Sea Control: 594: From Hulls to Pods with Emma Salisbury

The episode opens with Dr. Emma Salisbury defining mission modularity as the practice of fitting standardized, container‑like capability packages into a common hull. This approach promises rapid reconfiguration, yet the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship illustrates a stark shortfall: despite being built for interchangeable modules, none have ever been swapped, exposing logistical and doctrinal gaps. By contrast, Denmark’s Stanflex system demonstrates that well‑designed modularity can work, offering NATO a concrete example of flexible, cost‑effective capability upgrades.

Salisbury explains that most NATO navies have confined modularity to frigate‑class vessels, where mission diversity justifies the extra flexibility. The Danish, Italian, and British navies successfully employ modular bays for anti‑submarine, mine‑sweeping, and other roles, reinforcing the notion that smaller surface combatants are the optimal platform. She warns against extending the concept to larger destroyers, where structural constraints and mission complexity may dilute effectiveness. Recent U.S. developments—cancellation of the Constellation‑class frigate and the uncertain fate of the new FFX design—highlight ongoing turbulence in American shipbuilding, underscoring the need for realistic expectations about modular solutions.

Finally, the conversation situates modularity within a broader climate of heightened geopolitical tension. Russian naval activities, hybrid warfare, and aggressive undersea operations have intensified NATO’s maritime challenges, making adaptable fleets more urgent yet also more risky if over‑reliant on a single doctrine. Salisbury urges policymakers to treat modularity as a tool, not a panacea, ensuring that capability decisions remain driven by operational requirements rather than the allure of interchangeable containers. This balanced perspective is essential for maintaining resilient, future‑proof navies amid an increasingly volatile Atlantic theater.