> Do you charge a points premium for reconfigurable ships ? In campaign
> My way of thinking would be that building a reconfigurable ship would
Not neccessarily: Currently, the Royal Australian Navy has X number of major
surface combatants, but only X/2 Close-in-Weapons Systems,
Surface-to-Air-
Missile Systems, Radar Absorbent Material Kits etc etc.
Ships that are in low-risk areas can operate without a lot of the
expensive
stuff. Conversely, those that operate in high-risk areas get fitted out
with
the whole kit and caboodle (at leas, in theory...). In extended periods of
tension, we could (in theory again) buy more of the expensive bits in a hurry,
which you can't do with ships.
What this means in terms of a Full Thrust campaign is up to the individual: My
own OU designs - the Freemantle/River class in the ship archive, and the
others
that I've put on this list - have some deliberate "balancing" put in
them.
1) Constant size modules - you can't just bolt on whatever you want.
2) Size is 8 - this was *deliberately* chosen to preclude hanger bays
for fighters as being one of the modules. Maybe it could have been allowed,
but
play-balance was something I was concerned about, and giving every
super-
destroyer in the OU fleet the ability to carry a fighter group was something I
really didn't want. 3) The "Fluff" states that there aren't enough modules to
go around ( in 2180, anyway).
> Reconfigurable warships should be more expensive than standard
But as soon as the mid-life refit occurs, they become quite a bit
cheaper.
> Lastly, the reconfigurable ship is less reliable because there
YMMV in either case. My own experience with Wet Navy vessels is that modular
==
reliable.
Have a squizz at http://www.armada.ch/e/2-00/005.htm and look for
"Cosys".
Actually they understate the case: the COSYS-100 series is for corvettes
(various versions have 1-4 consoles), but there's a COSYS-200 variant
that will
suit a small aircraft carrier ( 16+ consoles ). The only difference
between the series is that for small ships you can get away with a smaller,
cheaper data
bus. The actual consoles are identical. The software is almost identical too,
just a few configuration tables changed. OK, a lot of tables changed. But 99%
of the code is common.
> There is a reason that no wet navy has tried this, even though it is
Ummm... the very successful MEKO classes of German Corvettes, Frigates and
[ship modularity]
> >There is a reason that no wet navy has tried this, even though it is
While y'all are fixated on the wet navy analogies right now, don't forget
we're discussing a space combat game...and given the topic
of modularity in space, may I point out my favorite topic - The
Hubble Space Telescope. It was *designed* to be modular, completely, and has
had several successful Servicing Missions in which components were swapped out
and new ones swapped in. This is the forerunner for
how space craft are likely to be designed (at least multi-role space-
craft or those easily serviceable given the resources of the day, at any rate;
NGST will not be modularly designed if anyone's interested).
Okay, I'll grant you that HST isn't a warship and the only combat it has seen
has been with micrometeorites, but I think the basic idea of modularity holds
itself in good stead here.
Mk
***
While y'all are fixated on the wet navy analogies right now, don't forget
we're discussing a space combat game...and given the topic
of modularity in space, may I point out my favorite topic - The
Hubble Space Telescope. It was *designed* to be modular, completely,
***
While not a total negation of your point, I would like to add that the HST
is not designed for high-G manuevers, which a warship would most likely
be.
How easy to swap in and out might have a bearing on it's stability:
drop-in
containers are sensible in a cargo ship while dropin warship sections might
well require serious work in attachments and cross-bracings.
On the other hand, any craft with deadfall or externally mounted weapons could
be considered 'modular' in a sense. Hardpoints are expensive, but not so
ruinous that they aren't hung on every place you can manage.
PSB could fall in either direction, methinks. I know I have my bias in this
area, and feel comfortable maintaining it in my universe, given the arguments
above.
In the end, though, if you have to maintain large stocks of modules that are
significant size percentages of complete ships, I'd argue that the savings
should not be too game breaking.
If I buy the crew section of a ship for 50% of cost, and each group of modules
to complete the ship costs 50%, for two complete changes of ships, I'm paying
150% of a single base cost, but only have a single ship available at a time.
How you break the crew section and module sections, even by pieces, will still
give you pause, and that's not even with the appropriateness of a cost penalty
for the flexibility.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> Alan Brain wrote:
> >Reconfigurable warships should be more expensive than standard
How does this change the initial cost?
> >Lastly, the reconfigurable ship is less reliable because there
But
> 99%
There is a huge world of difference between modular construction and
reconfigurable construction. Modular construction is designing an unmanageably
large thing to be built out of manageable components. CVN-76 and CVN-77
are both modularily constructed, but the modules are hardwelded together. The
reconfigurability of FT ships discussed on this list is akin to saying:
"The USS Vincennes will be operating in the High Arctic, so the clipper bow
will be swapped out for the ice breaker bow, and to add the necessary power,
the helicopter hanger will be replaced with another engine room. We expect the
work to be completed in two weeks."
Show me a wet naval ship that has had 10% of its total mass changed to suit a
particular mission, was returned to its original configuration afterwards, and
did not need to be out of service for a long time for the changes, then I will
entertain the notion that configurable warships are doable.
The many variants of Leanders (exocet, ikara, see wolf, broadbeam...) shows
that ships can be modular, but we didn't sea the ASW Leanders converted to AA
Leanders for the Falklands War (which would have been dreadfully convenient).
> Richard Bell wrote:
> There is a reason that no wet navy has tried this, even though it is
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.
> "The USS Vincennes will be operating in the High Arctic, so the
Not exactly. What it means is this:
"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.
> Show me a wet naval ship that has had 10% of its total mass changed
We've already pointed you at them... Not sure if it is exactly 10% of the
total mass, but it is the offensive weaponry. <shrug>
> The many variants of Leanders (exocet, ikara, see wolf, broadbeam ...)
You didn't see that, *because the Leanders weren't built to allow it* -
they do have their weapon mounts welded to the rest of the hull, for example.
The MEKOs and STANFLEXs *are* designed from scratch to allow just this.
Regards,
From: "mary" <r2bell@home.com>
> > But as soon as the mid-life refit occurs, they become quite a bit
It changes the lifecycle cost - which is what we're concerned about.
> There is a huge world of difference between modular construction and
> Show me a wet naval ship that has had 10% of its total mass changed to
Danish STANFLEX modular corvettes - not sure about the 10% figure,
but it would come pretty close to that. As to the time taken - depends
what you mean by a long time. Supposedly the fits can be changed in a week,
but AFAIK no-one's ever come close to that. Most operate without any
change.
The best article on them is
http://www.ehis.navy.mil/nlnews6.htm
Quotes The basis of the concept was to design a standard hull with standard
propulsion which could be re-configured to take a variety of
containerised weapon loads to suit different operational roles. Standardised
containers and associated interfaces would then allow the role of the vessel
to be interchanged ***within a few hours*** (emphasis added by me) to meet
different operational contingencies. Sensors common to all roles, or not
suited for containerisation (eg; hull mounted sonars and radar etc), would be
permanently fitted. In addition, a modular and flexible C3I system, based upon
a data bus and standardised consoles and processors, would be fundamental to
the concept. Open architecture would allow the C3I system itself to have
hardware and software modules added, or removed, to meet changing
requirements, or new technology.
STANFLEX 300 platforms are built with four wells for the emplacement of below
deck containers, with one forward of the bridge and three aft. Containers,
normally made of stainless steel, measure 3m (length), 3.5m (width) and 2.5m
(height) and may be configured as closed boxes with watertight doors, or with
open sides. Depending upon the weapon system, the container module may extend
above the deck for the provision of the overall system. For example, the
rotating magazine for the gun is located below deck, with the gun turret
itself mounted at deck level above the container. For mine laying operations
the aft wells are closed with watertight hatches leaving a clear deck space
for mine rails and mines etc. Standard connectors for power, data bus,
communications, ventilation and water supply are duplicated on either side of
each container and for the provision of services and appropriate connection to
the dual bus system.
http://www.2eskadre.svn.dk/ (Sorry, it's in Danish)
Janes International Defence Review March 2000 had a series of articles,
showing the new modules to be fitted. Already there are minesweeper, patrol,
missile etc modules.
http://www.2eskadre.svn.dk/arkiv/Flexenheder/S/SFlex07.jpg
has a good picture - as you can see, the rear 1/3 of the ship is
designed to take
a variety of containerised/modularised weaopns fits.
Quote from http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/europe/denmark.htm
Armament: 1 76 mm OTO DP, 1 12.7 mm MG (basic configuration) These are
multirole patrol boats with can accomodate equipment for a variety of roles.
They can serve as gunboats, missile boats, minesweepers (with drone
minehunters), fast minelayers. Also can serve as survey ships, oceanographic
research ships, buoy tenders, fisheries patrol ships, etc. Modules include 76
mm OTO, cranes, minelaying, air defense (6 cell vertical launch Sea Sparrow),
antiship (4 Harpoon), torpedo (2 21 inch torpedo tubes), mine clearance, EW,
ASW.
> The many variants of Leanders (exocet, ikara, see wolf, broadbeam ...)
Parenthetically all the ASW Leanders were later converted to Exocet armed
ones, IIRC and in 2 weeks, but that's not germane, the change was permanent
and involved just blanking off the Ikara mags, removing the launcher, and
bolting on a few containers for missiles. Very crude, and not easily reversed.
Anyway, other ships - the RAN Meko ANZAC ships don't have their Mk 41
(vertical) launchers fitted, except on exercises. These have 200 tonnes of
firebricks
in the bottom, so must weigh about 300 tonnes overall for an 8-cell
launcher, and they're capable of being fitted with 2.
The ships themselves weigh less than 4000 tonnes, so there's another
example -
though AFAIK none of them has ever been fitted with more than one launcher.
Of course, moving a 300 tonne chunk of ironmongery requires a decent sized
crane. Fortunately we have a few left over from WW2, which were used for
lifting off cruiser turrets etc.
And the New Zealand ones have to borrow Australian modules, as they didn't buy
any themselves.
*All* the MEKO ships have got standard-sized spaces for containers in,
along with a DAIL interface box, so can have other weapons systems fitted in a
hurry. Alas, usually the Combat System only has the capability for a limited
number of weapon
types, often only one. But a Modular Combat System (such as COSYS -
which I
did much of the basic architecture for) - can handle quite a few.
> Show me a wet naval ship that has had 10% of its total mass changed to
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> Then, to use your terminology, the MEKO and STANFLEX ships are
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,
> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
I accept that this is close enough to ten percent; however, it conclusively
shows that the modules have extra hardware(including, but not limited to those
little cabinets) which must increase their cost, and add some premium the the
cost of a reconfigurable warship. You must also concede that the
reconfigurability is limited to sensors and weapons.
From: "mary" <r2bell@home.com>
> I accept that this is close enough to ten percent; however, it
Limited to sensors and weapons? Yes.
Additional costs? Not really. The initial cost is a tadge higher, but after
you've built a few, the cost decreases due to less training, maintenance etc.
This was not a design consideration, but has proven to be true for a lot of
vessels. Hence the popularity of the Meko concept, where navies that have no
intention of ever swapping to different types of module still like the
modularity, because maintenance is a lot cheaper. It's a bit like having sound
cards, video cards etc rather than having everything built on to a single very
expensive motherboard. You may pay a bit more to have the additional bus
slots, but the first time you want to upgrade, or the first time a chip dies,
you save heaps. But of course, your software had better manage the IRQ etc
conflicts. But software that does this is
in a better position to cope with VR goggles, scent-sprays or whatever
new hardware is coming in the next 5 years anyway.
> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
The minimal extra cost for a module is the containerization that allows it to
be quickly slotted into a socket, or be safely stored portside.
Un-modular components do not need these as they are only installed once
and the ship protects its innards from the outside.