Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Q&A · 30:53-33:39

Are mission bays a liability for future destroyers?

Littoral Combat Ship problems prompt a comparison with Danish modularity and British mission bays used for boats, relief cargo, uncrewed-vehicle control, and temporary command facilities.

Command And ControlDanish NavyElectronic WarfareHMS BristolHumanitarian AssistanceLittoral Combat ShipMission BaysModular WarshipsStanflexType 26 FrigateType 31 FrigateType 82 DestroyerType 83 DestroyerUncrewed Systems
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Question

Do Littoral Combat Ship problems show that mission bays are a bad idea for ships such as Type 83?

Short answer

No; well-designed mission bays are useful flexible spaces, although modularity needs sustained funding and cannot substitute for adequate ship numbers.

Notes

Type 82 refers to HMS Bristol, while Type 83 is the future destroyer discussed in the comment. The Littoral Combat Ship's problems are weighed against twenty to thirty years of successful mission-bay use in Danish and other fleets. Type 26 and Type 31 spaces can carry extra high-speed boats for Gulf patrols or counter-drug operations. For disaster relief, a ship could collect containers of supplies nearby and carry them to the affected area. Other proposed uses include extra command facilities for uncrewed surface and undersea vehicles, electronic warfare, and data analysis. A temporary command installation could let a frigate serve as an ad hoc flagship. Danish StanFlex weapons and mission spaces illustrate how modular equipment lets ships adapt to different tasks. The equipment and support still need adequate funding, and even a highly adaptable ship can operate in only one place at a time. Modularity therefore leaves the requirement for enough hulls intact.