TY  - GEN
N2  - This paper outlines the range and depth of the series of NATO Industry Advisory Group (NIAG) modularity studies conducted by industry over the past ten years that examined the operational benefits, capabilities and costs of modular fleets for naval forces and makes comparisons with traditionally designed organic vessels. Commencing in May 2010 NATO has commissioned five MissionModularity studies. This work drew together over 50 defence contractors from 14 countries in the Alliance. In total 78 representatives attended working meetings to contribute expertise in all branches of engineering and science for the design, procurement, operation and support of naval ships and systems. The main sponsor for these studies was the NATO Ship Design Capability Group SDCG (formerly Maritime Capability Group MCG-6) with guidance of members of the United States Department of Defence (DoD NAVSEA), United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (D Ships) and the Netherlands Ministry of Defence (DMO). The ubiquity and cheapness of the ISO (International Standards Organisation) container suggested wide application for transportation and pre-outfitting to form a Mission Module and for the first NIAG study SG- 150 (Reference 1) the standard ISO Twenty foot Equivalent Unit container (TEU) was considered for Civil- Military Co-Operation (CIMIC) operations, specifically Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR), Harbour Protection (HP) and Counter Piracy (CP). The base vessel types considered were Landing Platform<br>
Dock/ Joint Support Ship (LPD/JSS) which provided necessary space and loading/unloading facilities without<br>
major design modifications. Subsequently it was realised that a prepared package of equipment (a module), designed to be self-contained with suitable ship-to-module interfaces (space, power, communication links etc.) that could be quickly installed in a host ship, could provide an alternative means of enhancing the organic (i.e. built-in) capability of naval vessels for other types of missions. Where a threat exists, ISO TEUs need protection and issues of security may be involved that need careful management. Applications of mission modularity include combat systems, both self-contained e.g. Unmanned Vehicle (UXV) or Close In Weapons System (CIWS) as well as primary weapons that depend on the ship’s organic resources such as the command system. The studies have evolved to consider the interfaces between module and host vessel and this work made an important contribution to a NATO Standardization Recommendation (STANREC) and its supporting document Allied Naval Engineering Publication ANEP 91 (Reference 7) and STANAG 4834 supported by ANEP-99 (Reference 16). These documents identify the many interfaces between module and host ship that should be standardised in order to facilitate the sharing of modular capabilities between NATO naval ships. NIAG studies have focused in large measure on what can be considered a module and the necessary ship design features and arrangements for fitting them. The type of modules appropriate to both CIMIC and warfighting missions were evaluated, including embarkation, layout and ship fitting requirements, interfaces, ballistic and shock protection, logistics and costs. Many options were considered for the most advantageous means of owning and managing module deployment to conduct NATO missions. The most recent NIAG study SG-236 (Reference 9) assessed available computer tools suitable for evaluating the operational and cost effectiveness of mission modular ships compared to traditionally designed ships. The objective being to inform fleet owners and operational planners of the benefits and costs of mission modularity taking into account all variables including the numbers and sizes of host ships, availability and time to deploy assets to the tasking area, module and ship preparation and fitting time etc. The challenges for most NATO Nation to commit to building a modular fleet are considerable. However, some new ship designs are emerging with designated ‘mission bays’ for augmented capabilities to meet emerging tasks and this may be a sign that the potential value of mission modularity is beginning to be recognised. This paper traces the history and progress that NIAG studies have made in contributing to NATO’s knowledge of the engineering and operational issues and benefits of mission modularity.
AB  - This paper outlines the range and depth of the series of NATO Industry Advisory Group (NIAG) modularity studies conducted by industry over the past ten years that examined the operational benefits, capabilities and costs of modular fleets for naval forces and makes comparisons with traditionally designed organic vessels. Commencing in May 2010 NATO has commissioned five MissionModularity studies. This work drew together over 50 defence contractors from 14 countries in the Alliance. In total 78 representatives attended working meetings to contribute expertise in all branches of engineering and science for the design, procurement, operation and support of naval ships and systems. The main sponsor for these studies was the NATO Ship Design Capability Group SDCG (formerly Maritime Capability Group MCG-6) with guidance of members of the United States Department of Defence (DoD NAVSEA), United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (D Ships) and the Netherlands Ministry of Defence (DMO). The ubiquity and cheapness of the ISO (International Standards Organisation) container suggested wide application for transportation and pre-outfitting to form a Mission Module and for the first NIAG study SG- 150 (Reference 1) the standard ISO Twenty foot Equivalent Unit container (TEU) was considered for Civil- Military Co-Operation (CIMIC) operations, specifically Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR), Harbour Protection (HP) and Counter Piracy (CP). The base vessel types considered were Landing Platform<br>
Dock/ Joint Support Ship (LPD/JSS) which provided necessary space and loading/unloading facilities without<br>
major design modifications. Subsequently it was realised that a prepared package of equipment (a module), designed to be self-contained with suitable ship-to-module interfaces (space, power, communication links etc.) that could be quickly installed in a host ship, could provide an alternative means of enhancing the organic (i.e. built-in) capability of naval vessels for other types of missions. Where a threat exists, ISO TEUs need protection and issues of security may be involved that need careful management. Applications of mission modularity include combat systems, both self-contained e.g. Unmanned Vehicle (UXV) or Close In Weapons System (CIWS) as well as primary weapons that depend on the ship’s organic resources such as the command system. The studies have evolved to consider the interfaces between module and host vessel and this work made an important contribution to a NATO Standardization Recommendation (STANREC) and its supporting document Allied Naval Engineering Publication ANEP 91 (Reference 7) and STANAG 4834 supported by ANEP-99 (Reference 16). These documents identify the many interfaces between module and host ship that should be standardised in order to facilitate the sharing of modular capabilities between NATO naval ships. NIAG studies have focused in large measure on what can be considered a module and the necessary ship design features and arrangements for fitting them. The type of modules appropriate to both CIMIC and warfighting missions were evaluated, including embarkation, layout and ship fitting requirements, interfaces, ballistic and shock protection, logistics and costs. Many options were considered for the most advantageous means of owning and managing module deployment to conduct NATO missions. The most recent NIAG study SG-236 (Reference 9) assessed available computer tools suitable for evaluating the operational and cost effectiveness of mission modular ships compared to traditionally designed ships. The objective being to inform fleet owners and operational planners of the benefits and costs of mission modularity taking into account all variables including the numbers and sizes of host ships, availability and time to deploy assets to the tasking area, module and ship preparation and fitting time etc. The challenges for most NATO Nation to commit to building a modular fleet are considerable. However, some new ship designs are emerging with designated ‘mission bays’ for augmented capabilities to meet emerging tasks and this may be a sign that the potential value of mission modularity is beginning to be recognised. This paper traces the history and progress that NIAG studies have made in contributing to NATO’s knowledge of the engineering and operational issues and benefits of mission modularity.
T1  - NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG) Mission Modularity Studies.
DA  - 2020-10-05
AU  - Pudduck, R
AU  - Goodwin, J
AU  - Burston, R
L1  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7712/files/INEC_2020_Paper_110.pdf
JF  - Conference Proceedings of INEC
VL  - INEC 2020
PY  - 2020-10-05
ID  - 7712
L4  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7712/files/INEC_2020_Paper_110.pdf
KW  - Modularity
KW  - Mission Module
KW  - Mission Package
KW  - Interoperability
KW  - Interface Control Document
TI  - NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG) Mission Modularity Studies.
Y1  - 2020-10-05
L2  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7712/files/INEC_2020_Paper_110.pdf
LK  - https://www.imarest.org/events/inec-2020
LK  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7712/files/INEC_2020_Paper_110.pdf
UR  - https://www.imarest.org/events/inec-2020
UR  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7712/files/INEC_2020_Paper_110.pdf
ER  -