Naval capabilities
USS Billings, viewed from port side, as it gets underway in the Caribbean Sea.
equipment – along with the specialists who can operate that system – reduces the number of platforms that you’d typically have to deploy. Typically, an MCM vessel (MCMV) would usually be accompanied by a corvette or frigate to defend it during operations. “By using modularity here, you can basically have it all in one ship – if you do it right,” Wang says.
From modularisation to motherships Wang cites the Royal Danish Navy’s Absalon-class frigates as a testament to its dedication to making the most out of modularisation, though he’s eager to see the process go much farther. The Absalon-class is a very flexible, hollow frigate, with a 900m2
cargo
hold – with room for about 37 20ft ISO containers. The issue, however, is that while these containers are ideal for on-board facilities like hospitals or additional accommodation, they don’t have access to the air or the sea. For drone systems, for example, it doesn’t make sense to keep them in containers on a deck they can’t take off from. Wang sees the future of modularisation centring around the ability to have modules that can be placed and removed from the side of the ship, which would provide access to both sea and air. With the aid of an integrated small crane, operators could put an ROV out into the water – with airborne drones, containers can simply be elevated to the weather deck or designed so that the floor can be tilted or pushed out, allowing the drone to take off from the side of the ship. “We are looking at such a platform for the Danish
navy,” Wang says, citing the ongoing development of the MPV80, an 84m-long OPV capable of holding roughly 20 20ft containers, all of which would have access to sea and air. “And then you start to really get this right, because now we can make this 84m platform into a self-defendable mothership for autonomous systems in all three dimensions – and that is exactly what navy commanders are looking for right now.” The ramifications of these new kinds of modular ships could change the fleet structure itself. “We like to talk about corvettes, frigates, destroyers, OPVs and MCMVs, but these are basically the same labels that we used 40 or 50 years ago,” Wang notes. Modularity could
18
lead to the end of this, where ships no longer fit so neatly into these classifications – as seen in the form of several ship programmes in the world right now, including the UK Royal Navy’s Type-32, which Wang has seen as “a mothership for drone systems”.
Considerations for conversation So why, Wang asks, are so many people sceptical about the concept of modularisation? One potential reason for opposition, as previously mentioned, is that successful wide-scale implementation of modular ships would change power bases in naval structures. Using a hypothetical MCM squadron commander as an example, Wang notes that such a person would naturally be hostile to the concept of using containers to replace specialised MCMVs. After all, to be an MCM squadron commander, you previously will have been the commanding officer on an MCMV. “Your whole life is about to be taken away from you,” he notes. “But the important thing here is not to be a commanding officer on a ship. The important thing here is to be good at MCM, and […] to do that in the most cost- efficient way.” Salisbury, on the other hand, sees herself as something of a modularisation sceptic, but for reasons Wang would likely agree with. “I worry that [modularisation] is a panacea for important conversations that should be had about fleet structure,” she explains, citing her concern that necessary discussions on the balance between littoral combat, minesweeping and other tasks will be swept aside, as they were with the LCS. By the time vessels like the Type-31 and the Constellation-class enter service, it will be too late to address any underlying issues with the deeper strategy or fleet structure. “If we push these [conversations] further down the line, they will come to the surface at a point where we’ve already spent the money, we’ve already procured these systems,” says Salisbury. “If we don’t make sure that we’re taking it slowly enough to address these issues, we’ll just come up with a delightfully technological fleet that actually can’t do anything well because it’s trying to do too much.” ●
Defence & Security Systems International /
www.defence-and-security.com
US Navy - MC2 Christina Ross
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57
