Re: [FT]Modular Ships

From: "mary" <r2bell@home.com>

> > But as soon as the mid-life refit occurs, they become quite a bit
cheaper.
>
> How does this change the initial cost?

It changes the lifecycle cost - which is what we're concerned about.

> 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.

Danish STANFLEX modular corvettes - not sure about the 10% figure,
but it would come pretty close to that. As to the time taken - depends
what
you mean by a long time. Supposedly the fits can be changed in a week,
but AFAIK no-one's ever come close to that. Most operate without any
change.

The best article on them is
http://www.ehis.navy.mil/nlnews6.htm

Quotes
The basis of the concept was to design a standard hull with standard
propulsion which could be re-configured to take a variety of
containerised
weapon loads to suit different operational roles. Standardised
containers
and associated interfaces would then allow the role of the vessel to be
interchanged ***within a few hours*** (emphasis added by me)  to meet
different operational contingencies. Sensors common to all roles, or not
suited for containerisation (eg; hull mounted sonars and radar etc),
would
be permanently fitted. In addition, a modular and flexible C3I system,
based
upon a data bus and standardised consoles and processors, would be
fundamental to the concept. Open architecture would allow the C3I system
itself to have hardware and software modules added, or removed, to meet
changing requirements, or new technology.

STANFLEX 300 platforms are built with four wells for the emplacement of
below deck containers, with one forward of the bridge and three aft.
Containers, normally made of stainless steel, measure 3m (length), 3.5m
(width) and 2.5m (height) and may be configured as closed boxes with
watertight doors, or with open sides. Depending upon the weapon system,
the
container module may extend above the deck for the provision of the
overall
system. For example, the rotating magazine for the gun is located below
deck, with the gun turret itself mounted at deck level above the
container.
For mine laying operations the aft wells are closed with watertight
hatches
leaving a clear deck space for mine rails and mines etc. Standard
connectors
for power, data bus, communications, ventilation and water supply are
duplicated on either side of each container and for the provision of
services and appropriate connection to the dual bus system.

http://www.2eskadre.svn.dk/ (Sorry, it's in Danish)

Janes International Defence Review March 2000 had a series of articles,
showing
the new modules to be fitted. Already there are minesweeper, patrol,
missile
etc
modules.

http://www.2eskadre.svn.dk/arkiv/Flexenheder/S/SFlex07.jpg
has a good picture - as you can see, the rear 1/3 of the ship is
designed to
take
a variety of containerised/modularised weaopns fits.

Quote from http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/europe/denmark.htm

Armament: 1 76 mm OTO DP, 1 12.7 mm MG (basic configuration)
 These are multirole patrol boats with can accomodate equipment
 for a variety of roles.  They can serve as gunboats, missile
 boats, minesweepers (with drone minehunters), fast minelayers.
 Also can serve as survey ships, oceanographic research ships,
 buoy tenders, fisheries patrol ships, etc.  Modules include 76 mm
 OTO, cranes, minelaying, air defense (6 cell vertical launch
 Sea Sparrow), antiship (4 Harpoon), torpedo (2 21 inch torpedo tubes),
 mine clearance, EW, ASW.

> 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).

Parenthetically all the ASW Leanders were later converted to Exocet
armed
ones,
IIRC and in 2 weeks, but that's not germane, the change was permanent
and
involved just blanking off the Ikara mags, removing the launcher, and
bolting on
a few containers for missiles. Very crude, and not easily reversed.

Anyway, other ships - the RAN Meko ANZAC ships don't have their Mk 41
(vertical) launchers fitted, except on exercises. These have 200 tonnes
of
firebricks
in the bottom, so must weigh about 300 tonnes overall for an 8-cell
launcher,
and they're capable of being fitted with 2.

The ships themselves weigh less than 4000 tonnes, so there's another
example -
though AFAIK none of them has ever been fitted with more than one
launcher.

Of course, moving a 300 tonne chunk of ironmongery requires a decent
sized
crane.
Fortunately we have a few left over from WW2, which were used for
lifting
off
cruiser turrets etc.

And the New Zealand ones have to borrow Australian modules, as they
didn't
buy any themselves.

*All* the MEKO ships have got standard-sized spaces for containers in,
along
with
a DAIL interface box, so can have other weapons systems fitted in a
hurry.
Alas,
usually the Combat System only has the capability for a limited number
of
weapon
types, often only one. But a Modular Combat System (such as COSYS -
which I
did much of the basic architecture for) - can handle quite a few.

BTW, the ANZAC ships and the STANFLEX both use the NobelTech/CelsiusTech
9LV
modular combat system, a direct competitor with COSYS. The software is
probably at least as good, though the STN-Atlas hardware is probably a
lot
better.

As for *why* do this,
http://www.ehis.navy.mil/Image5.jpg
is an excellent explanation. Wish I'd seen it before, as this is exactly
the
type of
ratio I was proposing for the OU *modular* patrol vessels.