| Shipbucket http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| engineering type question http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6415 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | rifleman2 [ January 9th, 2016, 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | engineering type question |
given the expense of modern warships and naval vessels there is a need for them to be flexible. How practical is it for them to be built to accept modular, containerised and palletised systems that can be mixed and matched to the planned mission. Eg a frigate going to the west Indies for Anti Narcotics and disaster relief shouldn't need SSM, CIWS,Torpedoes and Towed array sonar. But could benefit from extra sea boats enhanced enviromental control, accommodation and storage. but next year going on a major NATO exercise it may require all the top end kit. If she could pull into port for a few days while the systems were craned on, Plugged in and calibrated and the supplementry crew arrived aboard. wouldn't that be a solution to some of the problems |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ January 9th, 2016, 1:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
That exist. It's called Stan-flex... something the Danish Navy love!! The danish frigates have it. Here is the danish Flyvefisken class: ![[ img ]](http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Denmark/FAC%20SF300%20FLYVEFISKEN.gif) AGS: ![[ img ]](http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Denmark/FAC%20SF300%20FLYVEFISKEN%20AGS.gif) AWS: ![[ img ]](http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Denmark/FAC%20SF300%20FLYVEFISKEN%20ASW.gif) ASuW: ![[ img ]](http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Denmark/FAC%20SF300%20FLYVEFISKEN%20ASuW.gif) MHC: ![[ img ]](http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Denmark/FAC%20SF300%20FLYVEFISKEN%20MHC.gif) MLS: ![[ img ]](http://shipbucket.com/Real%20Designs/Denmark/FAC%20SF300%20FLYVEFISKEN%20MLS.gif) Other Navy's goes for an multi-role vessel to do most tasks. They either send a frigate or and coast guard ship. |
|
| Author: | apdsmith [ January 11th, 2016, 9:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
Yep, the Danes have used this on stuff from a 1,500 tonne corvette all the way up to their 6,500 tonne air defence frigates, it seems like a pretty clever system. Fitting takes hours rather than days, although that is the system stuff, the people presumably take a bit longer to be re-trained. |
|
| Author: | Judah14 [ January 11th, 2016, 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
The US Littoral Combat Ship is based on that concept, but screwed it up, resulting in what is basically an overpriced fast OPV. It is a good thing later versions of the LCS will have the armament of a "proper" frigate. |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ January 11th, 2016, 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
It's worth noting that while StanFlex works in the technical sense and it has some not insignificant advantages when it comes to maintenance, it never really worked out on the operational side. As apdsmith alluded to, training crews to new tasks takes a long time. Hence why the RDN ended up operating the SF300 class in more or less fixed roles. You can see this on the newer vessels. While most of the weapons are mounted in StanFlex containers the ships aren't really designed to other types of modules in their stead. The FlexDeck on the Absalon is largely operated by specialists who're embarked for the mission and as such have relatively little impact on the day to day running of the ship. |
|
| Author: | apdsmith [ January 11th, 2016, 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
Hi Thiel, Thanks for the detail, I didn't know that ... a question, then, but only a quick one, before I derail the thread - could you let the trained module-specific crew follow the module also, if you were doing it yourself (for an AU, for example)? Would that be workable, do you think? Ad |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ January 11th, 2016, 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
I don't see why not, but you'd have to have a vessel to stick it in at all times if you want to keep your crew up to snuff. That's not much of an issue if the module in question is a hospital or command center since you've got land based versions of those to slot the people into, it's something rather different if it's a missile launcher. |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ January 11th, 2016, 6:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
What about an training facility for simulation... It's not the same but better than nothing. |
|
| Author: | JSB [ January 12th, 2016, 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question |
The problem with having the crew on land ready (in simulators) is that it will be expensive, if you don't save much on crew by 'fexing' why not have them on board when you are in West Indies for Anti Narcotics and disaster relief as you will need bodies and have to pay them anyway. That and unlike some smaller navy's big ones need to be able to redeploy to a hot war without going home even for a few days, what if you are an RN frigate in the WI in 82 do you really want to have to go back to Portsmouth to swap modules or just go south ? (same could be said for any of USN/MN/etc) |
|
| Author: | Scifibug [ February 12th, 2016, 9:48 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: engineering type question | |
The US Littoral Combat Ship is based on that concept, but screwed it up, resulting in what is basically an overpriced fast OPV. It is a good thing later versions of the LCS will have the armament of a "proper" frigate.
Have they picked a final configuration for the LCS/Frigate yet? Modular ships Build ten ships. Two are combat fitted, Two anti-mine warfare, four narc/CG outfitted. Ratings train on other fit out when on shore. When needed change modules as the situation warrants upgunning as many as possible before you need to deploy. |
||
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|