Modular naval/maritime systems

[Todjaeger]

Having given the current and upcoming needs of the RAN and RNZN some thought, particularly with the importance of minor vessels/warships for MCM, survey or general patrol work, I began thinking about what modular systems are currently available for naval vessels. This then led to thinking about what modular conventions exist or are currently in the works.

At present, I am aware of three types of modular naval systems which exist or are under development, and a fourth which (AFAIK) is just proposed. The types which exist revole around several ISO-containerized MCM modulars for use from the Canadian Kingston-class MCDV, the Danish StanFlex containerized system (used aboard the Flyvefisken and Absalon-class vessels). In development are the LCS-type vessels which are to employ modules to provide ASW, MCM, ASuW and other capabilities. In addition, BMT Defence of the UK has proposed Venator concept for modular, reconfigurable minor warships..

One thing which has occurred to me is that all the different designs seem to be essentially re-inventing the same concept. Given the various pressures on defence budgets, with the limitations that puts on differing vessel designs available, and even more importantly, the limitations on vessel numbers, it seems that in many cases, having reconfigurable vessels will increase in importance. Admittedly, a reconfigurable vessel will likely not be as efficient at a given role as a purpose-designed and built vessel, the ability to reassign a vessel between different tasks can allow a smaller number of vessels to perform the overall duties of a larger number of more diverse vessel classes and types.

So far, there does not seem to have been any attempt at standardizing the types of modules or the interfaces these modules would use. Is it possible (or perhaps even a good idea) for some types of modular systems to have a certain degree of commonality in terms of universal power and sensor/command connections? Or perhaps should modules be grouped by function, size of location aboard ship? If modular systems are the way to go for a number of naval functions, does it make sense for some organization or body (like NATO) to develop a set of standards which different manufacturers can then design towards? I am interested to hear the thoughts of others on this matter.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

Your list is missing the MERZ, a container-based hospital system mounted (or not) on German AORs. Atlas Electronics is currently developing other modules based on the same system (e.g. a naval JFC HQ) to be mounted on the AORs instead. And there's the different SUG modules for the Elbe class tenders, a containerized arraignement of workshops designed to support a specific type of squadron (MCM, FAC etc) per module. There were originally considerations to make MERZ an alternative module of this type, but MERZ turned out to be too large to fit. Both are based around ISO containers. F125 will probably take a similar approach for its small deckside work area btw.

Reconfigurability in the field is a bit overrated. Stanflex shows this quite nicely; the SF300 Flyvefisken don't really change roles, and other Stanflex-capable vessels (SF2000) only have a single configuration in peacetime. What is decisive there is the fact that usually you won't buy more modules than you have in ships to mount them.
Stanflex is now showing some usability with the Absalon and future PS class, i.e. allowing Denmark to buy fewer CIWS systems (since they're only mounted on the ships for deployment), but it's not like this couldn't have been done without Stanflex too.

 

[Todjaeger]

Your list is missing the MERZ, a container-based hospital system mounted (or not) on German AORs. Atlas Electronics is currently developing other modules based on the same system (e.g. a naval JFC HQ) to be mounted on the AORs instead. And there's the different SUG modules for the Elbe class tenders, a containerized arraignement of workshops designed to support a specific type of squadron (MCM, FAC etc) per module. There were originally considerations to make MERZ an alternative module of this type, but MERZ turned out to be too large to fit. Both are based around ISO containers. F125 will probably take a similar approach for its small deckside work area btw.

Reconfigurability in the field is a bit overrated. Stanflex shows this quite nicely; the SF300 Flyvefisken don't really change roles, and other Stanflex-capable vessels (SF2000) only have a single configuration in peacetime. What is decisive there is the fact that usually you won't buy more modules than you have in ships to mount them.
Stanflex is now showing some usability with the Absalon and future PS class, i.e. allowing Denmark to buy fewer CIWS systems (since they're only mounted on the ships for deployment), but it's not like this couldn't have been done without Stanflex too.

Thanks for the imput Kato. Part of the reason I posted was to find out what other modular systems or types were out there. Looking at additional resources, I realized I had also left off the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, which is somewhat modular, as it can be mounted or dismounted from a vessel in dock relatively easily assuming it has the correct fittings. Also there is a gun mounting located on the forecastle of Israeli Saar 5-class corvettes which is interchangable between a 76 mm/63 OTO Melara Super Rapid cannon, a Bofors 57 mm cannon, or a Phalanx CIWS.

My interest in what is available (and how viable it really is) in terms of modular/re-configurable ships has to do with a variety of pressures which are driving some navies to be 'creative' in finding ways to meet required service flows while staying within budget, and have some additional capabilities if a crisis should arise. While I have been thinking specifically about the RAN and RNZN, the situation AFAIK is not unlike what led the Danes to develop the Stanflex concept/system, and is similar to why the USN has been looking at modular systems for the LCS.

What I am interested in finding out are what other systems and capabilities which can be added or removed depending on service needs, without requiring a full dockyard overhaul. Again looking at the Stanflex modules, those are intended to allow a vessel to dock, get changed/reconfigured, and then be underway again with a different mission fitout within 48 hours..

As a tie-in with that sort of capability, has there been any thought or attempt to have the different systems manufacturers set out various standards in terms of module interfaces, sizes, weights, etc? From the modules I am aware of at present, the characteristics of the modules is chosen and set by the vessel designer. Which means that at present, modules for on class of vessel are not going to work on a different ship class without being redesigned.

-Cheers