StanFlex vs OUDF

7 posts ยท Dec 8 2001 to Dec 14 2001

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 15:29:30 +0100

Subject: StanFlex vs OUDF

Hello,

The Danish navy operates a number of STANFLEX ships, each of which is able
to carry one or more payload modules. With the use of a 15-tonne
capacity
crane these modules can be changed very fast - 30 minutes for the actual

swap, plus a few hours to check the new module out. (Unfortunately the crew
often needs a refresher course to be able to use the new modules
efficiently :-/ ) These were part of the inspiration for Alan's modular
OUDF designs.

The 7th of November issue of JDW had an article about the STANFLEX program,
with more detailed data on the number of ships, modules etc.:

The navy currently consists of: * 14 SF300 units able to carry 4 modules each
* 4 MSF Mk 1 (Danish acronym for "Minor Standard Craft", ie. surface
auxiliaries) able to carry one module each
* Assorted non-STANFLEX units in desperate need of replacement

Planned future purchases: * 6 additional MSF Mk 1 * 6 MSF Mk 2s able to carry
2 modules each
* At least 2 "Common Inspection Vessels" with 3-5 modules each
* 2 "Flexible Support Ships", each with 6 modules, ability to carry "about
75% of an army reconnaisance squadron" and 2 high-speed fast insertion
craft for SOF ops * 2 "Patrol Ships", each with 6 modules (essentially FSSs
without the troop carrying capacity)

The current module inventory is: 10 x SSM (Harpoon)
20 x SAM (Mk 48 Mod 3/Seasparrow)
19 x Gun
4 x Anti-sub weapons
4 x Anti-sub sonar
5 x Mine Counter Measures
22 x Crane (for deploying small craft in SAR and peace-time patrol ops)
2 x Oceanography
3 x Anti-pollution
1 x Survey 14 x Storage
1 x SIGINT/ELINT

Later

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:56:15 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: StanFlex vs OUDF

> On 8-Dec-01 at 11:23, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:

How long is the refresher course? If it isn't much longer than module
changeover times it shouldn't be a problem. I'd assume yard dogs do the
changeover, not ships complement.

I could also see specialists that work with one module type only. A similar
setup to the air wing on a carrier. Rotate them on only when needed.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:23:18 +0100

Subject: Re: StanFlex vs OUDF

> Roger Books wrote:

> The Danish navy operates a number of STANFLEX ships, each of which is

The article didn't say, except that they were "more lengthy". IIRC you're
Navy, so you're far better placed to estimate how long it'd take to
re-train a crew from full-time customs patrol/SAR duties to full-time
sub-hunting or minesweeping?

> I could also see specialists that work with one module type

This approach works for a large navy like the USN (more likely "for a large
navy, ie. the USN"...), but I don't think the cash-poor RDN can afford
having a lot of specialists just sitting around :-/

Later,

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:52:32 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: StanFlex vs OUDF

> On 13-Dec-01 at 13:35, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:

This is just experience in the USN, but I personnally wouldn't trust a crew of
what were affectively newbies anyway. I'm really curious
now how this would work.  In the USN you have a specialtiy (NEC/MOS/
whatever it can be called) and you work within this area. I'm not sure how you
could avoid having a dedicated group of ASW on a
ship which is sub-hunting.  You have them play bosuns when the
module isn't in and they will lose skills. Even with a refresher course it
would still be a while before they are up to speed.

I guess the way I would do it is staff 50% of my highly technical modules. If
you need more than that online you mix the new people in with those who are
experienced.

Others may argue with this, but it has been my experience that up to date
training and experience is more important than any other piece of the
equation. Quality personnel keep trash gear working. Quality personnel give
the officers a chance to lead or even prop up poor officers so the job gets
done.

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:45:17 +1100

Subject: Re: StanFlex vs OUDF

> On 13-Dec-01 at 13:35, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:

> > >>(Unfortunately the crew often needs a refresher course to be able

> I guess the way I would do it is staff 50% of my highly technical

The following applies to the OUDF, not the RDN:

FWIW... the OUDF modules are self-contained, and have 80% crews assigned
to them. When a new module is fitted to an OUDF ship - which takes weeks
rather than hours - the module's crew is transferred (at least in
theory), and the other 20% comes from the ship's existing complement.
There's a fair degree of cross-training of ship's crews for particular
modules. So, for example, a ship's Navigator's Assistant may also be qualified
to head the FC team of a Missile Module, and also be Supercargo supervisor for
a VIP pod.

In practice, because the OUDFN is short of personnel, there's also a floating
pool of trained personnel for a particular module type who get assigned as
needed, there's never enough.

This practice is a work-around though - the idea is that (ideally)
reservist crews can spend a lot of their part-time service on training

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:27:36 -0800

Subject: Re: StanFlex vs OUDF

> Roger wrote:

> I guess the way I would do it is staff 50% of my highly technical

One thing to consider with this whole set-up is that this may be used as
a
long-term solution instead of a "Switch-em-every-mission" scenario.  A
ship may spend years NEVER having to switch from one duty to another. But if

some day the balance of two ship missions for the same relative-sized
hulls
goes from, say, 30-70 to 50-50, you don't have to mothball 20 of one
type and build 20 of another. You just take 20, and switch out their modules.
While it may require the training of replacements for a large percentage of
the crews, in the long run it is still faster and cheaper than rebuilding a
new fleet. While in gameplay you might be switching them between missions,
it seems an even more attractive option for campaign/background flavor
justification.

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:59:00 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: StanFlex vs OUDF

> On 14-Dec-01 at 15:33, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:

> One thing to consider with this whole set-up is that this may be used

So in a campaign game you could say it takes X turns to swap a module. Sounds
good to me.