"Gearboxes and powerplants - Not at all. You won't find civilian ships with the complex CODAG sort of arrangements that are common (and necessary for redundancy) on warships."
Which may perhaps explain the move to diesel-electric plants with podded propulsors? And the tendency to focus on diesel engines rather than gas turbines? Given a choice of turbine or diesel for tanks the Brits, Jerries, Italians and French, and the Russians, all opted for Diesel. Only the Americans felt there was an advantage in the turbines.
And given choice, the Brits, Jerries, Italians, French, Russian and Americans all opted for Gaz turbines for the upper end of the power requirement for their new frigates and destroyers. The upper power curve requirements for warships are just too great. Look at your favourite country (the only one that opted for all diesel for a frigate, but while acknowledging that they miss on the acceleration in the upper speed range as a result) Denmark: Absalon 16.6 MW of power for 24 Kts to Iver's 32.8 MW for 30 Kts. The last 20% of speed costs you as much power as the first 80%. As regards pods, no one uses them for the frigates/destroyers. Those countries going "all-electric" propulsion, like the Brits and the Americans, use electric motors geared through actual shafts with standard screw. Azipods have serious speed limitation as a result of their design, so they are used in warships that don't need higher speeds but great manoeuvrability, such as mine warfare crafts and amphibious warfare vessels.
As to mechanical gear boxes and complex linkages - industry has moved away from mechanical variators and gear boxes to frequency drives precisely because they are simpler to install, easier to locate, cheaper to maintain, less likely to fail, and easier to replace. Not to mention easier to maintain water tight even in an NEMA 6P environment.
Don't know which industry you refer to. I am not aware of any industry where they have to deal with the integration of power from various source the way that CODAG, CODOG, COGOG or COGAG does.
"Engine rooms and mechanical services - Again, these arrangements tend to look very different on warships due to the need to optimize for survivability (so, a higher degree of compartmentalization and redundancy, etc)."
Again I would point out the benefits of the hybrid diesel-electric configuration in this regard, especially as it is much easier to seal a power line transiting a bulkhead than it is a rotating shaft or even a pipe.
Partially agree: Electric propulsion makes it easier to compartmentalize the power plant. But not limited to diesel. Even with Integrated Electric propulsion, to which the UK (type 45 and Queen Elizabeth) and the US are moving (Zumwalt), you need the massive power of GT's for combatant warships.
And the podded propulsion systems don't seem to be going away.
They haven't even made it in for surface combatants, as discussed above.
"Hull - Nope. Naval hulls these days are optimized for radar cross-section reduction, which isn't even remotely a civilian consideration"
I would differentiate between hull design and hull construction.
I take your point about the design parameters - but the shape of the hull doesn't seem to be a major problem for civilian yards, either above or below the waterline. And the issue I am addressing is the constructability of the vessel and ability to contract experienced yards to do the work.
Actually, there are two points here: First, merchant ship's hulls are basically one big square box with a slightly more pointy end at the front and and slightly tucked-in ass. On top of it you put the seaman's residence, which is just a big square box. Warship hulls are much more complex in shape and therefore in construction, because of the need for stealth (above water) and noise reduction (below water). Moreover, and this is the second point, Merchant ships are not built for speed in all sea states and resistance to external shock and forces (usually through flexibility). Warships are, which is why they are built from a different type of steel, high tensile one, than the steel used for merchant ships, and contrary to Merchant ships, where a small slip in welding letting a drop of water here and there is no big deal, warship welds are to be perfect and are, as a result, all usually x-rayed for precision during construction. The welding is different and experience in one doesn't mean experience in the other.
Here is one company's gallery of commercially available hulls. http://vardmarine.com/vessel-gallery/
No, it's not a gallery of hulls "available". The gallery has two things: Some are photographs of ships, which means "look, I've built and sold that ship to someone - so if you want exactly the same one, I have the plans and can build it from scratch for you", but it is still to be built and at the same cost as the first + inflation, and it has drawn pictures of some ships, which means that they have never built such ship, like the look and concept, but if you like them and want one, they have to start from scratch to draft the plans and build it. The only company that builds and keeps "basic" "warships" (I mean the hull, machinery and superstructure, but not the finishing or any weapons/electronics) is Damen, which keeps - in view of its popularity - a small number of pre-built bare-hulls for their STAN 4207 patrol boat.
"Navigation gear - The nav systems on a warship need to be integrated with the combat systems, which for a variety of reasons means they need to be developed as military grade from scratch."
"Platform Management Systems - The civilian requirement doesn't have to address the need to "float-move-fight": naval systems are heavily geared towards shipboard fire fighting and damage control. Where civilian ships sometimes to use the same IPMS as military ones (for example, the former CAE/now L3 system), that's because the systems were designed specifically for military use and can be "down-graded" to fit the civilian requirement."
Taking these two together I think you overcome your Navigation objection in your Platform Management objection. You say that they only reason the IPMS systems are available is because they were developed for military standards and then derated to meet the civilian world. Something like a Cray computer perhaps?
I would not quite go so far as Hamiltongs on this point, you don't always need to re-invent the wheel, but - I believe what he had in mind is the following: As regards navigation systems, think about it in Army terms. Lets say that we decided that from now on Arty F.O's would call in their strike embedded with the front line infantry using an iPad. You would probably say that the iPad has to be able to be dropped in the mud or water, stepped on accidentally with combat boots, shot at with light weapons, etc. Apple doesn't make that iPad, but you could put an iPad software and processors in a portable box that would resist all that. That is what the civilian navigation systems on warships also have to face, thus they must be built into, to quote Ford, "military grade" casings and boxes.
As for the IPMS systems, again here, no need to start from scratch, bu the analogy is not to buying a computer, but to buying software that needs adaptation overtime. The concept is closer to buying Oracle for your financial and manpower management in large organization: Oracle already has a system drafted and developed, but you need to do a lot of programming work to adapt and input all the specific data and modifications that meet your organization specific need. That integration work is the complex and expansive part. It's the same for the IPMS.
The point is that the same technology is now available for both civilian and military platforms. And with respect to navigation, are your positioning and situational awareness needs (exempting aircraft) any greater than an offshore survey vessel, a cable layer, a trawler, or a semi-submersible rig?
Actually, they are greater: None of the civilian ship you mention have to do their work at 30 Kts, while swinging wildly to port or starboard at the rate a warship at speed can turn, while feeding this very precise information on movement to systems that need it to be able to basically shoot a bullet at another, incoming, bullet.
Finally, with respect to Navy Shooter's comments about the portability of the Halifax Modernization I believe that that has already be demonstrated by the selection of the same system for the New Zealand frigate upgrades.
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/ca/what-we-do/naval-combat-management-systems.html
A different ship, with different sensors and weapons but the same combat management system provided by Lockheed.
Same combat management system, but because it has different weapons and sensors, a different integration. However, having just completed the integration work of their base system for the Halifax's, LockMart was able to be more precise and more reliable in quoting the price of integrating these into their base combat system.
