The Danish Standard Flex designs

[Tzoli]

I've searched on the net but did not found any info on these series of designs and the forum the picture hosted on was archived long ago, and google could not find it (Luckily I've saved the image and could reverse search for it)
Maybe people here know more about these proposals?
Also I've thought the Danish Thetis class patrol frigates were of the Standard Flex 3000 design but some documents say it is the Standard Flex 2000 design, so does mentions this document as the 3000 based on the Thetis class.

 

[Tzoli]

Does anybody know more about the Standard Flex design series?
So far I know a few:

Standard Flex 300 - Flyvefisken Class Corvette
Standard Flex 500 - Corvette Design
Standard Flex 1500 - Frigate Design
Standard Flex 2000 - Thetis Class Patrol Frigate
Standard Flex 3000 - Patrol Frigate Design

 

[Apophenia]

As the clipping in your first post makes clear, Standard Flex designations correspond (roughly) to full load displacements. (And note that SF 3000 - not 2000 - is the designation associated with the 3,500 tonne Thetis class.) It is also important to remember that StanFlex numbers were effectively marketing designations - eg: note that KDM stopped referring to SF 300 (or, sometimes, a hyphenated SF-300) once the Flyvefisken class were officially named.

I've seen no evidence of SF numbers for 'early adopters' of Standard Flex modules - MLU mods for the 1,450 tonne Niels Juel class corvettes and one-off 1,970 tonne Beskytteren class Inspektionsskib. Still, it would make sense that StanFlex designations would have been at least briefly applied to Odense's 1,720 tonne Knud Rasmussen class Inspektionsfartøjer; 6,300 tonne Absalon class (Kommandostøtteskib; and 6,645 tonne Iver Huitfeldt class FFH.

A bit more background on the SF 1500 for those who aren't familiar ... this was an early '90s project led by Danyard Aalborg A/S (simply Danyard A/S then) backed up by Anglo-French BAeSEMA (as it sounds, a joint venture between BAe and the Sema Group).

Danyard's SF 1500 project was based directly on the hull design of the Niels Juel class. That steel hull was to be combined with a composite superstructure constructed mainly from FRP sandwich panels (based on SF 300 experience). At an early sage, the SF 1500 was to have 5 x StanFlex modules (not the 6 listed in your source).

By 1992, Danyard and Odense Lindø were grouped (along with Terma and others) within Naval Team Denmark (NTD) which emphasized the export potential of Standard Flex. NTD then proposed SF 1500 to meet Malaysia's New Generation Patrol Vessel (NGPV) programme in the early 1990s. This was followed by sales junkets to Brunei and Thailand (the latter having also shown interest in the SF 300 for MCM).

Source (including attached image): Naval Team Denamrk organisation og virksomhed (NTD organisation and company), kommandør Arne Stihøj Pedersen, in Tidsskrift for Søvæsen, Nr.1 - 2004 - 175. årgang

 

[Tzoli]

So there should exits a Standard Flex 6000 and 6500 design?

 

[Apophenia]

So there should exits a Standard Flex 6000 and 6500 design?

You would think so. But both the Absalon and Ivar/Iver Huitfeldt classes were products of Odense Staalskibsværft A/S. Perhaps, domestically, Odense was trying to distance itself from NTD a bit ?

OT, but I'd love to know why Søværnet originally pennanted both types with 'L' hull codes. I can see why the Absalons might het lumped in with amphibious assault ships but that prefix makes no sense for the Huitfeldts. Likewise, the switch to 'F' hull codes for both types seems odd.

Switching from L714-L715-L716 to F361-F362-F363 makes sense - the Huitfeldts being reclassed from patruljeskibe to fregatter. But the Absalons? I suppose, at a stretch, 'F' might have been for fleksible støtteskibe (since the Absalons weren't reclassed as 'ASW-fregatter' until Oct 2020).

BTW: The Absalons 'fleksible' came from flexible roles and the flexdækket (flex deck) not from their StanFlex mounts.

 

[Grey Havoc]

StanFlex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[apparition13]

Danyard's SF 1500 project was based directly on the hull design of the Niels Juel class. That steel hull was to be combined with a composite superstructure constructed mainly from FRP sandwich panels (based on SF 300 experience). At an early sage, the SF 1500 was to have 5 x StanFlex modules (not the 6 listed in your source).

The image in post 1 shows 6 stanflex positions, but one of them has a helicopter as an option, which would leave 5 if you carry a Lynx.

What confuses me is that the SF 1500 is more than triple the full load displacement of a Flyvefisken but only has double the space for modules. If it had a full helicopter deck and hangar that might make sense, but I'd think 9-10 modules would be doable.

Source (including attached image): Naval Team Denamrk organisation og virksomhed (NTD organisation and company), kommandør Arne Stihøj Pedersen, in Tidsskrift for Søvæsen, Nr.1 - 2004 - 175. årgang

The image looks like a mini-Absalon, the layout is with a weapon deck between the bridge and hangar is the same.

 

[TomS]

The image in post 1 shows 6 stanflex positions, but one of them has a helicopter as an option, which would leave 5 if you carry a Lynx.

What confuses me is that the SF 1500 is more than triple the full load displacement of a Flyvefisken but only has double the space for modules. If it had a full helicopter deck and hangar that might make sense, but I'd think 9-10 modules would be doable.

I think you are misreading that image. There are things shown that do not take up Stanflex positions like the RHIB and the helicopter (there is clearly a hangar forward of the pad there).

The six Stanflex wells appear to be two forward of the superstructure, two side by side amidships and two in/below the flight deck. I think there might actually be two side by side there, judging by the heavyweight torpedo module shown. The apparently swappable VDS sonar or mines may not actually be in a Stanflex module.

That said, the frigate also has more endurance and better crew accomodations than the smaller ship, so it's not surprising that 3x displacement does not work out to 3x the payload.

 

[apparition13]

Maybe. The mines and sonar don't converge to a point, so they might just be permanent installations, like I'm guessing the boat (or boats) alongside the funnel is (are).

I don't think there are two modules side by side amidships. The beam is 10m, two would be 6 or 7 (depending on orientation) meters wide, which seems like it would interfere with fore and aft movement too much.

If the minelaying capability, sonar, and boat(s) are permanent, then that would count as two or three, plus the five (or six) would be seven to nine depending, add the hangar and heavier sensors and that might explain why there aren't 10-12 modules.

Although I'm not sure there is a hangar, rather than just helicopter handling facilities like on the Knud Rasmussen-class, which are shorter, beamier, and heavier. The text in the bottom paragraph implies that the SF-3000 class is a fightier Thetis and says it has a hangar, which would make sense since it's based on the Thetis and they have hangars.

Incidentally, this series of ships starting with the Flyvefiskens are my favorites for frigates and patrol ships of any navy over the last 30 years. I also think the potential of the stanflex modules was never really realized. For example, you could easily fit 4 or possibley even 6* NLOS-LS containers, each of which would have 15 tubes for small missiles. In addition to the planned LAM and PAM, ADATS and Barak1 would fit the tubes, though they would need a slightly taller container and would stick up a bit from the top of the stanflex module. CAMM would fit the width, but would add over a meter to the height of the container.

*Four with 15 x 100kg missiles would weigh about as much as 8 harpoons. Six would barely fit, you would have three 1.1 meter square containers along the 3.5m edge, which would leave 80cm of clearance between the containers along the 3m edge, which would be really cramped for servicing the containers. Four would leave a 130cm gap between containers along the 3.5m edge, which isn't as claustrophobic a work environment.