The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Grim901]

insignificant.

Grim

There is no such thing as a "bolt on CIWS", in so far that you wish to integrate the weapon with the ships combat and surport systems (that's probably a good idea). So you will f.ex. need to have a standard that allow the gun system to communicate with the ship (computers). or that the power surply has the right voltage etc etc, That's part of the standardisation concept and it doesn't happen by it self.



I disagree. You have to think containerisation/standardisation into a larger context. (well, subs are special ). The airdefense missile of the carrier could be a container. many of the weapon systems on the AAW can be containers. The standards can just as well apply to the Carrier as well as the patrol boat. There is f.ex. no reason why the man-machine interface needs to look different on the carrier than on the fishing inspection unit.
Remember, nobody is saying you should containerize the carrier aircrafts or put the smapson radar into a container, or have the engines installed in 12 foot containers.

Most certainly not insignificant, designing a system to be containerised and fully transportable etc, is harder than just integrating it, it adds steps to the design and development.

As for CIWS, If you were to look at Phalanx, it is bolted on, plugged in and ready to go as long as the combat system is programmed to handle it. That is no different to what would be needed of a container system. And a CIWS has to be optimally positioned, not bolted on at the back. A container system relies entirely on missile point defence.

As for the last paragraph I have quoted, lets put what you said in context of the Royal Navy:

1) The CVF's have no missile system, just a Phalanx, except possibly CAMM later in life but there's no indication of that. And if it is added later it wouldn't require a redesign. And the last think you need on a laden carrier is containers on the flight deck in the way of aircraft.
2) These other weapons systems on the AAW you talk about are non existent. The Type 45 has Sea Viper, which we've established can't be containerised, and a main gun, which definitely can't be containerised.
3) If by man machine interface, you mean screens and operating systems, they ARE standardised, see Windows for Warships.

@Kev: To be fair to the concept, extra screens for specialist systems aren't installed on the ship, they're put in another container that is then linked into the combat systems along with the weapons system container. However that is fairly inefficient in design, as weapons control is effectively isolated from the rest of the ships control, being in a hanger/cargo area, rather than on the bridge.

Palnatoke: Kev and I do agree that the system is a good idea, but only as far as the Danish and American have taken, Littoral vessels. And possibly as a, as I mentioned earlier, capability enhancement to a specialised vessel, i.e C2. If simply isn't feasible across an entire Blue Water fleet.

 

[kato]

If simply isn't feasible across an entire Blue Water fleet.

One word: MEKO.

Makes it perfectly feasible across a Blue Water fleet. Not necessarily as flexible as Stanflex (sic), but in essence it does take a plug-together-and-go approach as well. To a far larger scale, i.e. the entire ship.

 

[kev 99]

@Kev: To be fair to the concept, extra screens for specialist systems aren't installed on the ship, they're put in another container that is then linked into the combat systems along with the weapons system container. However that is fairly inefficient in design, as weapons control is effectively isolated from the rest of the ships control, being in a hanger/cargo area, rather than on the bridge.

Well that does in essence sound to be a less efficient system, the point remains that the space for them still needs to incorporated into the design would always have a greater impact than an integrated control system.

Kato - I'm not that familiar with Meko but doesn't the approach essentially about building ships out of standard modules, rather than having ships with swappable ones?

 

[Palnatoke]

Building a ship with an open architecture will always be more complex because it has to have integrated more systems than a specialised one

Though much of that is software, once developed, easely replicated.

it will require an open cargo space for containerised mission/weapon systems as well as space for the consoles of those systems so that they can be 'plug and play'.

Rather you have placements for the different containers. You don't have a cargo space for the containers.

F.ex.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/images/Skibene/Skaden(1994).jpg

Going from the bow, the 76mm OTO SR is a flex container (one of the large, not so easely replaced - all combat units carry that as default). The Radar can be exchanged (not easely), the 2 times 4 harpoon launchers are two flex containers, the unit, depending on how old the image is) is possibly also armed with a number of ESSM (until lately they had the SSM) in two flex positions (aft from the harpoons).
This would be a ship in the surface to surface role, with AD cababilities.

Here is a picture of the containerized OTO gun;
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly/images/fly4s.jpg

You also have one set of consoles or terminals connected to the mainframe. The computer system is completely integrated, centering on a mainframe that service the entire ship (made possible by the standard of protocols etc) .
The standard console looks like this:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly/images/fly6s.jpg

The overall ship may appear to be less complex because it's just a shell without lots of systems,

It doesn't appear - the platform is less complex. Periode. And this is a great advantage when you build the ship or want to exchange old weapon systems with new and modern ones.

but just because a system isn't being carried doesn't mean it hasn't been integrated, systems need to work together and must by their nature be quick to install, this can only mean the combat management systems must be more complicated because they will have to be reconfigurable to accept different roles.

Now you are assuming "role changing", which we don't discuss. But the answer is that yes, you have to develop the system once.

A ship that is built to do three or four jobs will always be more complex than one that is built for 2.

Well, as discussed above it will have more complex subsystems. But is it cheaper than two?

My main arguments are that such a standardisation system will give an easy oppertunity to maintain a very high degree of conformity across the fleet, f.ex. because it's easy to exchange and upgrade systems, that is a major money saving issue. That you get flexibility by being able to pool sub systems (like weapons). That the construction phaze of the platform is relatively simple and easy managed (also a cost saver). That the conformity allows your surport (from spare parts to training) organisation to be lean -a huge cost saver.

That the danish navy has her own role changing concept is a different story, A shipclass which btw is designed to an intense and limited battle space scenario where the warsaw pact would make a nuclear prepared amphibious operation against the straights of denmark, now after 20 years that class of ships aren't new anylonger, neither very well adapted to a changed threat enviroment and lacks the stealth you would expect of such a small unit.

 

[Palnatoke]

A container system relies entirely on missile point defence.

I get the feeling we are talking about two different things?

Look f.ex at the at CIWS just under the bridge:

http://forsvaret.dk/SiteCollectionI...værnet/Flexible Støtteskibe/ABSL160808020.jpg

that weapon is "containerized" according to the Stanflex standard.
the 5" gun is however not. Look also at the midship weapon deck, there, at different flexpositions, you find containerized ESSM and harpoons that this ship carry for self defense (it's not a true combattan). These are exactly the same as you see installed on the SF300 class I showed in my previous post.

However that is fairly inefficient in design, as weapons control is effectively isolated from the rest of the ships control, being in a hanger/cargo area, rather than on the bridge

That is not StanFlex.

 

[kato]

Kato - I'm not that familiar with Meko but doesn't the approach essentially about building ships out of standard modules, rather than having ships with swappable ones?

The standard modules are far more swappable than building the ship conventionally.

It of course depends on the actual use of the ship. Neither Stanflex nor the planned LCS systems are really used along the lines of "today this role, tomorrow the next". It's used on a strategic level, i.e. at best keeping rotating equipment pools (as with the CIWS on the Absalons), but mostly just realignment of ship roles on a long-term basis, and at this level Meko also eases integration of new subsystems.

However that is fairly inefficient in design, as weapons control is effectively isolated from the rest of the ships control, being in a hanger/cargo area, rather than on the bridge.

No warship of decent size (ie unless required by size) puts the weapon control and sensor terminals in the bridge. The bridge is for navigation, and only that, as far as weapon systems go.

 

[Nero S]

(it's not a true combattan).

This always cracks me up. "Oh, it spots a 5 inch gun, two 35mm anti-aircraft guns, 16 harpoon missiles, 36 ESSMs, 2x2 torpedo tubes + reloads and a dozen assorted small-caliber machine guns. But it isn't really a combattant. We think of it mostly as a ferry. Let me show you the tax-free shop..."

 

[kev 99]

Well, as discussed above it will have more complex subsystems. But is it cheaper than two?

I was not talking about cheaper, I was talking about better.

It doesn't appear - the platform is less complex. Periode. And this is a great advantage when you build the ship or want to exchange old weapon systems with new and modern ones.

Rubbish, an Absalon's Harpoon launchers and VLS for ESSM are integrated into the ships combat management system because they still need to talk to the ships various radars and other systems, the hardware interface for them is also integrated, just because those launchers or VLS aren't present on the ship at any one time does not make the ship less complex it makes it more because you have to design in the ability (both software and hardware) to add them in or take them out. New weapons systems added at a later date need to be integrated with the ships computers in exactly the same way as on any other ship. All the containerised approach does here is improve the physical integration by providing a ready made space with the necessary cabling, if you design a ship with future upgrades in mind then there is no reason why you can't do something similar.

Incidentally if you read the brochure for T45 you will see that there is substantial space left in the ship for upgrades to systems, this was part of the design brief and part of the reason why the ships are so large.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/08_489_HMS_daring_VIP_low_20090122125408.pdf

Basically as far as containerised systems go I think the US navy have got the right idea: for blue water ships is not so great, for littoral vessels it makes a great deal more sense.

 

[Grim901]

One word: MEKO.

Makes it perfectly feasible across a Blue Water fleet. Not necessarily as flexible as Stanflex (sic), but in essence it does take a plug-together-and-go approach as well. To a far larger scale, i.e. the entire ship.

Hadn't come across this concept before so still not exactly in the know, so feel free to correct me, but hasn't MEKO only been used on frigates and OPVs? I said it wasn't feasible for a full blue water navy, i.e Carriers, Amphibs, AAW's and if you are going all the way, SSNs. I don't see any evidence of containerised systems being that useful in those roles. And is MEKO about containerisation or just general standardisation?

I get the feeling we are talking about two different things?

Look f.ex at the at CIWS just under the bridge:

http://forsvaret.dk/SiteCollectionI...værnet/Flexible Støtteskibe/ABSL160808020.jpg

that weapon is "containerized" according to the Stanflex standard.
the 5" gun is however not. Look also at the midship weapon deck, there, at different flexpositions, you find containerized ESSM and harpoons that this ship carry for self defense (it's not a true combattan). These are exactly the same as you see installed on the SF300 class I showed in my previous post.



That is not StanFlex.

We're talking about different thing I think. When I said CIWS I meant systems like Phalanx, Goalkeeper and SeaRAM.

Incidentally if you read the brochure for T45 you will see that there is substantial space left in the ship for upgrades to systems, this was part of the design brief and part of the reason why the ships are so large.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/08_489_HMS_daring_VIP_low_20090122125408.pdf

Basically as far as containerised systems go I think the US navy have got the right idea: for blue water ships is not so great, for littoral vessels it makes a great deal more sense.

I had read that there were positions already prepared for two Harpoon launchers already incorporated into the ship (appropriate cabling, power supply already in place) so that it can be fitted quickly if necessary, just like Phalanx. Containerisation just takes the favourite RN phrase "fitted for but not with" to a whole new level.

As I've said before, I agree 100% that for littoral ops there is potential for containers, but not for some of the larger blue water ships.

 

[kev 99]

I had read that there were positions already prepared for two Harpoon launchers already incorporated into the ship (appropriate cabling, power supply already in place) so that it can be fitted quickly if necessary, just like Phalanx. Containerisation just takes the favourite RN phrase "fitted for but not with" to a whole new level.

As I've said before, I agree 100% that for littoral ops there is potential for containers, but not for some of the larger blue water ships.

I'd say the RN have got the size and upgradability issue with T45 right here, just a shame we won't get more of them.

I think we're pretty much on the same page.

 

[Palnatoke]

I was not talking about cheaper, I was talking about better.

Those measures cannot be separated.

an Absalon's Harpoon launchers and VLS for ESSM are integrated into the ships combat management system because they still need to talk to the ships various radars and other systems

True. But consider the combat mangement system. If you make (essentially a piece of software) it using an open architecture approch, you can make a scalable system, in which you can add or remove subsystems (F.ex. an ASW module, AAD Module etc). In that way you achive one combat mangement system for the entire fleet, AAD destroyers as well as fishing inspection units. Though we don't have to limit ourselves to "combat", while we are add it you can also add engine montoring systems, navigational systems, emails and entertainment for the crew etc. In the other end the StandFlex standard makes sure that the weapons, sensors etc can communicate with the mangement system of the ship (the container has the necessary electronics/software to accomplish this).
When you think about this you realize that not only can you tailer the system to meet specific demands, that the man-machine interface can be standardized, but also that the navy do only need to build and maintain competences and qualifications to service one scalable system. You have definately reduced complexity.
You have defined a standard and you reap the rewards of conformity.

the hardware interface for them is also integrated

No, the container communicate directly with the "bus" - part of the containerisation.

if you design a ship with future upgrades in mind then there is no reason why you can't do something similar.

Ofcourse, but I ask have f.ex. the RN commited herself to a single standard?

Incidentally if you read the brochure for T45 you will see that there is substantial space left in the ship for upgrades to systems, this was part of the design brief and part of the reason why the ships are so large.

I hope that I have made clar that the concept is about a lot more than leaving "space" free.

Basically as far as containerised systems go I think the US navy have got the right idea: for blue water ships is not so great, for littoral vessels it makes a great deal more sense.

Don't disagree, though I am left with the feeling that the fleetwide standardisation and conformity, that I see as pivotal, is left out and instead we are again back at dull role chaning, something we have allready agreed is relevant for LCS.

 

[Palnatoke]

We're talking about different thing I think. When I said CIWS I meant systems like Phalanx, Goalkeeper

No, the CIWS I showed you is a Orlikon Contraves "Millenium" cannon (I think it's called). A machine cannon that fires AHEAD munitions to defeat all sorts of threaths, like missiles. Same function as a phalanx.

 

[Palnatoke]

This always cracks me up. "Oh, it spots a 5 inch gun, two 35mm anti-aircraft guns, 16 harpoon missiles, 36 ESSMs, 2x2 torpedo tubes + reloads and a dozen assorted small-caliber machine guns. But it isn't really a combattant. We think of it mostly as a ferry. Let me show you the tax-free shop..."

I quess it's millitary-political. Easier to sell to the pacifists, and the navy like to underline that they got "Command and surport", but it goes with the story that they didn't get the attack subs that they wanted. So it's only logical that they also need something to actually "command and surport", namely new true warships (which they later got and is being builded as the Ivar Huitfeld class).

 

[ASFC]

Why is stanflex being touted as a solution for the RN?

It works for Denmark because the other choice would be to build lots of classes of specialised vessels, with only one or two ships per class, because that is all Denmark requires.

Whilst the RN is not as big as it used to be, it isn't (thankfully) in that situation yet. And for all the MoDs problems the Defence budget is still big enough to not have to 'standardise' one one set weapons system for each role.

What the RN does need is something like the Meko system-the abilty to use standard modules (or standard designs of modules) to knock together new ship designs quickly and cheaply. What I don't agree with is tieing yourself to a set number of containerised weapons that are 'pooled' for fleet use. You want the ability to have the best weapons available for use in your navy, not tied to whatever can be 'containerised' into certain positions.

Even Denmark realises Stanflexs limitations-a fair few of the weapons systems on their new frigates are 'permanent' (like the Mk41), only Harpoon and ESSM are in containers (and the 76mm until they buy a large calibre gun as a replacement), and only because it makes sense to make them available for other units within the RDN that might need them.

It works for a small navy, with a very small 'blue water fleet'. Not sure it would work for a larger navy that needs to keep up with changes in technology.

Just my thoughts.....

 

[Nero S]

Why is stanflex being touted as a solution for the RN?

It works for a small navy, with a very small 'blue water fleet'. Not sure it would work for a larger navy that needs to keep up with changes in technology.

Just my thoughts.....

I don't think anyone is trying to sell the Stanflex system to the Royal Navy. The discussion seems to revolve around the merits of a modular system and the advantages and disadvantages thereof. But it is hard to talk about naval modular weapons systems without talking about Stanflex.

As for why you think modularity means that you can't keep up with changes in technology, that you may have to explain a bit further.

 

[Grim901]

As for why you think modularity means that you can't keep up with changes in technology, that you may have to explain a bit further.

No naval tech. is currently designed to be containerised, it has to be redesigned to fit a container, adding time and extra cost to development, putting a navy that requires it behind that of competing navies. It also means that certain new technologies can't be used on containerised ships if the tech. can't be containerised.

 

[ASFC]

As for why you think modularity means that you can't keep up with changes in technology, that you may have to explain a bit further.

I didn't say that. I said that IMO building warships using as many (or as few) modules of a similar design (i.e modularity) (ala MEKO) was a good idea. What I don't think is a good idea for larger navies is something like Stanflex-or if you like the containerisation of weapons, because how up-to-date your weapons are depends on how much money you are willing to spend on developing the system (like Stanflex).

Like I say, such containerisation of weapons works well for Denmark, given the size of their fleet and its expected roles, but that doesn't mean that it works for everybody. In many ways Stanflex is Denmarks 'ffbnw'-because I wonder how many times the Thetis and Knud Rasmussen classes have/will carry the heavier weapons that being stanflex ships allows them to?

 

[Nero S]

No naval tech. is currently designed to be containerised, it has to be redesigned to fit a container, adding time and extra cost to development, putting a navy that requires it behind that of competing navies.

Real life seems to contradict this. If I remember correctly, the RDN was one of the first navies to have the ESSM operational. In a container. They are also updated to Harpoon block II, in the container, so there doesn't seem to be much of a lag caused by the integration of the weapons systems.

As for naval tech not being containerized, maybe not, but most systems are quite "modular". A Harpoon launcher is essentially the same package, regardless of where it is installed. And if you put it in a container, you only have to integrate it once, not every time you build a new class of vessels. And every time you update, you only do it once, not for every vessel class that is carrying the module.

It also means that certain new technologies can't be used on containerised ships if the tech. can't be containerised.

Modularity isn't an all or nothing proposition. The 5 inch gun on ABSL isn't containerized, and obviously, the mk41 VLS on the upcoming Ivar Huitfelt isn't going to be either. Both of them are too big to fit in the stanflex container and will be in a "traditional" fixed installation. But if I understand it correctly, in the Danish application, both of them are to be controlled through the standardized C-FLEX command and control system. So in that sense, they are "modularized" as well.

I am coming off as a complete fanboi here, which is not my intent. You can argue many ways over whether the RN should go modular or not. I just don't see that the size of the navy is a valid argument. This is also drifting so far OT that we should be ashamed of ourselves....

 

[riksavage]

Change of subject, bit of good news:

Britain’s special forces to have new weapon - Times Online

Quote: “The combat divers of Britain’s Special Boat Service (SBS) will soon be getting some new transport. The “shallow water combat submersible” (SWCS) will be able to carry six frogmen for 100 miles at depths of up to 300ft. Studded with sonar sensors, the lightweight mini-sub is designed to detect and evade an enemy, before landing Special Forces under its nose. “

Looks like the UK variant is the same proposed for the SEALS (no surprise as both share similar doctrine). However I thought they would have gone for a dry system, rather than sticking with the wet option similar to its predecessor, particularly because it can operate at 300 ft. Old oxygen based re-breather meant you used to be restricted to 30 metres, the newer generation models no longer have the same problems associated with CO2 poisonings.

The Sea Dagger offered by Kokum is dry mini-sub and can be configured for specialised missions. The submarine is still pretty small, with displacement in the range of 55t tons. And could easily be fitted behind the sail on the Astute.

Sea Dagger Special Operations Submarines - Naval Technology

Not sure if any Navies are currently using dry systems, or how many Navies outside the US/UK use swimmer delivery vehicles?

 

[ASFC]

I am coming off as a complete fanboi here, which is not my intent. You can argue many ways over whether the RN should go modular or not. I just don't see that the size of the navy is a valid argument. This is also drifting so far OT that we should be ashamed of ourselves....

No you are not-some good points there.

Its not so much the size of the navy, but the fact that the larger the navy is, the more likely they are to keep replacing larger ships on a rolling system, thus continuing to keep up with technology, hence IMVHO that navy would have to consider if it is willing to spend more money to keep developing a system like Stanflex, or whether it should just add the weapons as a permanent feature of a ship. As you point out, even Denmark realises its limitations with their latest frigate designs.

riksavage-very good news, seems to continue with Huttons line of developing Special Forces capabilities.