles and the gun turret and replace
them with ASW modules." Replace "USS Vincennes" with the name of a
Danish STANFLEX ship, and the statement would be entirely valid.

>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.

We've already pointed you at them... Not sure if it is exactly 10% of
the total mass, but it is the offensive weaponry. <shrug>
 
>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).

You didn't see that, *because the Leanders weren't built to allow it* -
they do have their weapon mounts welded to the rest of the hull, for
example. The MEKOs and STANFLEXs *are* designed from scratch to allow
just this.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry