Re: [FT]Modular Ships

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> 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.

For MEKOs the crane's a bit bigger. Sometimes a lot bigger, depending on
the
exact module type.

I forgot to say that Malaysia has just purchased some MEKO-100 Patrol
Vessels, with the COSYS-100 combat system on. That makes about 20
navies ships some of my work's sitting on... Sometimes only a few bits
of the design, like the F-123's 76mm ballistics calculations. Sometimes
more,
like on the new Israeli subs. And in this case, a shipload.

> "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.

I agree, couldn't have put it better myself.
And as anyone on the list can tell you, when both Oejan and myself agree
on
something, then the reliability is high <g>.