I think if NRDI was to develop a local StanFlex alternative, we could simplify the navy into two combat ship types to cover all of our needs.
Yarmook and perhaps JCF. Naturally both ships will become larger and thats fine, it works out well.
Imagine having the ability to have the same, modular weapons and mission systems fit between the two types. It would drive cost down not only now, but for future combatants too by reusing our mission modules. We could literally MLU a vessel while its still at sea completing its combat duties, is that not crazy?
we would be able to cover all of our needs like this.
Having NRDI design the modules is key though IMO, it gives us total control over the ecosystem and designs, just requiring shipbuilders to consider them into the design. We could pick up hulls anywhere, redesigning them in house to fit our modules
In the current JCF, I figure it'd involve blocking off 2 areas for mission modules, e.g., one 'Medium' module (MM) at the bow (enough for SAM VLS), with a 'Large' module (LM) at the center that can take SAM, LACM, and/or ASBM. You can eliminate the dedicated slant launchers for ASCM/ASBM and allocate the whole area for the LM, which can be pre-configured based on the required mission set of that specific ship (a AAW/ASuW or AAW or ASuW). I think the dedicated ASW element can stay as it may (?) involve the area under the helicopter landing deck. Or create a 'Small' module (SM) that can swap out the ASW for MCMV or AUVs (which can double as smart ASW torpedoes).
IMO... designing the SM, MM, and LM is doable. Just a super high-level look, but I think it's basically 2 main parts: the underlying compatibility with the FFG, and the overlying technology (e.g., VLS). The VLS could be sourced from Turkiye via the MIDLAS and, generally, function independently from the ship it's integrated to via the MM/LM. The point being, the 'underlying technology' (LM/MM) needs to work such that, in theory, a VLS can run anywhere, literally, if the LM/MM can fit to the ship it's being integrated to.
NRDI would need to design the 'underlying technology', which , from my raw guesses, need not be that complex. It's an issue of ensuring the ships you're designing have the space and 'connectors' (?) for electricity, fiber-optics (for connecting with sensors, CMS, etc), etc. So, the ship design's "receiver" stack needs to perfectly align with the Module's "sender" stack.
You basically do this from the start, i.e., when you're designing the (for ex.,) JCF V2, you synchronize it with Module development. You say JCF V2 will carry x1 LM, x2 MMs, and x2 SMs (left side, right side). The JCF V2 needs to have space for it and the exact right connectors for each of those modules. In parallel, each of the modules needs to honour the JCF's connectors and space limits.
So, basically, instead of designing each ship with its own unique connector stack to fit whatever mission set you've predefined, you're designing each ship with very standardized connectors that fit 1:1 with the modules. When you define each ship's size, you assess how many and of what type of Modules you can fit. Hence, a 550-ton mini-corvette might only carry 2 SMs at most (1 aft AUV or MCMV thing and 1 VLS for MR-SAM and JCM-sized ASCM), while, in theory, you can keep space for 2 LMs on a tanker which may or may not ever use its connectors.
The trickiest part might be ensuring that the off-the-shelf inputs (e.g., MIDLAS VLS) is compatible with the Module stack and, in turn, the ship connectors. It's doable if you clearly spell this out to the OEM.
The other option is to abstract the Modules entirely to the point where you just need predefined space and the most essential connectors in the ship, like power-generation, cooling, etc. So, the Modules are completely separate from the sensor integration; meaning, you need the Modules to come with their own sensors too.
swzmaritime.nl
www.navalnews.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
www.damen.com
