There is a shift in how the maritime warfighting force is evolving and with that significant elements for a paradigm shift in the maritime force.

One aspect of that paradigm shift has been spearheaded by the Danes with their focus on a new generation of modular shipbuilding.

That approach is discussed in detail in a report and podcast we posted on Defense.info on 27 November 2024.

And we generated a podcast to discuss that report as well which can listened to here.

But why is there so much resistance to the paradigm shift by Western navies?

After all, talking advantage of the paradigm shift is crucial to being able to compete effectively with the Chinese.

That question is answered by an insightful article by Poul Skadhede, Chairman of OMT.

He posted this article on his Linkedin account and we are publishing it with his permission.

Modular and Adaptable Navy ships – Why are things moving so slowly?

Modularity! Everyone talks about it when discussing future surface combatants. It seems to be on everybody’s wish list. And rightfully so. But yet – so little is actually happening with regards to this topic.

In this article, I would like to briefly explore current state-of-affairs regarding functional modularity in naval surface ship and also look into WHY it may be that change towards increased modularity is happening so slowly.

I will not discuss why modularity is beneficial to Navies – much has already been written on this topic. But it may be worthwhile to dwell on what at least OMT Group A/S and CubedIn A/S defines as naval modularity:

• Design modularity: How a family of products (e.g. from corvette to large frigate) can be created using common components (e.g. machinery) or concepts (e.g. engine room lay-out or maintenance concepts).

• Build modularity: How design-for-manufacturing enables a distributed and flexible build process that will enable faster builds and less congestion of the limited ship-yard capacity that we have available.

• Functional modularity: How we increase the functional spectrum a given vessel can solve over its lifetime through integrated and standardised modules.

I will propose that functional modularity (the topic of this article) can be described in 3 levels:

• Tactical: Expanding the capabilities of a vessel short term through fast adaption of additional capacities (e.g. a minelaying module) or the fast replacement of a dysfunctional module (e.g. a canon)

• Operational: How a given vessel can be kept up-to-date through its lifetime at less cost and with less downtime because upgrades can happen faster and with higher quality through built-in modularity.

• Strategic: How Navies (and even allies) can increase naval firepower through interchangeable sensors or effectors – in theatre or over time.

The lack of this common vocabulary means that that we as a ship designer/producer/user community of Naval ships are only at the very initial understanding of what modularity is and what it can do for us in decades to come. Basically, modularity describes a way to get to an end – and we could consider if we should become better in describing the end rather than the way. Is a word like e.g. adaptability more concise in describing what we are trying to achieve?

For instance, for many commentators, modularity seems to equal containerisation of (additional and non-core) payloads. And yes, containerization is one component of modularisation – but far, far from all of it. The majority of the containerized application we have seen requires stand-alone operation of the asset in question, and the integration into the ships “operating engine” (symbolized by the IPMS system) or its war-fighting nerve (symbolised by the CMS system) is totally lacking. So yes, containerisation will help a lot to modularize simpler application – but more functionality and integration needs to happen for it to take the next step.

For others, modularisation seems to be all about how you can change or add applications in a few hours. Again, very nice if it is about simpler applications. But the real benefits are measured by the adaptability of the vessels in question over decades. How can you upgrade your radars without is being a massive undertaking requiring years at a shipyard? How can you add more energy to the ship that will allow it to act as a platform for directed energy weapons? How can a new vessel receive used but still up-to-date sensors or effectors from the ships they are replacing? Etc etc. These are the real questions to be answered – this is where the real value of modularisation lies.

For most commentators, modularisation is a domain (naval) specific topic. Why? Why don’t we think about how e.g. the ship-based Harpoon or SM2 missiles (and launching mechanisms) can be used from on-shore installations or on-shore mobile platforms? Imagine the versatility that would give.

Software modularity-enablement also seems to be a non-topic out there. We cannot really move modularity forward if we do not consider how advanced sensors, effectors or e.g. power supplies should be integrated into the ships core systems – the IPMS and the CMS. Metaphorically speaking: Imagine if the apps on your phone were not connected to the physical phones power supply, GPS or operating system (e.g. Android). Where would that leave us? And yet, this is the case when talking about naval modularity.

The biggest problem with current thinking, however, lies in the way naval ships are designed and operated/manned.

To really get the benefits of modularity, crew modularity is at the core. We need to sharply distinguish between platform crew and payload crew. And the later does not belong to the ship – they belong to the application (sensor/effector) in question.

And to really enable modularity-at-scale, ship designers have to rethink their approach to designing and become more payload centric. Number of applications (sensor/shooter) is at the centre of the design process. Ships have to be designed with much more logistical capacity and flexibility to enable launch and recovery of anything unmanned. To the air, to the sea, below the sea. Payload capacity should be the new black – not speed, not fit-for-one-purpose-ships. It’s really a mind-set thing (and a competence issue).

So again: We are currently cavemen when it comes to naval modularity. All of above-mentioned impediments needs resolve. And I guess that I am not the only one seeing that – so the big question is – why is so little happening? I will propose that three main themes must be addressed going forward:

Standards

Every technological breakthrough requires that standards are developed. Without them, nothing will happen at scale. Remember the video-format war between VHS and Betamax – had there not been a winner, the video industry would never have developed. Or imagine your smartphone without Android and Google Play. Imagine that each phone-producer developed their own interface to the apps in this world. Not scalable, right?

Standards will allow interoperability, lower costs, reduce lead-times and increase quality when discussing modularity. They need to come into play both in the physical world and in the digital world. Applications should be able to develop interfaces (API’s etc) against well-defined standards.

If we get to this stage, things will start moving. Who is taking the lead on that one?

The Industry

The naval industry is currently dragging their feet when it comes to modularity. Yes, there are upcoming entities that tries to promote modularity. But the big players are not really.

Why?

Probably due to several factors. For one, true modularisation will disrupt many of the current revenue streams for major players. Why would e.g. a CMS supplier jeopardize the revenue stream that comes from lengthy, costly upgrades when new sensors or effectors are brought to a ship? If it was just as easy as it is to download an app from Google Play, where would all the lovely revenue then be? And the lock-in factor will be much less. Or why would ship-designers and shipyards be incentivised to think modularity? MLU’s will be simpler, smaller etc.

It probably also has to do with competence. We live in a world where we have hard-welded and hard-wired everything to the ship for centuries. Platform and applications are one-and-the-same. Naval vessels are – still to a large extent – made for specific purposes. So, we don’t know how.

The Navies

Is there anything more traditional than a western navy? I doubt it. Navies want what they have always wanted. Fast ships. Made-for-purpose ships. Crews that belong to the ship. Etc. Yes – it would be great to add some modularity. But no, certainly not at the expense of anything that needs to be just as it was yesterday.

But resistance is not just about traditionalism. Functional modularity has the potential to change both doctrines and Naval organisations. Will we e.g. still need dedicated MCM-platforms – or can this mission type be solved differently with multi-purpose ships and an MCM organization that follows the modules? If yes – what happens to that part of our Navy? And will everybody like that?

Navies could actually enforce a change in mindset in the defence industry. They are, after all, the paying customers! And western Navies can together develop the standards required.

But it starts with the mindset in the Navies and  there is still a long way to go.

Modularity is a key to ensuring that our navies continue to be relevant and cost effective. We are currently at the initial stages of understanding this, and there are many impediments to overcome to ensure that we pick up speed on this journey. The demands from navies to industry is all time high and shortage of industrial capacity is a prevailing problem.

It is a perfect storm. Smart use of modularity thinking allows industry and Navy’s to deliver programs faster and more efficiently to the benefit of both parties.