AUTUMN 2014
THE
NAVAL ENGINEER
This magazine is the property of
Her Majesty’s Government.
It is produced on behalf of the
Chief Naval Engineer Officer.
Jump to
Contents
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Contents
Editorial Board, Chairmen’s Corner ..................................................................................................... 1
Faraday and Support Improvement Programme Update By Capt P. Marshall ................................... 2
First for Faraday as Engineering Training Program of the Future Commences at HMS Sultan
By Lt M. Keeling ................................................................................................................... 8
Ship Husbandry – A New Hope? By Lt S.R. Taylor ............................................................................ 10
The Green Ship Challenge – “Delivering more with less” By Cdr J.J. Bailey and Lt Cdr R.J. Hardy ...12
CNEO’s Commendation ...................................................................................................................... 19
BZs ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Simulation and Animation for Training By Lt Cdr E.P. Oates .............................................................. 22
Life After MEA/APP By CPOET(ME) G.M. Peterson ..........................................................................24
Developing the QNLZ Weapon Engineering (WE) Department to Deliver Combat System Capability
in the Post-Faraday World By CPO E. Kelly ....................................................................... 28
Delivering the Future Mine Countermeasures and Hydrographic Capability
By A. du Pré and Lt Cdr D.R. Ridgewell ................................................................................34
The Squeaky Wheel – NEWO’s update By WO1 Nick Sharland .........................................................40
• The magazine is published for information, entertainment and to promote discussion on matters of general interest to
engineers of all sub specialisations (Air, Marine, Weapon and Training Management).
• Articles and letters are welcomed and may be submitted in any format from handwriting to e-mail, CD or DVD.
• All correspondence to: The Editor, The Naval Engineer, HMS Collingwood, Fareham, Hants PO14 1AS.
Tel 01329 333895 (Military – 93825 3895): Tel 01329 333895 (Military – 93825 3895)
Email: DII – NAVY OP TRG-CWD TNE EDITOR, Internet – NAVYOPTRG‑[email protected]
• All enquiries concerning distribution should be addressed to: Ministry of Defence, Forms & Pubs Commodity
Management, Building C16, C Site, Lower Arncott, Bicester, OXON, OX25 1LP, copy to the Editor.
• The contents do not necessarily bear the authority of the Ministry of Defence, may articulate personal views, and may
bear privately owned rights.
Photographs:
The cover: HMS Queen Elizabeth at her naming ceremony and afloat for the first time.
Acknowledgements to the Fleet Photographic Unit who supply most of the general photographs.
Other photos supplied by the authors or as credited.
1
The Naval Engineer
EDITORIAL BOARD
Chairman
Commodore I. Shipperley CEng, FIMechE, RN Deputy Chief Naval Engineer Officer
Captain A.M. Cree BEng MSc, MA, MIET, FCIPD, RN DACOS UTC Project
Captain I.R. Finn BEng CEng MIET, RN DACOS (Air Engineering), Navy Command HQ
Captain A.M.H. Jenkin BSc, MA, CEng, MIET, RN DACOS (Personnel Planning), Navy Command HQ
Captain P.E. Jessop MBE, MSc, CEng, FIMechE, RN CSO(E) Submarines, Navy Command HQ
Warrant Officer A.W. Farquhar IEng, IMarEng, MIMarEST, MCGI PMAAT Team Planner
Warrant Officer G.S. Humphreys MA, FCMI, MCGI, IEng, MIMarEST DRSO, HMNB(Portsmouth)
Warrant Officer C.G. Lennox BSc, MSc, IEng, MIMarEST WO1(MESM) COMFASFLOT
Warrant Officer N. Potter DEVFLOT ESG RN Trademaster
Warrant Officer N.R. Sharland BA, IEng, IMarEng, MIMarEst Naval Engineer Warrant Officer
Professor C.G. Hodge MSc, CEng, FIMarEST, FREng BMT Defence Services
EDITOR
Commander T.J. Stoneman BSc, MA, RN (Retd) HMS Collingwood
93 825 3895 (BT 01329 333895), fax 93 825 2712 (BT 01329 332712)
E-mail: DII – NAVY OP TRG-CWD TNE EDITOR; Internet – [email protected]
Chairmen’s Corner: Past and Present
This issue sees a new Chairman of TNE’s Editorial Board. Captain Bob
Rusbridger has relinquished the post after serving on the Board since
2004, first as a Board member and then, for many years, as Chairman.
PAST
PRESENT
As he left, Captain Rusbridger said:
“It has been my great pleasure to
have been a member of the Editorial
Board for TNE for the last 10 years.
In that time I have been in the
fortunate position to read articles
saying what will happen, and then
see following ones declaring what
has been delivered. TNE is a key
asset to all engineers in the Royal
Navy, and has continued to provide
an envied variety of articles ranging
from high academia to those
featuring personal experiences in
the operational environment.
The new Chairman writes: “As
the incoming Chair of the Editorial
Board, I am very grateful to
Captain Bob Rusbridger for his
dedication in making TNE into the
magazine it is today. My challenge
is to build on that legacy and
keep TNE relevant, informative
and challenging but I can only do
that with your help. I plan to bring
onboard some younger members
to the Editorial Board and improve
its gender balance so that TNE
reflects all your views in print; if
you think can help, let me know.
I would also like to hear your
feedback on the types of articles
that you’d like to see and just as
importantly, if you feel that you can
make a contribution, sharpen your
pencil and get writing.
It relies on personnel volunteering
their time to tell others in the
engineering fraternity what is going
on. For that commitment by the
many authors over the years I
would say a big ‘thank-you’.
Lastly, I would single out the efforts
of the Editor, Tim Stoneman, who
has worked tirelessly to deliver a very
professional product, seeking out
articles, and pulling together the most
informative content. The work of the
Editorial Board would be a far more
onerous task without his constant
care and supervision of the process.”
There’s a lot going on in the
Engineering world and TNE
aims to reflect your views, good
and bad, on the health of Naval
Engineering. We face considerable
challenges but there’s also much
to celebrate and TNE will keep
you informed and possibly even
entertained – who can’t get excited
by large engineering evolutions
like the first Type 45 diesel
generator change?
I look forward to working with you
all.“
Thinking of writing
for TNE? Deadline for
articles or letters is
Friday 30 January 2015.
The Naval Engineer is
also available on the
Intranet at
http://defenceintranet.
diif.r.mil.uk/
Organisations/Orgs/
Navy/Organisations/
Orgs/FOST/Pages/
TheNavalEngineer.aspx
Back issues of the
Journal of Naval
Engineering (JNE) can
be found through the
JNE Internet webpage:
http://www.jneweb.com/
login.aspx.
Jump to
Contents
2
Faraday and Support
Improvement Programme Update
By Captain Paul Marshall BEng MSc RN,
Faraday SIP Programme Manager
Faraday and Support Improvement
Programme (SIP) continues to
develop and since the last article
the Policy and Doctrine team has
now stood up. This will look at both
re-invigorating Engineering Policy
and Doctrine plus undertaking the
Engineer Officer study. Over 2014
Faraday and SIP has continued to
broaden the spectrum of work that
it is undertaking as part of the wider
Manpower Recovery and Support
Improvement Programme (MRSIP).
So, why read this article?
Whether you are General Service,
Submariner, Royal Navy Reserve
Engineer Branch or the soon to be
WE(CIS) cadre there are interesting
and exciting developments contained
in this article which will affect you!
OVERVIEW
Programme FARADAY and SIP
have been stood up to address the
issues affecting the Engineering
(General Service and Submarine)
branch.
Exit interviews indicate that our
engineers and technicians leave the
Service for three main reasons:
• Operational tempo with
•
•
increased pressures on
engineering in base port.
Dissatisfaction with support
solutions and equipment –
especially spares – which have
been denuded over some ten
years.
Market forces and economic
recovery acting as a pull
factor to more favourably
viewed conditions in civilian
employment.
Recent decisions on operational
tempo will help alleviate the first
issue. SIP and Faraday seek to
address the other two by delivering
the following benefits:
Jump to
Contents
• Create a stable career – culture
•
•
•
•
and ethos.
Develop adequate time and
capacity for maintenance.
Increase skills and confidence
in skills.
Provide the right tools, spares,
information and facilities.
Ensure the authority and
permissions to do our job.
SUCCESSES SINCE
SUMMER 2014
The following has been delivered
since the Summer 2014 TNE article:
• Standing Up Devonport
Engineer Support Group:
A team of 17 uniformed
engineers, taken from the
GSP, has been established
to assist with engineering
support onboard RN Ships
whilst alongside Devonport in
order to support the current
workforce.
• Establishing Dockyard WalkIn Workshops: Access has
been established to “walkin” workshop facilities for
uniformed personnel within
Devonport and Portsmouth
Dockyards.
• SM Rapid Improvement
Event: Held on 15 July 2014,
a number of quick wins have
been identified which will be
explained later in this article.
• Streaming: Career Managers
have streamed the General
Service engineers and the
provisional list has been
published on the Programme
Faraday intranet site. The
final stream allocation will be
published on 1 December 2014
when this piece of work
completes.
• RNR Engineer Branch: This
was launched on 30 June 2014;
more detail is explained in this
article.
• CPO to WO Provisional
Exam: RNTM 164/14 has
been published and forms
the basis of development for
the remainder of the EGS PE
syllabi.
• Faraday for Officers: The
Engineer Officer study has
started with more details in this
article.
WHAT’S NEXT FOR SUPPORT
IMPROVEMENT?
The focus continues to be improving
engineering support issues; SIP is
aiming to close out its respective
workstreams by December 2015.
Engineering Support
Programming: SIP informed
recent operational tempo decisions
to ensure sufficient time will
be allocated for the delivery of
engineering in support of the
operational programme.
Under MRSIP, sufficient time will
be allocated for the delivery of
engineering and this includes;
mid-deployment support periods,
tailored FTSPs for platforms that
are running significantly beyond
their original design-life and further
Gulf Support options. A workshop
event in October 2014 will clarify
the Engineering Support Policy into
the widely misunderstood support
philosophy term ‘Continuous
Engineering Support’.
In order to de-risk long lead items
and stores availability at FTSP start,
and to provide greater confidence
in materiel supply and delivery,
more time is being built into the
FTSP material planning cycle.
3
This will be piloted as ‘Certainty
of Delivery’ of material supply
for surface ship FTSP during
HMS Northumberland’s FTSP in
January 2015.
FTSP optimisation for the Capital
(Amphibious) Class has produced
an action plan which is geared
towards the delivery of HMS
Bulwark’s FTSP (post Cougar 14).
FTSP issues such as ‘operational
tempo’, poor stores delivery at the
start of FTSP, the impact of Shiphaz
and HV on FTSP programmes are
all being actively investigated by the
Amphibious engineering support
community.
People, Industry and Waterfront
Engineering: Rebalancing our
engineering shore liability across
the Senior Rate cadre and
developing RN support teams to
directly support our ships at the
Waterfront is ongoing; this will also
give gainful employment to our
Junior Rates (Devonport Flotilla
are leading a trial). Continued
Engineering Support Relief provided
on a number of ships during April
to July 2014 in both Portsmouth
and Devonport resulted in over
20,000 man hours removed from
the burden on Ship’s Staff. We
now need to learn lessons from
these trials (HMS Ocean, HMS
Northumberland, HMS Daring etc)
and roll them out across the Fleet.
Further relief is planned for the
remainder of 2014.
A trial surface Fleet Engineering
Support Team has been established
within the Devonport Flotilla
Engineering Support Group
comprising of: seven Marine
Engineer and seven Weapon
Engineer Junior Ratings and two
Chief/Petty Officer Engineering
Technicians, all under the direction
of a CPO ET Package Manager.
This SIP initiative aims to relieve
pressure and burden on ships’
teams, improve ships’ availability,
reliability and sustainability and do
so by employing this team on RN
ships whilst alongside in Devonport.
This opportunity will also provide
meaningful employment for
uniformed engineers ashore,
allowing the development of ‘skill
of hand’ and better preparing
them for return to sea going units.
The trial commenced 1 July 2014
and will run to 31 January 2015.
Advanced discussions are also
taking place with select Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)
to train uniformed personnel as
‘Deep Specialists’ in our workforce.
Pilot programmes are nearing
implementation with Thales as the
first company.
disposal ships by refurbishing,
testing and re-fitting onto inservice platforms; BOWMAN aerial
equipment from HMS Illustrious
and Type 42s has been fitted to
HMS Ocean.
Infrastructure at the Waterfront:
Access has been established
to “walk-in” workshop facilities
within Devonport and Portsmouth
Dockyards allowing suitably
qualified Navy personnel the
ability to make/repair components
themselves, or if not SQEP, have
the work done on their behalf by the
workshop team. Recent discussions
with our Industry Partners have
resulted in an agreement for Ship’s
Staff to have access into Retail
Stores within the Dockyards. The
process and charging methods
have still to be finalised, however
we have until the end of 2014 as
the target for this facility to become
operational.
• FTSP planners at Devonport
Supply Chain and Stores:
There are a wide range of issues
that are being tackled under this
banner including tools and spares.
Spares are one of the big issues
but solving this problem will take
time. Momentum is gaining and
successes have been made
specifically on tools and stores
in Astute Class Boats but we are
aware that there is more to do.
Devonport SM Rapid
Improvement Event: Held on
15 July 2014 at the request of
COM(F), this event has received
endorsement for the following
activities:
•
•
•
•
•
are to work closely with DE&S
In-Service Submarines and
HMNB Clyde to share best
practice.
Shore side connectivity issues
and Waterfront office facilities
for SM crews are currently
being investigated at DE&S
ABW and Devonport to increase
the number of phones available
when alongside and increase
the office space for SM crews
during maintenance periods.
A Submarine Waterfront Support
Manager has been recruited
to improve co-ordination of
facilities at Devonport and ease
the “harbour hassle” felt by
SM crews during maintenance
periods.
Improved availability and priority
coordination of flushing/test rigs
to meet Submarine demand has
been established.
Walk-in Workshop access has
been established in Defiance
Building for RN personnel for all
small jobs (under four hours).
Better out-of-hours ‘lifting
service’ coordination has been
established.
Sandown, Hunt Class, Type 23
and Amphibious Class Output
Management, with their
associated Strategic
Class Authority
leads, are
influencing
Equipment Teams
in Abbey Wood to
prioritise efforts on
critical obsolescent
equipment. For
example, there
has been evidence
of smarter spares
‘up-cycling’ from
... smarter spares ‘up-cycling’ ...
Jump to
Contents
4
• Babcock Supply Chain Steering
•
•
Group has conducted a review
of consumables supply, and
over the next six months the
supply situation will be closely
monitored for improvement.
The responsiveness of
Diving Teams and a central
coordination of Diving Services
is being reviewed under the
Total Cost of Ownership Study
on Waterfront Services.
Following the announcement of
a trial surface Fleet Engineering
Support Team, a number of
options are being considered for
manning a SM Support Team to
alleviate the burden on SM crews
during maintenance periods.
Unit Maintenance Management
System For Submariners: A trial
of a concession process for UMMS
undertaken in early September 2014
revealed a number of minor issues.
The team at ABW is actively working
to resolve these problems to improve
the functionality of UMMS and
lessen the administration burden
felt by our engineering teams during
maintenance periods.
FARADAY
With Faraday having launched a
year ago the Programme remains on
track for the delivery of the core work
streams to address the Personnel
and Training issues by April 2015.
Training Re-Design: New course
design is ongoing between Babcock
Flagship, HMS Collingwood,
HMS Sultan and Branch Managers.
The training re-design work for
the future ET-POET courses is
now based around the Individual
Competency Framework (ICF) and
is progressing at pace, remaining
on-track to deliver start dates from
April 2015.
A new methodology for the delivery
of the training with the introduction
of blended training solution will be
used. This incorporates effective
instructional methodology supported
by a mix of real world hands on
activities and associated multimedia
to support an individual’s
development of competence during
the relevant course.
Jump to
Contents
To aid the future LET to perform the
role of either a Section or Deputy
Section Head and ensure they have
sufficient underpinning technical
knowledge, a significant amount of
the core engineering principles will
be delivered on the LET Qualifying
Course (QC) in lieu of the current
POET QC. The current EGS
personnel will integrate into the
new career courses by attending a
conversion course prior to their next
career course.
A contract is about to be placed
for the CPO to WO career course
re‑design. The aim is to progress
this work after the ET to POET
career course re-design work has
delivered with the aim of having the
work completed towards the end of
2015.
Individual Competence
Framework (ICF): The detailed
work required to roll-out the ICF
is being completed with the aim
of rolling out the detailed policy
at the start of 2015. This builds
on RNTM 109/14 and will include
the detail as to how the ICF is to
be used in the work environment.
Included will be the layout and
content of the Career Development
Journal which will be used as the
portfolio to record evidence of
competence. The rollout of the ICF
is linked to the development of the
Provisional Exams (PE).
Provisional Exams (PE): Building
on the CPO to WO PE (RNTM
164/14), the syllabi for the PEs for
ETs through to POETs are currently
being developed. An important part
of Faraday is ensuring that everyone
within the Engineering Branch is
involved in the change. It is intended
to use the Engineering Branch
within various Fleet units, at sea and
shore, to assist with developing the
questions to support the PE syllabi.
The aim is to publish the policy for
transitioning from OPS checks to
PEs for all ranks in the early part of
2015 with the relevant syllabus for
each rank then being published.
MESM/WESM ICF: Currently
under review and will be under
continuous scrutiny as the new
training courses are developed for
EGS. Working in conjunction with
the Branch Managers and BFL
common training will be undertaken
by the GS and SM technicians and
will not adversely affect the entrylevel standard for the specialist
SM training, which is not currently
moving to the ICF.
Steady State Fast Track: Based on
the Interim Fast Track, the Steady
State Fast Track is being developed
and this should be delivered for
April 2015.
Journeyman’s Time (Work
Placement): This is to be used
to improve Engineer Technician’s
specialist skills by providing the
opportunity to be employed in
Waterfront Engineering Support
roles thereby increasing the dark
blue engineering footprint at the
Waterfront.
Work is still ongoing in this area
to ensure that all engineering
disciplines, both GS and SM, get
the most out of this opportunity.
CIS AND WE BRANCH
INTEGRATION
The subject of the forthcoming CIS
and WE branch integration was
introduced in the Summer 2014
issue of TNE, with this project
being adopted under the Faraday
programme. The arrival of a CIS
specialist from the Warfare Branch
into the team has allowed the
integration work to pick up pace and
the headmark of a vesting day for
integration of 1 April 2015 is firmly in
our sights.
The Faraday training design
process includes the integration
of the whole spectrum of CIS
operator and warfare skills into
the ET(WE) (CIS) course and
will see the commencement
of the first Phase 2 courses in
April 2015 for both General and
Submarine Service CIS personnel.
The future CIS stream will be
responsible for the Operation,
Maintenance, Diagnosis and Repair
of all command, communication,
information and network systems.
Within the Operate pillar the
engineering technicians who will fill
5
expressions of interest from both
those who are about to leave
the service as well as ex-serving
RN engineers (including many
submariners).
... integration of the whole spectrum of
CIS operator and warfare skills ...
this stream will be equipped with
the same skills and knowledge as
current Warfare Specialists.
In addition to those personnel who
will join the CIS stream through
Phase 2 training, personnel from
both the existing Warfare and
Weapon Engineering branches will
integrate through cross training.
After a lengthy study period and a
number of continuous improvement
events, which were supported
by officers and ratings from both
Warfare and Engineering branches,
a range of cross training options
were proposed. A policy has now
been approved which will see a
gradual cross training of personnel
into the integrated CIS stream.
Cross training will be achieved
through conversion courses
designed to teach the knowledge
and skills of the opposite source
branch. For Junior Ratings
cross training will be undertaken
on selection for promotion to
Leading Hand and Petty Officer.
Conversion courses will be attended
immediately prior to commencing
the professional qualifying course
and will be considered an integral
part of the qualifying course. While
there are numerous reasons against
the cross training of Senior Ratings,
there will be an opportunity for
existing SRs to apply for cross
training on a voluntary basis and
attendance will be at the discretion
of Branch and Career Managers.
The transition to a fully integrated
CIS stream will be lengthy and
the skills and experience of those
personnel who do not cross train
will be required for the foreseeable
future. As Engineering Technicians,
the former CIS specialists will
be able to contribute fully to the
success of the new, integrated
stream.
POLICY and DOCTRINE WORK
Policy and Doctrine: The team
has been fully stood up. A lack of
coherent Policy and Doctrine is one
of the reasons behind the issues
we face today and this team will
help redress the balance. In parallel
with the other People and Training
(Faraday) work streams, early
initiatives include a study into the
engineer officer cadre which is now
underway.
The Engineer Officer Study: This
is examining a variety of issues
including recruitment, retention,
training and career expectations.
Initial consultation work took
place earlier this year and helped
to determine the scope of the
study, which is now focussing
on WE/ME GS and SM. In early
September 2014, RNTM 208/14
was published to canvass the SO3/
SO2 ME and WE cadres and the
analysis of these responses is
underway. Updates on the officer
study will be published on the
Faraday intranet site and on the
monthly rolling briefs; feedback
from the survey will be promulgated
when the analysis is complete.
ROYAL NAVY RESERVES
ENGINEER BRANCH
The Royal Navy Reserves (RNR)
Engineer Branch was re-established
on 30 June 2014 and so far there
have been approximately 100
If I make a commitment to the
Engineer Reserves, what’s in it for
me? The Engineer Reserves will be
employed locally by the Front Line
Commands in Portsmouth, Devonport
and Faslane. With a degree of
flexibility, the work undertaken will
rely on existing skills and experience.
Employment periods will usually be
in a minimum of five consecutive
days and will cover a wider scope of
opportunities including:
• General engineering support
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Waterfront, trials, operational
sea training, DE&S and HQ).
NP1600.
Operational Maintenance And
Repair (OMAR).
Onboard short term section
cover during leave to act as a
point of contact for contractors.
Technical instructors.
Technical watch-keeping
alongside.
Filling shore posts to release
Regulars during surge
operations.
Small units (1 AGRM, 1PBS,
FPS etc).
Opportunities for part time
employment for about three
or four weeks per year
in engineering support/
augmentation roles.
Personnel will join the RNR
Engineer Branch at the rank or
rate which they left the service and
therefore on the same pay scale.
To qualify for the Reserves tax free
bounty you will need to complete 24
days a year. As long as you achieve
this and stay in date for RNFT, you
will receive a tax free bounty of
£1700.
You can pick when and where you
want to do your 24 days service
from a monthly email that you will
be sent out highlighting engineering
opportunities. If you can do more
than 24 days then great, as we can
use you up to 90 days a year! You
will get one days leave for every 10
days you are working for the RNR.
Jump to
Contents
6
In time it is intended to develop
the RNR Engineer Branch to
enable: short engagements from
industry based on competence;
closer integration of the Industrial
Partner and uniformed workforce;
specific CONDO issues to be
overcome; and the generation of
deep specialists within the Regular
service.
THE LAST WORD
Combined together the Faraday
and SIP initiatives are the plan to
resolve the issues surrounding job
satisfaction within the Engineering
Branch. Everyone within the
Engineering Branch needs to get
involved with delivering these
initiatives by understanding
the policy and leading the
improvement initiatives at every
level. The Faraday and SIP team
is keen to understand your views
and your feedback is essential to
success. Get in contact with the
team using JIVE or contact details
below.
COMMUNICATION
Effective internal communications
are vital. Each copy of Navy News
has a monthly update summarising
the previous month’s outputs. The
latest RNTMs and information are
on the Defence Intranet. Our latest
gizmo is JIVE, a social media based
platform that can be accessed from
the Intranet and Internet. A network
of JIVE champions is developing
(in as many units as possible) to
encourage debate and a spread of
information.
Get in contact with the team ...
Want to know more?
The Faraday and Support Improvement Team is located in Room 13 First Floor, Walcheren Building (No. 33),
HMS Excellent, and consists of the following personnel:
Name
Role
Faraday & SIP
Capt Paul Marshall
Programme Manager
Faraday Programme
Cdr Mark Sullivan
Manager
Policy & Doctrine
Cdr Wayne Ubhi
Programme Manager
Lt Cdr Richard McHugh Faraday SO2
WO1 Sharky Ward
Faraday WO1a
WO1 Andy Parker
Faraday WO1b
WO1 Judge Duery
Faraday WO1c
Mark Lawther
SIP
Rod Coulson
SIP
WO1 Jonnie Roome
SIP
Cdr Steve Murphy
RNR Engineer Branch
Lt Cdr Andy Mullins
Submariner
Lt Chris Jones
CIS Integration
Lt Jenny Salt
Lt Aleesah Mitchell
CPO Mark Gower
CIS Support
CPO Daniel Taylorson Faraday/SIP
E-mail
Telephone
[email protected]
02392 547426
[email protected]
02392 547436
NAVY SSM-Pol and Doc [email protected]
02392 547434
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
NAVYSSM-MR [email protected]
NAVYPERS-FARADAY SO3 [email protected]
NAVYPERS-FARADAY CIS [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
02392 547438
02392 547441
02392 547439
02392 547440
02392 722243
02392 722243
02392 722243
07818 520577
02392 547440
02392 547437
02392 547434
02392 547260
02392 547440
02392 547434
Further information can be found on the Faraday Intranet website:
http://defenceintranet.diif.r.mil.uk/Organisations/Orgs/Navy/Organisations/Orgs/ACNS(Pers)NavSec/
CNPS/Pages/Faraday.aspx
Jump to
Contents
ROYAL NAVY
RESERVES
7
Engineer Branch
LEAVING THE REGULARS?
LAUNCH A NEW CAREER
JOIN THE ROYAL NAVY
RESERVES
To find out more contact the RNR Engineering
Branch Staff Office
Phone: 07818 520577
Email: NAVY SSM-MR SO1 [email protected] or
NAVY MCTA - COMMS4 [email protected]
navygraphicscentre 14/572
8
First for Faraday as
Engineering Training
Program of the Future
Commences at HMS Sultan
By Lieutenant Megan Keeling RN
DSMarE Staff Officer ME Training Group
The 2014 Summer Term saw Staff and students from the Defence School
of Marine Engineering (DSMarE) at HMS Sultan welcome a new dawn
in the Royal Navy’s training delivery with roll-out of the newly revised
Engineering Technician Initial Career Course (ETICC).
Following on from the introduction of
Individual Competency Frameworks
and redesign of Engineering
Technician career pipelines under
Programme Faraday, the NVQ
Level 2 accredited ETICC, which
takes new recruits fresh from
10 weeks basic Phase 1 training at
HMS Raleigh, on to their Phase 2
specialisation training, will see
the trainees complete 30 weeks
of Engineering Training designed
to better prepare them to operate
effectively within the Marine
Engineering department at sea.
In a significant change from
previous courses, trainees will now
receive an additional 11 weeks
“hands-on” practical engineering
training to complement the original
technical training. This is designed
to equip the trainee technicians
with the necessary skills and
competencies to operate, maintain,
diagnose and repair the equipment
they will encounter in their first
complement sea assignments.
ME Mechanical theoretical training
has been increased by 15%, from
Jump to
Contents
139 to 160 periods, with greater
use of models and practical
demonstrations to reinforce the
learning. Practical training has been
dramatically increased with a 650%
rise in content, from 14 to 105
periods, where trainees will learn
essential practical maintenance
skills such as basic tool use and
safe systems of work whilst also
performing various JIC based
tasks to improve skill of hand and
demonstrate competence.
In addition to
course redesign,
DSMarE has
invested heavily
in new equipment
and training aids
to enhance the
development
of haptic skills.
New equipment
includes; bespoke
mechanical
practical
training rigs and
associated tool
boxes, mechanical
equipment for
maintenance tasks such as GN500
(Hathaway Pumps), Brooksbank
valves and GN1700 Godiva pumps.
Similarly, electrical training has been
increased by 72% overall, and now
delivers greater theoretical and
practical depth than the previous
course. Electrical theoretical training
has been increased by 55%, from
56 to 87 periods, with enhanced
coverage of basic principles and
ship systems, again enhanced
with greater use of practical
demonstrations.
Practical training now contains far
more time dedicated to learning
basic electrical maintenance and
electrical testing, electrical damage
control cable running, with the
largest uplift being in electrical craft
training ie cable repairs, glanding,
cable termination and damage
repair. Training has increased by
82%, from 101 to 184 periods.
In support of the new electrical
training package, new equipment
includes Type 45 distribution
equipment, QEC lighting, enhanced
Buzzing Hub footprint and an
additional craft training lab.
Air compressor unit, newly installed as part of
Programme Faraday
9
experienced once
they were serving
at sea.
In addition to the
core technical
training, all
trainees will
continue to
receive the
required NGT
aspects of any
RN Phase 2
Investment in equipment:
course, eg Basic
Control Diagnostic Panel training
Sea Survival
Course (BSSC), operational visits,
Built in to all aspects of the revised
physical education and ceremonial
course is dedicated time for the
training.
trainees to consolidate what
they’ve learned which should
achieve greater understanding and
Captain Trevor Gulley RN,
retention. Alongside the specific
Commanding Officer of HMS Sultan
syllabus equipments already
and Commandant DSMarE, said:
mentioned, a significant number
“The new ETICC is a fantastic
of other improvements have been
example of how the Royal Navy
made to the training equipment
continues to evolve to remain at the
available within the DSMarE. These
cutting edge of engineering training
include the recent upgrade of
and technology. The opportunities
refrigeration training, the addition
that are open to our future
of the CAT32 Diesel engine (Hunt
engineers and technicians are very
engine replacement programme)
exciting, especially with HMS Queen
coupled with established training
Elizabeth’s recent launch. The
aids which include the Type 45
additional time that the trainees
Destroyer Simulators, Gas Turbines
spend on the new course within
and Diesel Engines, all put the
HMS Sultan will see them wrapped
School in a strong position to
up with the latest in practical
introduce students to equipment
training. Our recent additions within
they would have otherwise only
training equipment, whether in new
class room training aids or large
pieces of machinery, show that we
are investing everything we can
into making the Royal Navy and its
people, the best they can be.”
This first cohort of trainee
technicians will complete their
Phase 2 training and pass
out to join their first ships on
23 January 2015.
Future Training
Whilst the new ETICC is now up and
running, the first revised Leading
Engineering Technician and Petty
Officer Engineering Technician
Courses are due to start in April
2015. These new courses, like the
revised ETICC, will be based around
the new Individual Competency
Framework and the syllabus
will form the basis of the new
Provisional Exams that will be used
to allow individuals to demonstrate
technical competence for promotion.
Engineering Technicians will be
streamed to either Mechanical or
Electrical trades during their LET
course, where they will utilise the
new equipment and resources
at HMS Sultan to become deep
specialists within their area, ready
to be Deputy Section Heads or
Section Heads at sea.
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Intro
Functional Skills
Functional Skills
Functional Skills
Mech Craft
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Mech Craft
Theory 1 (Safety,
Mech Systems,
Diesels)
OLT (Talybont)
L Theory
Theory 2
(Gas Turbine)
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
Week 15
Theory 2 (Trans,
Gas Turbine, Fuels)
L Safety, Theory 3
(Aux Sys)
Theory 3 (Aux Sys),
P&D
P&D, Theory 4
(Refridge)
Theory 4 (Refridge,
Hyd, FW)
Week 16
Week 17
Week 18
Week 19
Week 20
Controls Aware
GPTME
BSSC
L Craft
L Craft
Week 21
Week 22
Week 23
Week 24
Week 25
L Craft/L Maint
L Maint
L Maint/LDC
Mech Maint
Mech Maint
Week 26
Week 27
Week 28
Week 29
Week 30
Mech Maint
HMS Bristol
Remedial Trg/Flex
Team Building
Admin etc
Course schematic – short-duration topics (eg PT, ceremonial, environmental) omitted for clarity
Jump to
Contents
10
Ship Husbandry –
A New Hope?
Steve Taylor joined the RN in 2004 having read Mechanical
Engineering at Swansea University. Initially streamed SM he was
re-streamed to MEGS in 2007 completing DMEO’s time in Lancaster
and Northumberland before working as her Platform Manager as
the Devonport Type 23 JPT transitioned into a COM. Since leaving
the COM in 2012 he was appointed to Clyde as the MEO where he
achieved chartered status and subsequently as Fishery Protection
Squadron Senior Engineer Officer where he completed an MSc in
Engineering Management at Portsmouth University
INTRODUCTION
Ship Husbandry is one of Marine
Engineering’s more visible battle
fields in the ever persistent struggle
to maintain Ships at the highest state
of material readiness. The multidisciplinary nature of the conflict,
including as it does all departments
onboard as well as shore side
organisations and contractors,
has made planning and managing
husbandry particularly tricky.
The River Class Off-shore Patrol
Vessels (RCOPVs) are currently
spearheading a new approach in
the increasingly complex answer to
the question “How do we paint our
ships?”
than the one coat of primer, one coat
of top coat that has served in the
past. The new Hempathane “Marine
Coating” purchased from Hempel
Paints is a urethane based paint
which dries by polymerisation rather
than evaporation of a solvent. (This
process is described in more depth
in the insert below.) Hempathane
comprises either a two part primer
or a two part tie coat and two layers
of a two part protective finish which
must be applied within 24 hours
of each other. Identifying where
tie coats are required and where
stripping back to bare metal and
re-priming would be better suited,
correctly mixing ratios and planning
the evolution is a complex series of
tasks and is no longer a semi-skilled
secondary function.
Painting a ship is now a highly
skilled profession: part chemist,
part logistician, part tradesman.
However with the increased tempo
of life on board and the increased
use of computer based training, the
skills of sailors have not kept pace
with the changing worlds of “Marine
Coatings” and “Protective Finishes”.
This has resulted in a varied quality
THE CHEMISTRY OF DRYING PAINT
Modern paints set by polymerisation. A molecule polymerises by
attaching to two other molecules, to form chains or “polymers”. The
distinct parts of a molecule are functional groups called “moieties”. If a
molecule has at least two moieties that can polymerize, then it can react
with its neighbours to form long rope like polymers molecules.
THE CHANGING WORLD OF
PAINT
In the last decade paint technology
has advanced at a rapid pace.
This was most notably marked on
12 December 2011 when the Forth
Rail Bridge had the final touches
put to a new coat of paint that would
last for 20 years. The never ending
job of painting the bridge, which
started in 1890, had finally come
to an end. This technology comes
at a price, not only is the paint
expensive it is far more complex
Jump to
Contents
A Monomer
A Short Polymer Chain Forming
One of the monomer’s two bonds (curved lines) opens allowing each carbon
atom (grey circle) to form two bonds with other monomers. As the molecules
polymerize and join up, the paint becomes thicker. Bigger molecules like
polymers are harder to move around. The increase in the molecular weight
of the paint increases its viscosity. When the polymers grow long enough
the oil film will become waxy and then a solid protective coating
11
of paint finish by Ship’s Staff and
occasionally results in additional cost
with the contractor required to rework Ship’s Staff’s efforts.
This does however offer advantages,
like the Forth Rail Bridge, if applied
correctly these new paint systems
can be proof against corrosion for
years at a time, even in the harsh
environment of the South Atlantic.
With a new solution available, the
challenge is to find the best way to
utilise it.
THE OLD WAY
The old solution involved all
members of the Ship’s Company
in a complex arrangement of
delineated responsibilities. This
needed a complex management
system to ensure it stayed on
track and was easily derailed by
short notice programme changes
and even inclement weather. The
priority given to it varied from ship
to ship as did the quality of the
product. Even when effectively
managed and carefully supervised
the paint scheme quality would be
at the mercy of the competence of
individual sailors. This was further
compounded on UKRCOPVs by
operating the Three Watch Manning
crew rotation system, which can
result in varying quality of handovers
compounding an already highly
variable final paint scheme.
A NEW SOLUTION
UKRCOPVs are supported by a
Contracting For Availability (CFA)
contract with BAE which provides
the RN with over 300 days on task,
at sea per platform per year. This
was recently re-tendered and as
part of that process there was an
opportunity to completely revise
the way ship husbandry support
is delivered. The Commercially
Supported Ships Team at DE&S
Abbey Wood, in conjunction with
Squadron Staff and the Contractor,
were able to completely re-envisage
the way that ship’s husbandry is
conducted and supported for these
uniquely supported platforms.
A fundamental change in the
process of providing ship husbandry
was proposed: contractor to do the
painting Ship’s Staff to do everything
else. In this case, everything
else includes washing down with
specialist detergent and fresh water
weekly, greasing routines, removing
rust streaking using bespoke
cleaning products and where there
has been damage to the paint
scheme, either through wear and
tear or mechanical damage, applying
rust arresting products to prevent
further corrosion. This means that
there is a saving to be made by
preventing the growth of minor areas
of corrosion because of a “we don’t
have time to paint it now” mentality.
There is also a further saving to be
made by reducing re-work of poor
quality painting. This has meant that
the net spending on husbandry can
remain constant whilst improving the
material state of the UKRCOPVs of
the Fishery Protection Squadron.
There is also a secondary benefit
to be gained in reducing the admin
burden on Ship’s Staff. With the
devolution of painting responsibility
to the contractor, the complexity
of planning and allocating work is
now solely their responsibility. Part
of Ship Officers only need to spend
their time identifying any breakdown
in the paint scheme, rather than
completing reams of administration.
This reduces the burden on the
individual and increases the
likelihood that paint scheme defects
will be identified and actioned early
rather than being allowed to fester
whilst the administration catches up.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
To make sure that this arrangement
continues to deliver the high
standard of material state necessary
to protect the UKRCOPVs from the
harsh conditions of the North Atlantic
winter a robust Quality Assurance
process is required. This has meant
re-visiting how the Ship Husbandry
Advisory Visits (SHAVs) are
conducted. The new SHAV process
is an engagement between all stake
holders with representatives present
from the CFA provider (BAE), the
Painting Contractor (MGL), the
Platform Duty Holder (CSS), the
Force Generation Authority (FPS
Squadron) and Ship’s Staff. This
multi-stake holder engagement has
meant that there has been a better
appreciation by all parties of the
material state of the ships, and has
allowed open dialogue about the
current material state, the priorities
and any shortfalls in delivery. Careful
management and oversight of the
paint scheme will ensure it continues
to deliver high quality protection and
avoids returning to the Forth Rail
Bridge scenario of relentless painting
ships from stem to stern.
WHAT’S NEXT?
This new support solution is
currently nine months old and has
provided positive results so far.
It has delivered two of the three
UKRCOPVs at a better standard of
husbandry for the same cost. It is not
a 100% success: due to application
problems during re-fit, one of the
UKRCOPVs is suffering from
de-bonding of the paint scheme.
This is not due to the support
arrangement and it appears that
the support arrangement can tackle
such unforeseen challenges, with
remedial work easily incorporated
into the repair programme.
The next challenge is to prepare
a method to extend this support
arrangement to HMS Clyde,
the RCOPV permanently based
in the Falkland Island, with
all its associated logistic and
meteorological challenges.
CONCLUSION
What this change is offering
is a better product with less
administration for the same price.
This sounds too good to be true,
but by focusing everyone’s efforts
on their specialist areas, this
solution reduces re-work, identifies
problems early and prevents the
spread of corrosion. This has the
cumulative effect of reducing the
degradation of the paint scheme and
allowing a better protective finish
to be maintained completely by the
specialist in the same length of time
that they would normally spend
doing part of the work in conjunction
with Ship’s Staff. Thus the same cost
for a product applied completely by
the contractor.
Jump to
Contents
12
The Green Ship Challenge
“Delivering more
with less”
By Commander
J J Bailey MSc
MA BEng CEng
MIMarEST RN
Capability
Sponsor –
Surface Combatants Marine Systems and Naval Architecture
and Lieutenant Commander Bob Hardy MSc BSc CEng
MIMarEST MIET MCMI MCGI RN
Maritime Platform Systems – Future Systems Evolution
ME Requirements Manager
Commander Bailey joined the RN in
1992 and has served in HM Ships
Richmond, Lancaster, Somerset,
Marlborough, Northumberland and
Ocean. His MA in Defence Studies
included research into Carbon Emissions
and the military. During his appointment
as Cdr(E) in Ocean he was involved in
UK operations in Libya and delivering
security during London Olympics in
2012. He is currently the Capability
sponsor and portfolio manager for
Marine Systems and Naval Architecture
in Surface Combatants within the MOD,
based in Navy Command Headquarters.
Lieutenant Commander Hardy
joined the RN in 1983 and has
served in HM Ships Intrepid, Ark
Royal, Manchester, Argyll, Iron
Duke, Dumbarton Castle and most
recently as the Marine Engineer and
subsequently Senior Naval Officer
in HMS Lancaster. He has also held
several shore appointments and at
the time of writing is an engineering
requirements manager within the
MOD Defence Equipment and
Support organization
Traditionally, warship design has concentrated on a range of factors with the aim of producing a platform capable
of delivering effectively a range of desired military effects. Although energy efficiency has been implicit within many
areas of the design process, particularly with regard to range and endurance, there has been no overall efficiency
target. However, with the ever increasing requirement to minimise environmental impact and reduce energy
consumption, this is set to change. In the case of the Royal Navy, the Service is committed to exploring the delivery
of significant medium term fuel savings against a historical baseline. This represents a real technological challenge.
A future fleet consisting of warships that will have been in service for over 20 years together with new platforms –
still at the design stage in some cases – will need to deliver these savings. A range of technologies will need to be
assessed, developed and inserted at different stages of the warship lifecycle to allow more efficient operation in
the future. The people operating and maintaining these warships will be equally important. Every organisation has
its own ethos, culture and behaviours. In the RN, these factors are directly linked to fighting effectiveness and are
therefore deeply embedded and for good reason. Understanding these factors, recognising the value of energy
as a resource and challenging inefficient behaviours will also be necessary to achieve success. This paper will
explore the blend of technology and behavioural changes that may be undertaken to ensure the RN delivers its
energy reduction targets. It is worth noting that when considering the RN equipment programme and the increased
capabilities that it will deliver over the next 10 years, in energy terms; this is in effect delivering more with less.
Jump to
Contents
13
INTRODUCTION
In response to centrally set targets
[1], the RN is working to make
significant reductions in the amount
of fossil fuel required to support
surface fleet operations. This
resetting activity is considered
essential to ensure that the
Service is ready to operate in
a future environment that is
likely to financially, physically
and legislatively challenging
with regard to energy supplies.
Resilience to future strategic
energy trends will deliver a
reduction in operating costs,
increased range and endurance
and greater operational flexibility.
The title graphic illustrates some of
the concepts that future warships
may incorporate as they evolve to
deliver these advantages.
In broad terms, the Green Ship
Challenge [2] is to achieve an 18%
reduction in fossil consumption by
2020 set against a 2010 baseline.
Initial analysis identified three levers
with the potential to deliver the
required savings. These are:
• Technology – analysis,
selection, development
and insertion of relevant
technologies that will reduce
fuel consumption.
• Behavioural Measures –
reviewing, understanding
and then where appropriate
modifying practices and culture
and procedures to achieve a
reduction in fuel consumption.
• Alternatives to fossil fuel (eg
Biofuels) – subject to successful
development, replacing or
blending fossil fuels with
synthetic alternatives.
In reality, no single measure will
deliver the required benefits and
the answer will be a blend of the
levers outlined above. This paper
will set out some of the current
thinking on this work and consider
one potential direction of travel
which has the potential to deliver
the desired outcome – a resilient
RN conducting operations in 2020
and beyond.
Technology Development –
Hydrodynamic Efficiency
Hydrodynamic efficiency has
already been the subject of much
development work. The Optimising
Fleet Fuel Usage (OFFU)
programme1 [3] of the last decade
introduced improved anti fouling
coatings together with regular
monitoring of their performance
and in water hull cleans. Transom
flaps were also fitted to frigates and
destroyers and behaviours were
considered via adjustment to fuel
allocations linked to these technical
improvements. To meet the Green
Ship Challenge, further technologies
will need to be selected, developed
and inserted into both existing
platforms and future projects to
deliver further efficiencies. This
work will be undertaken via the
Green Ship Capability Planning
Working Group which considers
energy and environmental issues
and is charged with delivering
sustained maritime presence.
Major upgrades to existing systems
or wholesale changes to future
requirements are judged unlikely to
be feasible or affordable within the
timescales available unless already
under consideration. Hydrodynamic
improvements, which reduce energy
demand at source, coupled with
efficient operation, continue to
offer significant benefits [4] and are
therefore a logical starting point. A
recent Naval Design Partnership
study commissioned by the MOD
highlighted a number of potential
hydrodynamic efficiency measures
for insertion into the Type 23 frigate
hull. The Type 23 frigate is the
RN’s most populous class of ship
and with many years of service
remaining the potential benefits of
this work are significant. The most
promising proposals from the study
are summarised below:
• The effect of a combined
bulbous bow and bow sonar
dome arrangement was
considered by adapting recent
research undertaken by other
navies [5]. The aim was to
1. See articles in the Summer 2008 and
Spring 2010 issues of Review of Naval
Engineering and the Winter 2012 issue of
The Naval Engineer.
determine if the wave breaking
advantages of a bulbous bow
could be achieved without
detrimentally affecting the flow
characteristics around the sonar
dome and thus avoid impacting
on noise signature and sensor
performance.
• Shaft brackets represent a
design compromise in that
they require sufficient material
cross section to support the
shaft while adding the minimum
possible drag to the hull and
disruption to propeller flow.
Optimising shaft bracket angles
and geometry by adjusting
the leading and trailing edges
was assessed as having the
potential to deliver significant
savings.
• Utilising the latest advanced
section profiles in propeller
design has the potential to
improve efficiency without
affecting operational
performance. Improved blade
area ratios and reduced drag
result in fuel savings and higher
cavitation inception speed.
• Traditional propellers lose
efficiency as a result of the
hub vortex and resultant
pressure field behind the
blades. Propeller Boss Caps, as
illustrated in Figure 1, recover
energy from the hub vortex,
eliminating the pressure field
and thus increasing efficiency.
While the effect on efficiency
of boss caps is reasonably
well understood, the impact on
cavitation is not so clear. The
key question is, can improved
efficiency be delivered in a
warship without degrading
platform noise signature.
• Warship rudders operate in a
highly rotational wake behind
the propellers. As a result, some
sections along a conventional
rudder suffer from cavitation
and erosion. The MOD and
international partners have
investigated the benefits of
twisted rudders. Following on
from this research, commercial
rudder manufacturers have
Jump to
Contents
14
this year when HMS St Albans
returned to the Fleet post refit.
These coatings present a non-stick
surface which helps prevent fouling
attachment. Moreover, any growth
that does develop ‘washes off’ at
speeds above 10-14 knots. As well
as being highly efficient, this system
is also more environmentally
friendly as no biocide is used.
Coating performance is regularly
monitored and when shaft power
for a particular speed reaches the
‘trigger point’ corrective action to
restore efficiency is undertaken.
Performance data received in
2012/13 suggests that up to 50%
of in-service hulls [7] are still being
operated at less than optimum
efficiency.
Figure 1: Photograph of a propeller boss cap. Image courtesy of QinetiQ Ltd
developed a simplified variation
assessment of these measures is
of the twisted rudder. The
underway and the initial findings
concept is illustrated in Figure 2
will be quantified through modelling
below. Instead of having a
and tank testing. Although initial
continually varying twist angle
indications are good, potentially
along the span, such rudders
offering even greater efficiencies
feature a distinct discontinuity at than reported, subsequent
the leading edge. As such, their
implementation will clearly have to
manufacture remains relatively
align with the RN warship operating
straightforward compared to the
and refitting schedule and be subject
fully twisted style.
to financial profiles, once detailed
costs are understood. However
The potential benefits for these
this programme will both generate
proposals are summarised in
options for investment in current
Table 1 below:
hulls and identify technologies that
might be pulled through to future
Having completed the high
ship acquisition teams such as
level analysis, further detailed
the Type 26 Frigate Project – the
successor to the Type 23.
No matter what the baseline
underwater design characteristics,
fuel consumption increases
caused by hull fouling can be
as much as 12% [6]. To combat
this, the RN OFFU programme
to apply advanced Foul Release
(FR) coatings to all in service
hulls completed earlier
While the RN is now well
positioned to realise the benefits
of FR technology, further coating
developments may offer greater
advantage in the future. The
Technology Strategy Board (TSB)
Industry competition entitled ‘Vessel
Efficiency’ (with contributing funding
drawn from Dstl) is underway and
is aimed at technologies, concepts
and designs which can improve
the efficiency of vessels across the
marine industry. One promising
area of investigation is anti-fouling
technologies based on nano
materials such as graphene.
Nanomaterials have a number
of potential applications within
marine anti-fouling coatings.
The inherently small size of
nanoparticles means they remain
in the lattice of the antifoul
coating. Nano sized copper
oxide or doped zinc oxides are
reported to be able to remain
within coating formulations and
have been shown to increase the
lifetime of the antimicrobial activity,
with a corresponding rise in the
Hydrodynamic Development Predicted Fuel Saving per Hull
direction of
propellor rotation
Figure 2: Schematic of a twisted leading edge rudder
Image courtesy of QinetiQ Ltd
Jump to
Contents
Bulbous bow above sonar
5%
Optimised shaft brackets
3%
Vaned propeller boss
3%
New propellers
3%
Twisted rudders
2%
Table 1: Summary of Potential Type 23 Hull Form
Hydrodynamic Improvements
15
time between cleaning and reapplication cycles. Although this is
effectively reintroducing a biocide,
these oxides do not readily leach
out; they slowly release ions to
provide long term antifouling
performance [8]. Nanomaterials
may also be used to further
improve the anti-adhesion
properties of coatings and
introduce self healing properties to
prolong their useful service life [9].
grade) theory predicts that most
operators should be able significant
cost savings from heat recovery.
However, care is required when
assessing the benefits available
from recovering higher grade heat
for the RN. Warship propulsion
machinery operating profiles differ
significantly from those of industrial
plant and the merchant marine and
this affects both the quantity and
quality of waste energy available.
At the time of writing, it is not
possible to make a meaningful
assessment of the potential
benefits these coatings may offer
in the future. In addition, the
environmental impact of wide scale
use of these coatings by the RN has
also yet to be considered. Moreover,
the RN’s FR coating programme
took over 10 years to complete and
is only now starting to deliver full
benefit. It is likely that any further
improvement programme based on
new anti-fouling technologies would
take similar timescales to validate
and deliver.
Noting the potential benefits
available, DSTL have completed
two Centre for Defence Enterprise
(CDE) calls focused on this
area [10]. These have explored how
platform system efficiencies might
be achieved and in this example
the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC),
illustrated in Figure 3 below, was
simulated for the types of diesel
generator and gas turbine typically
found in warships.
Technology Development –
Platform Systems
Efficiency
The ORC is a closed loop cycle,
meaning that a given mass of
working fluid is present and remains
constant over time. The working
While the potential gains are
attractive and diesel engine
heat to power is currently
offered commercially by a single
manufacturer, it should be noted
that the product is neither optimised
to naval specification nor matched
to warship operating profiles.
Products are yet to be completely
established across the commercial
Heat input
Heat to Power
The majority of wasted energy in
RN platform machinery is lost via
cooling systems and prime mover
exhausts. This wasted energy takes
the form of medium (typically > 100º
< 400º Celsius) or high grade heat
(typically > 400º Celsius) within
exhaust systems and low grade
heat (typically < 100º Celsius) from
cooling systems. To recover low
grade heat effectively, a ready use
or application is required together
with large quantities of waste
energy. At temperatures above
200º Celsius (medium or high
fluid is pumped to a high pressure
and then passed through a boiler.
The heat input to the boiler is the
waste heat (exhaust gas in this
case) and this energy vaporises the
working fluid at a constant pressure.
This vapour is then expanded thus
extracting work from it. The vapour
exiting the expander is at a low
pressure, and is condensed in the
condenser by rejecting heat to a
cooling fluid (sea water in this case)
before returning to the pump suction
to repeat the cycle. It is considered
that the diesel application offers the
greatest potential benefits across
the Fleet and a subset of the results
from the Ricardo analysis are
presented in Table 2 below.
Boiler
Pump
Work
in
Work
out
Expander
Heat
rejection
Condenser
Figure 3: Organic Heat Engine Cycle
Engine
Load (%)
Base Mechanical
Output Power (MW)
Waste Heat Input
(exhaust/max) (KW)
Waste Heat Recovery
Power (KW)
100
2.24
2100
236
75
1.68
1615
180
50
1.12
1032
115
25
0.56
474
53
10
0.22
144
16
Approximate Fuel
Consumption Benefit
9%
Table 2: Analysis of the benefits of Waste Heat Recovery
Jump to
Contents
16
marine sector and may require
further time and funding to develop
to the necessary technology
readiness level for RN use.
Heat Pumps
Further CDE studies [11] have
identified lower risk efficiency
options, focusing on recovering
lower grade waste heat for use
more widely throughout the ship.
In particular, the use of heat
pumps offers low level savings
within a relatively short payback
period for specific applications
such as domestic hot fresh water
systems. A simple system using
auxiliary cooling water to power
a small heat pump (@15KW)
together with an additional hot
water calorifier to store the
heated water offers electricity
savings which does translate into
fuel efficiencies. However, the
translation is not straightforward
and overall fuel efficiencies, while
not insignificant, are assessed to
be less than 1%.
Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning
The growth in complex electrical
loads and energy demand has
had a corresponding impact
on Heating Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) systems. The
introduction of more advanced
HVAC technologies, leveraging from
advances in commercial systems
has the potential to stem this
growth and deliver key efficiencies.
Initial studies into Desiccant
HVAC options for one class of
ship suggested benefits may well
be realised but also showed the
prohibitive cost impact of retrofitting
such options into integrated wholeship systems. Further work with
NDP, DSTL, DE&S and industry
HVAC specialists has explored a
variety of technology options. The
key issue is assessed to be the
continuing growth of air cooled
systems and their impact on the
overall HVAC system over time.
At this stage, it is assessed that
the most significant gains will be
achieved by optimising existing
systems through better feedback
and control.
Jump to
Contents
Prime Mover Efficiency
The Ships Energy Assessment
System (SEAS) minor trial in
HMS Dragon was completed last
year and performance data was
gathered and analysed. The SEAS
tool builds a mathematical model
of the hull and propulsion plant
which advises the operator on
efficient operation and passage
planning. This system gives greater
utility for the operator together with
greater accuracy and fidelity when
compared to traditional fuel and
passage planning methods. The
trial report predicts fuel savings of at
least 2%, depending on the balance
between operational tasking and
efficient operation allowed by the
ship’s programme. Interestingly, the
trial identified significant periods
when the ship was operating below
its most efficient speed. It is in this
area where it is considered that use
of a precise energy efficiency tool to
enable behavioural changes has the
potential to deliver more modest but
nonetheless significant fuel savings.
Type 23 Power Generation
and Machinery Control and
Surveillance System Update
(PGMU)
It should be noted that support
programmes also offer an
opportunity to improve efficiency
and thus contribute to energy
management targets. The Type 23
Frigate Power Generation and
Machinery Control Update
(PGMU) is a good example. The
project vision in terms of electrical
generation is to provide full
safety, availability and capability
in all theatres of operation for the
remaining life of the class [12].
Not surprisingly, with advances
in efficiencies and considering
the current age of the Type 23
platform, all the diesel engines
considered by the project offer
reduced fuel consumption when
compared to the current generating
sets. Moreover, the fitting of more
modern machines may alter the
class machinery operating profile
such that maximum cruising speed
is achievable in all but the most
demanding conditions without the
need for all generator sets to be
on load. This should allow diesel
maintenance to be scheduled more
efficiently and result in a reduced
requirement for periods of gas
turbine power, therefore delivering
further fuel savings.
The update of the Type 23
machinery control system also
offers potential benefits. Interfacing
modern energy efficiency
monitoring systems with existing
1980s controls architecture is
not straightforward. The PGMU
programme specification ensures
that post update all the required
engineering inputs for a modern
energy efficiency monitoring
system are available for use
on the bridge [13]. Overall, this
project should offer significant fuel
savings (estimated as in excess
of 10% against current operating
profile). However it should be noted
that final ship implementation is
beyond 2020 and this will reduce
the project’s impact on Green Ship
targets.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Bio-Fuels
First generation bio-fuels, Fatty Acid
Methyl Ester (FAME) are usually
derived from the esterification of
vegetable oils (and some animal
fats). Chemically, it is not identical
to hydrocarbons and there are
overall performance concerns
regarding the use of FAME in naval
marine systems.
Products developed from high
percentages of fully hydro treated,
second and third generation biofuels mixed with middle distillate
stocks, may well develop in time
into drop in replacements for NATO
F76 specification diesel fuel and
as such show more promise for the
future. However, at present these
products are still in development
and are neither widely commercially
nor cost effectively available.
Work to assess the effects of using
these blends in RN systems is
ongoing within DE&S to ensure the
Service is ready to use these fuels
if and when they become available.
17
Economic factors are considered
to be the key driving force in this
area. Second and third generation
blended fuel costs are in the order
of four times higher than existing
F76. For this reason they are not
expected to be a significant factor in
the market for at least 15 years.
hydrogen and methane; while it
is technical possible to reform
diesel into fuel suitable for fuel cell
technologies, these processes
negate the advantages shown
above due to the parasitic losses
incurred. So, benefit in a total
system sense remains elusive.
Glycerine Fuel for Engines and
Marine Sustainability (GLEAMS)
Overall, this technology is assessed
as still being in its developmental
phase. Fuel cells currently remain
more costly and less power dense
than internal combustion engines.
Also, the more mature technologies
still operate most effectively in civil
logistics applications. That said, a
number of submarine designs have
exploited fuel cell technology. In
the case of RN surface platforms,
it is assessed that the most likely
exploitation route for fuel cells as
the technology matures would be to
provide an energy reserve or ‘ride
through’ capability to support more
efficient prime mover utilization.
Another TSB call is funding an
investigation into the use of
Glycerol, a by-product of bio-fuel
production, as a fuel for marine
diesels. The GLEAMS project is
developing the technology required
to adjust marine diesel engine
parameters (air inlet temperatures
and mass flow) to allow Glycerol
to be used as a fuel [14]. The
non-toxic and non-volatile nature
of glycerol means that it could be
accommodated safely in the hull
space of many vessel types [15],
albeit with a reduction in range.
Although at this stage it is difficult
to see a clear exploitation route
for the RN, Glycerol remains one
of the more radical options being
considered.
DOCTRINE AND BEHAVIOURS
Given that technology alone
cannot solve all the issues faced
in reducing the RN’s reliance
on fossil fuels, the Service
should continue to develop its
understanding of how improved
platform operation may reduce
fossil fuel dependencies. In doing
so, the behaviours approach must
be seen to enable the delivery of
the same operational outputs for
a reduced energy input and not
be perceived by warfighters as
an inconvenient application of a
‘planning factor’ that undermines
the effectiveness of military power.
The development of operational
level doctrine for the employment
of military forces should focus on
the opportunities presented by
viewing energy as a constraint.
In this context, a constraint is
defined as a planning factor that
must be considered in order
to determine the freedom of
manoeuvre available to the military
commander. Introducing this aspect
into our operational planning
processes is relatively easy, but
assessing the mechanisms that
might be used and then working
this through the planning process
Fuel Cells
The findings from a recent DSTL
future energy assessment report
are summarised below. There
is little doubt that considered in
isolation fuel cells offer many
potential advantages in the
maritime:
• Fuel cells have higher
conversion efficiency from
chemical to electrical energy
than either ICEs or gas
turbines.
• Fuel cell technologies offer a
simpler conversion path from
chemical to electrical energy.
• There are significantly lower
emissions from fuel cells.
• Fuel cells offer a lower
signature than combustion
engines.
These findings assume the use
of low complexity fuels such as
Figure 4: Future fleets will require a mix of energy to deliver military capability
Jump to
Contents
18
to determine the benefit delivered
is potentially challenging. There
are several mechanisms through
which we might develop these
concepts whether at the strategic,
operational or tactical level but it
is clear that energy considerations
should continue to feature in our
strategic planning and tactical
employment.
Above all, it must be remembered
that energy is an enabler to the
delivery of military effect and it
is that effect which Operational
Commanders are expected to
deliver. Therefore, as with all
system design issues, balancing
the demands of military outputs
and outcomes against the cost of
energy is inevitably a consideration.
However, once understood it can
be an enabler to the sustained and
efficient delivery of military effect
in a challenging future energy
environment. Introducing this
concept will take time to realise
when balanced against the other
military pressures and will require
a change in culture. However, not
bringing forward the potential range
of options or considerations now
will mean that our future energy
needs may constrain the conduct of
both routine tasks and contingent
operations.
This article was previously published
by IMarEST in the Conference
Proceedings of INEC 14
CONCLUSION
This paper set out to review the
technological and behavioural
options available to enable the RN
to achieve its operational energy
management targets. More broadly,
as evidenced by the multinational
nature of much of the research
reviewed here, this is not a problem
that the RN faces in isolation. The
Green Ship Challenge applies
equally to all nations seeking to
operate naval platforms efficiently in
the future.
Having assessed many of the
potential options, it is clear that the
RN will require a mix of behavioural
and technological measures to
ensure success. It is suggested
that this is likely to be the case
for most nations and there is
much to be gained by sharing
and pooling ideas at fora such as
INEC. For the RN, much of this
work is already underway. The
Type 23 hydrodynamic efficiency
programme and PGMU offer real
benefits in the medium term, even
though these projects will not be
fully implemented prior to the 2020
target date.
However, the more promising
technologies such as heat to
power will need funding and time
to develop them to the appropriate
technology readiness level for
RN use. In addition, the use of
alternative energy sources may
only deliver marginal savings
within the desired timeframe. In
particular, when considering biofuels significant benefits are unlikely
to be realised within the context of
operational energy for at least 15
years.
A potential approach might be
to concentrate on culture and
behaviours, offering the Operational
Commander greater efficiency and
endurance on task. This may be
achieved by realising the benefits of
considering energy as a ‘constraint’
and seeking synergies via
technology insertion to aid decision
making and enhance endurance.
This would ensure that existing
investment in technology such as
FR coatings is maximised and would
seek to introduce and exploit recent
work on voyage efficiency systems.
Such a mixed approach has the
potential to deliver benefits now,
both in terms of energy efficiency
and operational endurance
while also seeding the culture
and behaviours needed as
new platforms, capabilities and
technologies are introduced in the
future. Moreover, it sets a clear
direction of travel as the RN takes
its first steps towards meeting the
Green Ship Challenge – delivering
more with less.
REFERENCES
[1] MOD Annual Report and Accounts 2011-12, Annex D,
Sustainability Report, ISBN: 9780102977745, London,
The Stationery Office.
[2] The governance and programme for the Green Ship Challenge
was set out internally via DACOS MARCAP’s EC 35-01-03-18
(Achieving RN Operational Energy Management Targets) dated
16 July 2012.
[3] Optimising Fleet Fuel Usage introduced internally by DLogME
and CME(M)’s presentation, ‘Driving Down Fleet Fuel Costs’
dated 21 April 2005.
[4] i-encon.com, (2014), ‘Navy’s Incentivized Energy Conservation
Program Realizes Dividends’, Incentivized Shipboard Energy
Conservation, [Online], available at www.i-encon.com (Accessed
31 March 2014).
[5] Cusanelli D.S. and Karafiath G. ‘Hydrodynamic energy saving
enhancements for DDG51 class ships’, ANSE Day 2012,
Crystal City, Arlington, VA, February 9-10 2012.
[6] USN NAVSEA Technical Publication, SL101-AA-GYD-010,
(Shipboard Energy Conservation Guide), Revision 4, Chapter 2,
Para 2.2.10, 11 February 2014.
[7] Trigger trial data received for in service hulls CVS/LPH/LPD/Type 45/
Type 23/MCMV/SVHO for the period April 2012 – March 2013.
[8] Azanon.com, The A to Z of Nanotechnology (2014),
‘Nanotechnology and Marine Anti-fouling’, [Online], available
at www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=333, (Accessed
4 February 2014).
[9] Arvind, A. et al, (2010) ‘Nanotechnology – A new vision of
coating technology’, Paintindia, September 2010, pp. 61-74.
[10] Work undertaken as part of the Dstl resilience programme.
[11] Work conducted as part of the Dstl resilience programme.
[12] Sutton G. et al, (2013), ‘Power Generation and MCAS Update
of the Type 23 – Repowering to Meet Demand’, Proceedings
of the Engine as a Weapon International Symposium, Bristol,
16-17 July 2013, London, The Institute of Marine Engineering,
Science and Technology, pp. 98-109.
[13] The Type 23 Power Generation and Machinery Control System
Update User Requirements Document, Issue 2, Final, dated
October 2011.
[14] Day, P. (2011) ‘(E)mission Impossible’, The Chemical Engineer,
Iss. 389, pp. 33 – 35, May 2011.
[15] Marinesoutheast, (2014), ‘Gleams Project Review’,
[Online]. Available at www.marinesoutheast.co.uk/ongoing_
projects/?link=more.php&id=3155&coll=233, (Accessed
11 February 2014).
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Mr Roger Mudge, UK Ministry of Defence, Defence Equipment
and Support and Mr Andy Tate, UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratories for their contribution to this article.
Jump to
Contents
19
CNEO’s Commendation
In order to recognise excellence, extraordinary technical and professional ability which has had a real and positive
impact upon the Engineering Branch, Operational Capability or the wider Royal Naval Community, the Chief
Naval Engineer Officer (CNEO) has introduced a periodic Commendation to recognise exemplary engineering
achievement or activity once per term, that would not normally be recognised through other mechanisms.
CNEO, Vice Admiral Simon Lister CB OBE, has introduced this award in order to highlight the work of particular
members of the Engineering Branch. While it is not possible to recognise the valuable and indispensable work
that goes on continuously around the globe, it is only right that conspicuous excellence is recognised, not only to
the benefit of the individual, but to highlight to the wider RN community the calibre of engineers currently serving
within operational and support units alike.
The award will be presented in person by CNEO, where possible, at the parent Unit of the individual. This
measure, along with others, sit within the framework of the ‘Naval Engineering Strategy,’ which is rapidly
revolutionising the way that the Engineering Branch works, ensuring the wealth of engineering talent within the
RN is employed appropriately and above all effectively.
Citations for any further nominations for CNEO’s Commendation should be sent to NAVY SSM-CNEO-SEC and
NAVY SSM-CNEO-WO1.
Jump to
Contents
20
Bravo Zulus
Congratulations to the RN Engineers who were awarded honours in the 2014 Birthday Honours List:
Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE)
Commodore K.A. Beckett
Rear Admiral S.B. Brunton
Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE)
Commander J. McNair
Captain B.J. Stanley-Whyte
Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE)
Lieutenant Commander N.C. Loughrey
Lieutenant Commander L.R. Nicholls
Congratulations to the RN Engineers who have recently been awarded the
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM):
Warrant Officer 1 Engineering Technician (ME) P. Blench
Acting Chief Petty Officer Marine Engineering Mechanic (M) T. Carr
Warrant Officer 1 (Air Engineering Technician) G.B. Cartlidge
Chief Petty Officer Marine Engineering Mechanic (M) D.J. Jones
Warrant Officer 2 Engineering Technician (MESM) A.N. Joy
Warrant Officer 2 Engineering Technician (MESM) S.H. Machail
Warrant Officer 1 Engineering Technician (MESM) S.J. Micallef
Warrant Officer 1 Engineering Technician (WE) A.P. Patience
Warrant Officer 1 Marine Engineering Mechanic (M) D.T. Questa
CNEO’S
CONFERENCE &
ENGINEERS’ DINNER
31 March – 1 April 2015
The Conference will be held
in HMS COLLINGWOOD;
the Annual Engineers’ Dinner will
take place there on the evening of
31 March.
An associated DIN will be published
shortly.
POC Lt Paul Proctor
Dii NAVY SSM-CNEO-CONF-SEC
Jump to
Contents
21
Worshipful Company
of Engineers –
awards for 2014
The Worshipful Company made awards to three RN Engineers in 2014: some details are below.
The Award for Defence Engineering Equipment & Support was made to Lieutenant Commander Richard Wadsworth. The citation reads:
Lieutenant Commander Richard
Wadsworth is an outstanding engineer who has used his ability and
strong personal presence to punch
well above his weight in overseeing the design of Type 26 Global
Combat Ship. Against considerable opposition, he has taken an
adequate but poor design of the
chilled water system and radically improved its operability and
robustness to action damage, both
crucial for this supply of the ship’s
life blood. In addition to similar
optimisation of other ship systems,
he has been an outstanding chair-
man of the “Internal Battle” working
group, managing agreement of all
the myriad details of how the ship
will be fought internally between
the RN operators and the designers. He is a young engineer, leader
and negotiator of considerable
note.
The Award for RN Operational Engineering was made to Lieutenant Commander (now Commander) John
McCombe. The nomination reads:
This nomination recognises the
his department. Hugely respected,
McCombe’s ability to balance the
reality of operating a new class
his team refused to let him down,
operational imperative in the face
of ship on operations in the
and because they went the extra
of a tangible threat in temperatures
most challenging environmental
mile, the result was that, out of
up to 46ºC, with a sub-optimal
conditions in the world – the Persian support solution, was nothing short
250 days deployed (including an
Gulf.
extension on task in response to
of masterful. His judgement and
the Syrian crisis), only five days
advice on engineering risk was
The struggle to maintain Type 45
were lost due to marine engineering
superb. He took everyone with him
engineering availability through the
fragility – availability figures never
including COM, OEMs, operational
heat/humidity of the Gulf Summer
witnessed before in a Type 45.
commander and, most importantly,
is well documented and up to 2013
our record was patchy at best. In
McCombe has set the bar and
the words of UKMCC, “Type 45
significantly enhanced OC in
has some reputational ground
the process. That Dragon could
to recover”. That Dragon did so
develop UK/US carrier strike
was down to John McCombe;
interoperability to a level that was
his exceptional leadership,
described by UKMCC as being
practical engineering nous and
of “lasting significance” is a direct
remarkable professional stamina
result of McCombe’s professional
in extraordinarily challenging
engineering judgment. I therefore
conditions and under very
commend him wholeheartedly for
considerable command pressure.
this award.
The Postgraduate Award for Services Engineering was made to Lieutenant Peter Hanley.
Petty Officer L. Goddard
IN MEMORIAM
Petty Officer (E) M. Green RFA
Second Officer (E) G. Williams RFA
These three members of the Engineering Branch have died in Naval Service during the past year.
Jump to
Contents
22
Simulation and Animation
for Training
By Lieutenant Commander Ed Oates MSc MRAeS RNR
Merlin Mk2 Instructor, RNAS Culdrose
Ed Oates trained as an ASW Observer. After leaving full time RN
service he worked as a Trials Engineer on the Merlin Mk1 project
at AgustaWestland, as the synthetic environment manager for the
Merlin Training Facility (MTF), and with DES as a project manager at
MOD Abbey Wood. Working as a Reservist, he provides Operational
Analysis support to UKMBS and MWC alongside his ‘day job’ as an
Observer Instructor. In 2007 he was awarded MSc in Simulation and
Modelling, in 2012 Professional Graduate Certificate of Education,
and currently continues with academic study as a part time student
at Cranfield University. Papers presented at RAeS Flight Simulation
Conferences cover his main interests in simulation and training.
If you’ve worked as an instructor
in a technical subject, then you will
already be familiar with simulations
and animations. Anything from an
animation on a PowerPoint slide
to a multi-million pound simulator.
They are all designed to be tools for
learning, and all subject to quality
control feedback loops as students
and instructors use them. Simulations
and animations aren’t the only
training tools available and they need
to be used selectively – the right
tool for the right job. This article is
about the training system feedback
loop and the constant search for
increasingly effective training tools.
Sometimes changes in the Ministry
of Defence come in slowly and are
hardly noticed. If, like me, you’ve
wanted to express a concept or
an idea with an animation or a
simulation you will have found
that difficult using standard DII
applications. But things have
changed. Slowly and with no
fanfare, the plate-tectonics of web
browser capability, Javascript
language development, the
introduction of MOSS server space,
improved DII UAD (user access
device – that’s a desktop PC to most
of us), and national education have
given the MOD a capability we’ve
never had before. It’s all offering
additional capability to a training
system at no additional £ cost.
The MOD procures dynamic
systems, yet there’s no easy way
to describe dynamic systems
textually for training. In between
the big blocks of procured training
Jump to
Contents
equipment there’s often a wide
range of training gaps that appear
from instructors’ and trainees’
feedback. These tend to be filled by
user manuals. Typically there’s a
user document and a static picture
but nothing to show the dynamic
nature of the system. Any gaps in
trainee understanding are left to
the instructor to fill with PowerPoint
presentations and the white-board.
resolution screens than ever
before. The ability to display
interactive web pages has
never been so well supported.
• Javascript is supported by
freely available JQuery libraries.
The JQuery motto is “write less,
do more” and this is indicative
of the way that interactive web
page development has recently
moved. DII already supports
the Notepad application which
allows authoring for HTML,
CSS, Javascript and JQuery.
Each of the following by themselves
has changed nothing, but when
combined now offer a way of
describing and animating dynamic
systems to a wide audience of
MOD trainees anywhere there’s DII
access. They offer a way for onscreen simulations and animations
to be created locally in the pursuit of
increasingly effective training tools.
• DII MOSS, while not everyone’s
• Internet Explorer 8 is now
the most capable web page
browser that MOD has ever
had. It ‘interprets’ HTML, CSS
and Javascript (the standard
language of interactive web
pages) to provide a dynamic,
interactive graphical interface.
• New DII computers being rolled
out this year have more capable
processors and increased
favourite, is a well structured
and accessible web hosting
location. Many trainees on DII
can have access to animated
dynamic systems represented
on interactive web pages saved
to the MOSS server.
• Computer programming has
been on the GCSE options
list since the late 1970s and
our managers and leaders
need to see programming as
a core skill alongside word
processing and spreadsheets.
From September this year,
computer programming will be
on the Junior School National
Curriculum, something that
23
Tactical Display mock-up in IE8 written
in HTML, Javascript, JQuery and CSS
using Notepad
senior schools have had
for some years. If MOD
employees have been
exposed to writing for web
sites it’s highly likely that they
will have experience of HTML,
CSS and Javascript. While not
everyone will have the skills
needed to create interactive
web pages to describe
dynamic systems, how many
of our managers and leaders
have asked their teams if they
have? They may be surprised
at the answers.
So the slow conjoining of
technology and skills may have
given the MOD a free capability
to better describe and train the
dynamic systems that we procure. If
training system feedback indicates
that an on-screen simulation or
animation is the appropriate training
tool, then we now have the ability to
produce it in-house.
Interactive Tactical Display using IE8
How will we know if this is true?
We’ll have to try it and see. Let me
know what you think.
Ed Oates is a Navy Reservist
currently working as an instructor
at RNAS Culdrose. He’d like to
hear from anyone in MOD who
is using Javascript/JQuery for
animations and simulations with
the aim of creating an on-line
Forum or Blog to exchange ideas.
Ed can be contacted on
Navy-CU824Observer21.mod.uk
While not everyone will have the skills needed ... how many of our
managers and leaders have asked their teams if they have? They may
be surprised at the answers.
Jump to
Contents
24
Life After MEA/APP
By CPOET(ME)(EL)Gary Peterson
M2 – Power Generation & Distribution Group Head, HMS Iron Duke
Introduction
I’m CPO Gary ‘Chubbs’ Peterson
and I had the honour of writing an
article for RNE, TNE’s predecessor,
way back in 20051. Back then, I
was a fresh faced MEA/APP with
the rest of my Artificer training
ahead of me. So what’s different
in 2014? Well I think it’s fair to say
a lot has changed, both for myself
and the branch in general. In this
article, I intend to briefly explain my
experiences between Initial Sea
Training and my current position.
Early days
So, last time I left off having
nearly completed my sea training;
needless to say that I managed
to get a pass for that – all during
the International Fleet Review.
1. “A Day in the Life of MEA App Peterson”,
Review of Naval Engineering, Autumn 2005.
... completing two and
a half deployments ...
Jump to
Contents
My time in Marlborough was short
lived after that and I returned
to Sultan to complete Artificer
training. As with every Artificer
on course, I completed various
academic modules including
Maths, Mechanical Principles and,
the dreaded, Thermos and Fluids
modules, all before moving onto
the more practical aspects of the
course.
Having been rated LMEA in
November 2006, I completed the
course in January 2008 and joined
HMS Montrose. This was to be
my place of work for the next four
years, completing two and a half
deployments and one refit package.
Controls, Diesels and
Domestics
I started life as the Controls killick
for a few months until I found my
feet before moving on to Diesels.
Things would go okay for a few
months, until we were well into a
South Arabian Gulf deployment. H1
DG had been out of action due to
one of B1’s cylinder head holding
down nuts cracking. Unfortunately,
when H2 dropped a valve on B4,
it meant that for a time the ship
was down to two DGs. Pulling in
as many people as we could with
diesel engine experience, the
department went into shift work in
order to carry out a fork and blade
change on H2, which included a
new piston, liner and cylinder head.
Work was going well, with the
engine pulled apart and the fork in
the combined workshop. We set
about removing the gudgeon pin
from the piston, but discovered that
it wouldn’t budge due to damage. In
attempting to remove it, I managed
to crush a finger and thumb, and
was pretty quickly boated ashore
in Bahrain in order to seek medical
attention from an American hospital.
A week later, I returned to the ship
to discover that the work on H2 had
been completed the previous day
and the stores had arrived to bring
H1 back to life.
After I’d finished on Diesels, I went
to Domestics where all manner of
defects presented themselves to
me. Boat davit control box wiring
becoming degraded taking out both
sea boats – on a day when the Lynx
was supposed to be going up for a
ship’s company photo. This coupled
with the loss of both RO plants, I
made the call to fix the RO plants
which got me into trouble with the
Captain, via the MEO. Eventually,
M2 Section had to help out with
25
getting one of the control boxes
together whilst I finished off one of
the RO plants.
Next there was a bearing failure in
the anchor capstan control wheel
contactor; the bearing had crumbled
apart and the contactor was sitting
at an angle, not doing much in the
way of making contacts. Finally,
chasing fresh water pipe work
through the cabins in the upper
cabin flat saw me braze one piece,
fit it back and watch the leak sneak
forward.
Back in Controls (!)
My time on M3D ended shortly after
I had passed my PO PQE. From
there I went back to Controls, with
the outgoing maintainer going on
draft about a week later having
recently passed his CPO PQE.
I pretty much got myself settled
in just in time to conduct my first
Control System Integrity Check, or
CSIC for short. This proved to be a
major event, not to mention a very
steep two day learning curve for me,
because it would be the precursor to
the ship’s final PPA prior to entering
refit. In all on that trip, I ran the
Controls section for a month, but
that was going to be my life for the
next three and a half years.
After getting back to Plymouth
in the early part of October 2008
and having a lengthy spell of post
deployment leave, the ship travelled
to Rosyth via the namesake
Scottish town of Montrose for what
would be 11 months of an upkeep
package. Leaving the ship to go
on Christmas leave just after she
entered the dock, I wouldn’t see her
again until the following March, as I
had been booked in to complete my
PJT training for the controls section.
Now, some may have noticed the list
of items I had worked on during my
time in M3D, particularly the Davits
and Capstans. Usually these would
be items belonging to the M3H
section. However, for reasons not
quite known, equipment had passed
from one section to another; I don’t
think there’s a single Type 23 that
had the same equipment allocated
to the same sections as another.
Unfortunately this goes against the
PCP layout, which hampers the
training of the Section Head. The
same thing was true of my training
on M1C equipment because, like
many other M1C’s I know of, I had
charge of the steering gear and
stabilisers. I shall get to the point of
this issue a bit later.
Other than the missing training for
items given to me, my PJT package
finished at the start of March and
I was able to rejoin the ship in
Rosyth the following week. A lot had
... got me into trouble with the Captain, via the MEO
happened to the ship in the nearly
three months I had been away.
Large portions of the hull had been
cut away and were being replaced
due to thicknesses, particularly true
of the hull around the forward end
of the Steering Gear Compartment.
The sides had also been cut away
from the MGR in order to facilitate
the change of main wheels in both
gearboxes. Work was well under
way in exchanging the old Ginge
Kerr system for the Tyco T2000
NBCDISS.
Amazingly, the ship managed to
keep all but three ME Senior Rates,
which meant that pride of ownership
remained quite high. When the ship
left Rosyth in the September, there
were only a few issues that I was
faced with. Firstly, the stabilisers
weren’t behaving as expected and a
team had to join us in Faslane from
Babcock Rosyth in order to remedy
the issue and the Tyco system was
too sensitive with the set up in the
Avcat Pump Space flood sensors,
meaning I had to reset the gain on
the amplifiers, a technique I’d use
again in Somerset and advise in
Iron Duke.
Getting through the SARC process
with quite a big list of defects from
MASC in the first BOST period
after the refit, we eventually made
it to Op Ocean Shield in July 2010.
A small five month trip to conduct
anti piracy operations in support
of a NATO task group. Most of the
equipment worked well for that trip,
but the stabilisers would cause me
great pain.
Both stabilisers began to behave
erratically, moving fast and making
loud banging noises which could
be heard and felt on 1 Deck and
I found myself having to prove all
the control parameters, with the
assistance of the Equipment IPT.
Once we had conducted several
set to work routines, I turned my
attention to the Central Control
Unit, discovering that the signal
being received by the unit from
the Data Distribution Unit for the
gyros was not quite as expected.
Naturally, the WE Dept were willing
to fight tooth and nail to prove that
Jump to
Contents
26
the signal they were providing us
was correct and, in all fairness,
the displayed signal seemed to be
correct at the DDU, but it wasn’t
the same signal as the one being
delivered to the CCU. Eventually
we ran a rabbit run from the Gyro
Room to the SCC, proving that the
DDU was attempting to give the
CCU the correct input. Eventually
it was discovered that a damaged
chassis where the particular card
sat for the output to the CCU was
damaged, causing an earth and
this gave us the incorrect roll angle.
Replacing the chassis solved the
problem with the stabilisers, but not
for long.
Two mechanical changes of
the starboard pump during the
trip meant that I finally had a
working starboard stabiliser, but
the final straw came when the
port mechanical seal failed and
there were none remaining in
the onboard stock. As this was
within the last month of the trip,
the decision was made to hold off
until the ship returned to the UK.
I flew back early in order to carry
out Christmas duties, meeting the
ship when it arrived in Plymouth.
I was met with a sigh of relief and
was told of how the ship had no
stabilisers crossing a very choppy
Bay of Biscay. So, the port pump
was replaced and I found the
starboard fin angle transmitter to be
defective. By the time the ship was
ready to head back to sea again,
she had two working stabilisers
and I had to fight very hard to keep
them both going until the point I
went on draft, halfway through the
later APT(S) deployment, leaving in
January 2012.
Aside from my stabilisation issues,
I don’t recall many other major
equipment problems, certainly not
as long lasting as those.
During the 2010 deployment, I lost
communications on the MCAS
system between the SCC and the
MGR. With IPT advice I managed to
diagnose a faulty Serial Data Link
card in the Comms rack.
I do remember not getting on
too well with the NBCDISS. The
Jump to
Contents
detector head at the top of the port
GTR fan space kept failing due
to getting dirty, but with no ladder
fitted to reach it, it often became a
big job to change out the head to
get it going again. Also, we noticed
that the heads situated in the visual
signalling compartments were set
off very often when either of the
forward two DGs were running and
the doors left open.
Tacho-generators on the front of the
port gearbox. Before we deployed
in 2010, we had a constant ‘Tacho
Feedback Error’ on the port
converter, leading to an EMACB
trip if we were in CODLAG drive
and tried to apply EM bias to that
shaft. I demanded a replacement
against the correct NSN but instead
of getting the 100V generator, I
received the 60V generator. This
provided the converter with half the
speed signal of that which should
have been generated. If you’ve
seen the Tacho generators S2022A,
the ones in the pictures are mine,
one of the incorrect one received
and one of the correct one that
should have been received. I think
the ‘correct’ one was the one taken
from the gearbox as defective.
Eventually we replaced the 100V
generator and had capability
restored.
Instructing
As I mentioned earlier, I left
Montrose in January 2012, taking
a month’s leave before heading to
Sultan to teach Spey gas turbines.
This was in interesting draft for
me as, although I had worked a
little on the Speys in Montrose,
I hadn’t looked after them full
time. Part of the job of being the
specific equipment instructor is
that you become that equipment’s
maintainer, if the equipment is a
live, running piece of kit, so most
things I know about the Spey gas
turbine come from having taught
and worked on it.
To start off with, my knowledge of
the Spey was left slightly lacking
and it was in this condition that I
taught my first class on ME285B.
One of the guys was a Spey GT
maintainer from the St Albans,
who had already done the old
ME402 course, the other was
the old M1C from St Albans, who
had done a spell of deputising
for the M1 onboard, so had a fair
understanding of the Spey and the
last was someone who I shared my
office with and had been teaching
GTs for the best part of a year.
Needless to say that the class
became less of a teaching and
more of a discussion, but what we
all learnt from each other went on to
better all of us.
As I found out, it was a blessing
in disguise as my next class was
to be a mix of Chilean officers
and senior ratings. Before I had
my second class, I was able to
restructure the PowerPoint to
resemble the ISPEC, before
turning my attention to some heavy
reading in order to ensure I passed
the correct information to all my
future classes. ME285B was the
Type 23 specific Spey course, but
the documentation given to the
students contained a lot of Type 22
information, which by this point all
had been decommissioned. I was
able to weed out about a third of
the Spey docket, ensuring that
the Type 23 maintainers had the
best and most recent and relevant
information available to them
during their time in the classroom.
One of the highlights of my time at
Sultan was being tasked to create a
Spey Fuel System Controller (FSC)
course, as it was reported that the
maintainers had limited knowledge
of fault finding on the FSC. In order
to do this, I visited Den Helder, in
Holland, to see how the Dutch FSC
course ran. With their computer
aided working mock up of the FSC,
Signal Processing System (SPS)
and Fuel System Enclosure (FSE)
including the motorised HPSOC,
it was clear that the Dutch had a
very effective course. Two days
of theory followed by two days of
practical fault finding, where they
were actually able to input faults by
computer or removing wiring from
the terminal strips to simulate loose
connections. Unfortunately, with the
only working FSC available to us on
the running Spey in the Spey Cell,
it was decided that it would not be
27
a good idea to begin inputting faults
by taking wires out, removing speed
probes etc. The eventual FSC
course became a mostly theory
based exercise, with the limited fault
diagnosis exercise reduced to the
instructors placing cards around
the engine and control systems.
Unfortunately I did not see the first
course run before I left to conduct
another round of controls PJTs.
One thing I was able to see was the
introduction of the MT30 in Pillar
Atrium in DSMarE. Having visited
Rolls Royce in Bristol to see the
MT30 in action and measure up the
one that was going to Sultan, it was
a privilege to see it arrive. Knowing
that the future of Royal Naval
propulsion and power generation
would be taught at Sultan,
eventually in Raper Building, was a
warming thought.
Back on the Front Line
So, on to where I am now.
Iron Duke. I joined Iron Duke on
26 August 2013 whilst she was at
sea, trying to complete SATs, part
way through the SARC process.
I was due to be the Controls
maintainer again, a position that
I hadn’t put in for but was happy
that I would have the knowledge
to do the job well. The ‘in house’
M1C was completing his Artificer
training and wasn’t due off until
the following March, so there were
four M1 Senior Rates onboard. Sad
to say, the M1 had to be landed
for a few months due to injury, so
the M1G moved across to the M1
position and I jumped to M1G. It
was a brilliant feeling to working on
a live, seagoing set of Speys and
I’d soon have my work cut out for
me.
The Starboard Spey had a
tendency to slam open its HP BOV
on reduction of engine speed,
something which was so violent it
could be heard from the SCC. Using
what I had learnt during my teaching
stint, I was able to conduct a set of
VIGV readings and determine that
the BOV was not operating at the
correct VIGV angle. I was given
permission, and guidance from Rolls
Royce and IPT, to adjust the control
valve in order to move the point at
which the BOV operated. It took
three adjustments but finally, the
BOV was operating at the correct
point and without the fierceness that
had been witnessed before.
I was also able to get to grips
with the main fuel system. The
PTET spread was not correct and
it appeared that fuel was able to
seep into the bottom combustion
chambers whilst the starboard Spey
was shut down. In all, my team
and I changed four main burners,
four LPAs, the burner fuel ring,
the pressurising valve and a drain
line running from the burner ring
to the aft of the engine. The fuel
issue appeared to be resolved and
the temperature spread lessened.
Unfortunately, I would be unable to
claim the completion of work on the
engine.
At the same time as being M1G,
the M2 onboard, who I had known
previously from Montrose, was due
to leave the ship and the RN. The
needs of the service dictated that I
would move to the M2 position, on
the basis of having completed the
Type 23 Controls and Distribution
adqual. Whilst I wasn’t over the
moon with the news, I knew there
was little I could do to change
it. I moved to the M2 position in
January 2014, just in time to get the
group ready for BOST.
M2 has provided me with different
challenges and continues to do so.
Whilst I had worked on the DGs
before, it had been nearly four years
previous so it took me a while to
get myself back into the correct
mindset. I was gifted by having a
good maintainer, who was having
to run both DG sections on his own,
and by the introduction of a DMEO,
who was previously a Type 23
M2 Group Head. Of course, I had
the safety of the D86-run MEPS
system, which I could fall back on
and assist if required, but without
the guidance of the group, I don’t
think I would have coped so well
with the OST package as I did. Of
course, the diesels leaked a lot of
oil and these had to be sorted out in
order for us to safely complete the
OST training package.
The way ahead
Around the time that I was given
the news of my imminent move to
M2, I was weighing my options for
furthering my career. It took the
news that the WO2 rank was to
be removed for me to actively take
charge of my future career and
decided that I wanted to attempt
changing my path and joining the
Officer Corps. In October 2013,
I requested to see the Captain
in order to raise my Commission
and Warrant papers, getting
support from my MEO and other
members of the Wardroom in the
process. I sat and passed AIB in
April 2014 and was presented to
the SU(Y) selected board that June.
Unfortunately, I was not selected,
but remain undeterred in my efforts
to gain a commission.
So this is where I am now. M2 of
HMS Iron Duke, AIB for SU(Y)
under my belt with hopes of
selection next June, sat at my
computer on my second APT(S)
deployment. I’ve seen a lot of
people submit their notice to leave
the service, some of my friends
that I joined up with have left. I’m
glad to say that, as of next March,
I will be streamed ‘EL’ and I look
forward to taking the Controls
and Distributions sections on
Iron Duke forward, hopefully to
a brighter future for the branch. I
also hope that the measures that
the branch managers are bringing
into effect have the desired result.
Programme Faraday looks to be
addressing the majority of issues
that I’ve been told about in the
branch and I think most of us look
forward to seeing how the New
Employment Model will take shape
and affect the way we do our
business.
Hopefully, at some point in the
future, I will be writing another
follow up article, looking back at the
events which have yet to unfold for
us. I enjoy working as an engineer
in the RN. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t
have made the attempt to gain a
Commission. I look forward to the
challenges to come, as a Senior
Rate on Iron Duke and whatever
may lie beyond that.
Jump to
Contents
28
Developing the QNLZ
WE Department to Deliver
Combat System Capability in
the Post-Faraday World
By CPO(ET) Elizabeth Kelly BEng(Hons) IEng MIET
Information Systems Group Head, HMS Queen Elizabeth
CPO Kelly joined the Royal Navy in 2001 as an Artificer
Apprentice. She spent time as an apprentice in HM Ships
Ark Royal and Illustrious before joining HMS Daring in 2008 in
build as the Section Head for SCOT and CSS and group working
on FICS. This draft covered the time from the SARC process to
the first operational deployment on Op Kipion in 2012. During this
time she was promoted to CPOET(WE) in 2010 and completed
a BEng through the Open University in 2012. Following a shore
draft maintaining CSS and NSWAN for the COMUKMARFOR
N6 team, she joined HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2013. This draft is
expected to last six years, as part of the commissioning team and
as ship’s company.
This article discusses the issues HMS Queen Elizabeth’s (QNLZ’s)
WE Department has, and the solutions it should innovate and implement,
in delivering mission systems capability in a post-Project Faraday fleet.
The context is the evolution of IS architecture in RN combat systems,
giving the reader an insight into how QNLZ works, and where it sits in
the transition between legacy standalone systems and future shared
architecture/common network environments.
INTRODUCTION
Communications and Information
Systems (CIS) branches. The preRN technicians of QNLZ’s WE
Faraday ET(WE)/CIS demarcation
Department are now working
breaks down when presented
alongside industry testing and
with networked mission systems;
commissioning (T&C) teams in the
the combat systems, utilising
early part of the installation and
commercial IP based networking
acceptance of the QNLZ mission
topologies and hardware, are
systems. The Queen Elizabeth
equally in the domain of the network
(QE) Class will deliver a new
administrator and the system
generation of capability in carrier
engineer. As a ship in build, QNLZ
strike, with advances in information
is in a position to shape her posttechnology being key to that step
Faraday WE department in such
forward. As the WE Department
a way as to make best use of the
gain understanding of this new
opportunities offered by Project
platform and her capabilities,
Faraday to deliver operational
operating procedures will need to
capability as efficiently and
be developed to ensure these new
effectively as possible.
equipments are used effectively;
likewise, the WE Department will
The pre-Faraday branch structure
need to configure itself in a way that
made it difficult for WE technicians
aligns to and effectively delivers
to acquire deep specialist
these formidable capabilities.
knowledge in any particular area
during their careers. QNLZ’s
Concurrently, fleet-wide, the
combat system takes a generational
WE Branch is undergoing
step forward in integration and
fundamental change under the
commonality of information
banner of Project Faraday, and
systems, and will demand a greater
a significant part of this will be
depth of specialist IS skills from its
the integration of the WE and
maintainers and administrators.
Jump to
Contents
Training in the legacy branch
structure compounded the
problems created by a lack of
specialist knowledge. Gaps in
IS knowledge in the Fleet are
common, with PJTs of varying
effectiveness teaching system
knowledge, but not the IS theory
or skillset that would allow WE
maintainers or CIS administrators
to diagnose and repair defects
independently, without contractor
support – not just in pure IS
systems, but in communications
and sensors systems utilising IPbased networks, such as FICS in
Type 45.
QNLZ will commence sea trials in
2017; by this time, newly promoted
Leading Hand and PO ETs and
CIS ratings will have completed
the common career course and
be returning to sea as LET(CIS)/
POET(CIS). The ship’s company
that takes the ship outside UK
waters for the first time will
be a mixture of legacy, crosstrained and newly recruited postFaraday trained ET(CIS) ratings,
with potentially a wide mix of
backgrounds.
ARCHITECTURE
The core of QNLZ’s mission
systems is the Internal Network
Electronics (INE) system (Figure 1),
the ship’s information infrastructure.
This is a unified network
environment shared throughout
the combat system as a whole,
providing multiple fibre backbones
to carry voice, video, and data
traffic for most of the ship’s
systems. The fibre backbones are
collectively known as the Blown
Fibre Optic Cable Plant (BFOCP).
29
Figure 1: The INE networks
The system has four core networks:
Secret Real Time (S-RT): Data
Transfer System A and B, Integrated
Navigation Bridge System (INBS),
air traffic control, the command
system, CCTV video, radar data
•
Secret Non Real Time (S-NRT):
DII(S), CCTV servers, and
non-DII hosted applications in
support of embarked staff.
•
Secret Integrated Platform
Management System (S-IPMS):
A and B platform management
networks.
•
Restricted Non Real Time
(R-NRT): DII(R), TV over IP,
and Voice over IP (telephony).
In addition, there are two networks
for the Network Management
Systems.
The hardware within each of
these core networks is shared, but
separated using Virtual Local Area
Networks (VLANs). VLANs allow a
single physical network to behave
as if it were multiple separate
networks. Command system data,
for example, has a dedicated VLAN,
allowing it to share the physical
network infrastructure but remain
isolated from other traffic. Routing
is provided between VLANs for
system-to-system connectivity.
At each discrete protective marking,
the networks share information
through internal gateways, using
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliances
(ASAs). These act as a firewall,
filtering only permitted types of
traffic, and monitor the gateway for
intrusion attempts.
The networks communicate with
the outside world through gateways
to the RLI for restricted data, to
the defence telephone network for
restricted voice, to the SLI for secret
data (see Figure 2 overleaf), and
to external communications. The
bearer for the former three will be
SCOT 5, with class-specific 2.2m
antennas to enable a connection
up to 8 Mbit/s. The gateways use
Cisco firewalls for security and Blue
Coat Packet Shapers; the function
of the latter devices is to prioritise
data, controlling the volume of traffic
to keep critical data flowing when
bandwidth is limited.
The four INE networks are
distributed in a mesh arrangement
between core nodes, located
across the 10 Node Rooms (see
Figure 3 overleaf). The non realtime networks have 10 core nodes
each with one per Node Room; the
IPMS network has five core nodes,
one per damage control zone; and
the secret real-time network has
two core nodes located in Zones 2
and 4. This configuration provides
full redundancy in the event of a loss
of a DC Zone. The links between
zones are routed separately to
improve system survivability.
The INE uses Cisco hardware
and follows a simplified version
of standard network architecture.
There is a combined Core/
Distribution layer using 10 Gigabit
Ethernet (with the exception of
Jump to
Contents
30
Figure 2: S-NRT gateway to external bearers
IPMS, which uses 1 Gigabit),
handling routing, filtering, and
security. It will link via Gigabit
Ethernet to the Access Layer,
where end user hosts, such as
workstations, telephones, and
cameras connect to INE. The
access layer also provides Power
over Ethernet to the latter two types
of devices.
The redundancy principles seen
in the core layer mesh networks
are carried over to the access
layer. Critical equipments will be
connected to INE with two separate
connections (Dual Homed). There
are either two connections from
the device to discrete access layer
switches (A-B Dual Homed), or
where the device does not support
Figure 3:The INE nodes
Jump to
Contents
31
this, dual connections from the
access layer switch to the core
switch (Transparently Dual Homed).
Industry standard protocols are
used to prioritise the links and to
reconfigure in the event of the link in
use going down.
INE has been developed with spare
capacity for future expansion. At
Vessel Acceptance Date (VAD):
•
All access layer switches will
have a minimum of 25% of the
ports unpopulated.
•
All 6509 core switches will have
a minimum of one blade slot
unpopulated.
•
The capacity of the network has
been sized to accommodate a
minimum of 125% of the user
traffic at VAD.
INE is the prime case of integrated
network architecture in QEC,
but other systems onboard also
use LAN based architecture; for
example, the Tactical Command
and Control Voice (TC2V) System
provides tactical voice up to Secret,
linking to main broadcast, the
Wireless Communications System,
and external communications.
TC2V is a discrete network from
INE, using ‘dark fibre’ capacity
(dark fibre is fibre within the
backbone that is not connected
to INE switches) to form a Gigabit
Ethernet dual-ring network, using
switches from Alcatel. The TC2V
network is controlled and configured
by two Linux server clusters,
which run the Communications
Configuration Management System
(CCMS) software. The two server
groups are fully redundant, with
automatic handover in event of
failure. CCMS will be used by
operators to configure circuits and
set up COMPLANs, by maintainers
to diagnose faults with TC2V and
by system administrators; a good
example of the “grey area” between
legacy CIS and WE responsibility.
Environment (SCE). SCE will
be the computing infrastructure
for Type 26, demonstrating
the maturation of generational
steps from INE – a common
infrastructure, running multiple
systems in virtualised environments
on shared commercial hardware.
The traditional boundaries of
systems will be blurred, as data
processing and storage for many
different mission applications
converge in the SCE.
INE provides significant
improvement over the previous
generation of combat system
architecture within Type 45. The
commonality of hardware shared
between multiple systems reduces
cost and simplifies support.
Importantly, it provides the means
for more centralised network
management. The fibre network
minimises TEMPEST issues and
contains sufficient capacity for
future expansion and additional
systems. The commercial-based
nature of the system again helps
reduce cost, provides a pathway
to midlife upgrades to support
future systems, and offers a known
training requirement where the
fundamentals can be met within
ET(CIS) career training.
SERVICE MANAGEMENT
QEC’s combat system architecture,
in taking an evolutionary step
forward from Type 45’s Data
Transfer System, portends the
future development of IS network
infrastructure in Royal Navy
platforms – the Shared Computing
Considering the network
infrastructure to be the core of the
ship’s Mission Systems, the task of
the CIS Groups can be expressed
as the delivery of information to
the warfighting point of use. This
aligns with the concept of IT service
management: the approach of
managing IT as the process of
delivering services to achieve an
aim.
The IS mission systems, then,
deliver the services of collating
information from ship’s sensors
and external assets, to present that
data to the Command for decision
making; and then efficiently passing
that data out to combat systems
to deliver combat effect. The
emphasis is on the final deliverable
(information at the warfighting point
of use – decisive action as a result
of well informed decision making),
not on the underlying hardware or
software. Service management is a
through-life model, but the aspect
Figure 4: Examples of Cisco COTS hardware used in INE
Cisco Catalyst 3750 switch
Access layer switch found around the ship
Cisco Catalyst 6509-V-E fibre switch
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance
Core/distribution layer switch found within node rooms
(Editor’s Note – to show the scale, each of
these devices fits into a standard 19” rack)
Jump to
Contents
32
most relevant to designing the
future QE Class WE Department is
service operation, in which the live
services are delivered to the end
user.
The needs of event and incident
management, in which system
events and service interruptions
are detected and managed, would,
in the current WE Department, be
met by the WE rounds and the
defect reporting organisations. The
scale of QEC means that direct
adoption of current WE routines
would be inadequate to maintain
quality of service. Given the size
and the lean manning levels of
the platform and the footprint of
the INE, a roundsman would be
highly unlikely to find and identify
an issue before it became a
service interruption; this would be
particularly true where the issue is
not hardware-based.
We clearly need to adapt and
modernise our approach using the
tools the systems offer us. The
complex, networked resilience of
the systems means that we can
manage events more effectively
and provide proactive rather than
reactive management.
As a cornerstone of implementing
service management capabilities,
QNLZ WE Department is
assessing the feasibility of
providing service operation
management by means of an IS
services hub. Collocated with the
MCO and iHub in the IS Support
Office (ISSO), this would form a
central node for the WE Rounds
organisation and for the control
and monitoring of the ship’s
network infrastructure. Manned
by on-watch WE personnel, they
would have access to the Network
Management System for INE to
see system events across the
network, and to provide remote
configuration capability of INE
assets. The Network Management
System (NMS) is currently being
set to work by ship’s staff, who are
assessing its practicality for use
in this role, as, in its current form,
the data being provided must be
interrogated by an experienced
INE administrator to be useful.
Jump to
Contents
They would have access to a wide
spread of Mission Systems data as
well as NMS: IPMS, for wholeship
remote monitoring; CCMS, via
the MCO, for monitoring and
configuration of TC2V and external
comms; remote control and
monitoring of SCOT 5.
It is envisaged that the IS services
desk could have a role to play in all
NBCD States; in State 3, it would
be the hub for the WE rounds and
defect reporting organisations,
with the DSE remaining in the Ops
Room providing the liaison with
the PWO. At States 2 and 1, it has
value in being a central information
node, able to assess events and
manage incidents, and would be
a suitable base for a Networkspecialist Weapon Repair Team.
There would be work to do to
investigate any potential detriment
to the State 1 role of the MCO
caused by one space being used for
multiple roles, and how this could
be managed.
clearly perceive the future delivery
of IS capability by the ET(CIS).
The first area to manage will be
cross training of legacy WE and CIS
ratings and a lack of experience
in performing cross trained roles.
Without careful management
this could lead to frustration and
dissatisfaction, which could cause
retention issues. It is important
that we identify suitable roles
and particularly suited personnel
for cross-pollination where
opportunities arise, to mitigate these
factors. Resultant retention issues
will drain the pool of experience
and knowledge that we would wish
to feed into the new ET(CIS) rank
structure and, in particular, there is
a threat that we may permanently
lose communicator deep specialist
knowledge.
In time, and necessarily with future
deeper systems integration, it is
envisaged that the ISSO could
potentially stand up as effectively
the WE equivalent of the SCC,
being the central node from which
the WE Department delivers
operational capability; and in the
case of communications operational
capability, due to the collocation
with the MCO and subject matter
expert end users. However, this
concept cannot currently be fully
realised; pan-Missions Systems
remote control and monitoring
integration is not generally
implemented into end systems,
IPMS or INE.
An issue which is critical to the
transitional period for the QE class
specifically is the need to ‘up skill’
Senior Rates to fulfil their roles.
Legacy structures mean that
there is a significant shortfall in
the IS knowledge of existing WE
maintainers; whilst in future these
jobs will be filled with ET(CIS) with
in-depth IS skillsets, during the
transitional period this shortfall must
be resolved. QNLZ and CISTU
in HMS Collingwood are in the
process of working on a package
of transitional training, which will
inform the needs for future steady
state training. This has to date used
spare capacity in LCIS and POCIS
courses (for training aligning with
Cisco qualifications), and for more
advanced training, tri-Service SME
training spare capacity is being
examined as a way forward.
TRANSITIONAL PROCESS
SHAPING THE DEPARTMENT
While the IS service management
concept looks forward to the future
of the platform, QNLZ will spend
the first years of her life, spanning
sea trials and her first deployment,
in a transitional phase employing
both pre- and post-Faraday trained
ET(CIS) ratings (consisting of both
ET(CIS) from joining and cross
trained personnel). We need to
understand how we manage the
transitional process, in order to
Having understood those issues
that are transitional and that will
be resolved by natural branch
development, to make decisions
on how to shape the nascent
QEC WE Department to be most
efficient and effective, we must
evaluate how the post-Faraday WE
branch will perform at delivering
the ship’s capabilities both at
Ready for Sea Date, and in the
ship’s future life.
33
The amalgamated CIS Group
within the QEC WE Department
is a substantial spread. The
physically large size of aircraft
carrier networks, the heavy
manpower requirements of DII,
the great number of IS systems
required by the ship’s company,
squadrons, and embarked staffs,
and the requirement to deliver
task group communications,
means that the Flag Systems
section of the WE Department
(the amalgamated Bearers, CIS,
and Infosys groups) is larger than
the Weapons and Sensors groups
combined.
This unbalanced departmental
structure creates a large
management and divisional
workload. In addition, the
knowledge requirement across
the WE(CIS) spectrum is vast,
with ET(CIS) fulfilling roles of
external and internal comms
maintainers, MCO staff, network
administrators, command system
maintainers, and specialist system
administrators (DII, C4ISTAR,
other mission applications). The
requirement for such a broad
range of skill sets to fulfil these
roles runs counter to the aspiration
to develop specialism within our
ETs.
As a potential way forward,
QNLZ has proposed a redesign
of the Flag Systems half of the
departmental family tree, merging
elements of the CIS and Infosys
Groups into IS and Networks
Groups. Networks would deliver
the INE networks, INE’s subsystems, and the Command
System; IS Group would deliver
DII and other specialist mission
systems. The Bearers Group
would remain almost unchanged.
This has the advantage of
providing some capacity in the
departmental structure for uplifts,
such as future requirements for
flag platform coalition systems,
intelligence systems or other MTE.
While all three groups would be
populated by ET(CIS) ratings, this
subdivision would provide focus
and produce deeper expertise in
delivering the systems required
to operate the platform whilst
managing the communications
requirements of the carrier task
group.
IS systems and networks are
demanding greater degrees of
specialist knowledge with each
generation of equipment. With
common network architecture on
the horizon, the future RN may
require networks deep specialists
to manage the distribution
and potentially processing of
what we currently consider to
be discrete systems, and our
manning structure should reflect
that possibility. In assessing the
training requirement now, QNLZ
is in an excellent place to inform
the development of RN IS and
network training. Having our T&C
teams working with industry gives
us a useful insight into industry
expectations of skill levels and
competencies. Delivering training
against these expectations will
ensure that our maintainers are
capable of working with industry
as equal partners rather than as
clients, and will ensure that our
technicians are as capable as the
contractors who previously would
have been the SME for a defect –
a keystone of Project Faraday.
SUMMARY
QEC is the most interconnected
platform to date in the Royal Navy.
Sensor data and command system
data, compiling the picture; air traffic
control data; IMPS data, monitoring
and controlling a multitude of ME
systems, DII, CCTV, telephony;
all borne on a resilient, high
bandwidth network architecture
using Cisco hardware. System
concepts realised in Type 45 – the
adoption of common commercial IS,
resilient fibre backboned Ethernet
networks – can be seen to mature
in the QEC mission system
architecture, which in turn heralds
the convergence of networks and
systems in future under SCE.
This step change in technology will
require a step change in the way
we train and deploy our people.
The QNLZ WE Department is in a
privileged position, having the ability
to develop her WE and IS best
practice and standard operating
procedures to align with the aims
set within Project Faraday. As the
ET(CIS) stream matures and finds
its identity, the training and outlook
of the stream will be shaped by
the information requirements of
the Fleet. The QE Class has a
significant part to play to inform that
requirement, both looking to the life
of the ship for the next half century
and as a bridge to the information
requirements in Type 26 and the
future.
Glossary of Terms
ASA
Adaptive Security
Appliances
BFOCP Blown Fibre Optic Cable
Plant
CIS
Communications and
Information Systems
CCMSCommunications
Configuration
Management System
FICS
Fully Integrated
Communications
System
INBS
Integrated Navigation
Bridge System
INE
Internal Network
Electronics
ISSO
IS Support Office
LAN
Local Area Network
MTE
Military Task Equipment
NMS
Network Management
System
QE
Queen Elizabeth
R-NRT Restricted Non Real Time
SCE
Shared Computing
Environment
S-IPMS Secret Integrated Platform
Management System
S-NRT
Secret Non Real Time
S-RT
T&C
Secret Real Time
Testing and
Commissioning
TC2V
Tactical Command
and Control Voice
TEMPESTTiny
ElectroMagnetic
Particles Emitting
Secret Things
VAD
Vessel Acceptance
Date
VLAN
Virtual Local Area
Network
Jump to
Contents
34
Delivering the Future Mine
Countermeasures and
Hydrographic Capability (MHC)
By Alex du Pré BEng CEng MRINA MAPM RCNC
MHC Team Leader
and Lieutenant Commander Daniel Ridgwell BEng IEng RN
MHC Requirements Manager
Alex du Pré is a naval architect who joined the MOD graduate
engineer training scheme in 1996. He has worked in both
engineering and project management positions on a variety of
maritime procurement and in-service programmes including
Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary), Royal Fleet Auxiliary Support,
Type 45 and Type 26. He joined the Minewarfare and Hydrographic
Capability (MHC) programme in 2010 as Chief Engineer and has
more recently assumed the role of Team Leader. His time with the
MHC programme has focussed on development and analysis of
maritime autonomous system concepts, collaboration with France
on an advanced unmanned system demonstrator programme and
successful delivery of the MHC concept phase.
Daniel joined the RN in 2003 after reading Aerospace Engineering
at Kingston University. After professional training he was AMEO in
HMS Manchester and DMEO in HMS Richmond. Completing an
Op Tour in Iraq during Operation Charge of the Knights, he acted
as the Oil and Electricity Desk Officer for MND(SE). Later he was
appointed to MCTA as New Platform Assessor where he provided
capability assessment and build assurance to the Type 45 and
QEC programmes as well as leading on foreign projects for the
Omani Navy and Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard. His last sea
appointment was as ASEO in HMS Ocean during Op Ellamy and
Op Olympic and under went a major refit. Since 2013 he has been
working as the MHC Requirements Manager where he has delivered
the requirements set through initial gate and now continues to
develop unmanned system demonstrators in assessment phase.
Background
At the dawn of Britain sanctioning
the use of driverless cars on
our public highways, this article
explores autonomous technology
and how this rapidly expanding
area is envisaged to provide future
mine countermeasures (MCM) and
hydrography (H) capability to the
Royal Navy. This will transform
the manner in which MCM and H
Jump to
Contents
activities are delivered and the
coming pages will provide an
insight into the MHC programme
and will explain how the delivery
team aims to exploit maritime
autonomous systems to deliver
a rationalised capability to the
Royal Navy.
Today’s MCM and H capability is
largely delivered through the Hunt
and Sandown Class MCMVs and
the survey ships HMS Echo and
HMS Enterprise. The Hunt Class
ships were designed to combine
the role of minesweeper and
minehunter, whilst the Sandown
Class have a specialised mine
hunting capability. These MCMVs
are designed with a very low
magnetic and acoustic signature
to enable them to operate in
the vicinity of sea mines. These
constraints make them, tonne for
tonne, among the most expensive
ships in the RN fleet. Although they
have been highly successful in
their role, wider utility is limited by
their specialised design and small
size, whilst their increasing age
makes them less effective against
an evolving threat.
The primary minehunting sensors
are the Hunts’ 2193 hull mounted
sonar and the Sandowns’ 2093
variable-depth sonar. The survey
ships deploy a range of towed and
hull-mounted sensors. Whilst being
effective systems, the volume of
search is limited by the number of
hulls available.
Title Photo: Current Hunt and
Sandown Class
Image by LA(Phot) Caz Davies
© Crown Copyright/MOD 2013
35
Programme Introduction
The MHC programme is founded
on the premise that unmanned
autonomous systems deployed from
comparatively simple steel ships,
or even from ashore, could deliver
both MCM and H capability. This
recognises that, apart from some
specialist functions, MCM and H are
both delivering maritime geospatial
intelligence (GEOINT) with broadly
similar systems and that this
commonality could be exploited and
rationalised in a future capability. A
single class of mother ship (Mine
countermeasures and Hydrographic
Vessel – MHV), carrying modular
unmanned mission packages, could
therefore deliver both capabilities.
Operating outside the minefield,
the ship will not need the signature
control measures of the current
MCMVs, so could be much cheaper,
and, being bigger, will have a
greater expeditionary capability.
Off-board systems (OBS) break
the inextricable link between the
sensor and the platform, offering an
opportunity to dramatically increase
the search area by deploying a
greater number of sensors.
Developments in autonomous
systems technology in both the
defence and commercial sectors
mean that the time is now right to
exploit these systems within the
RN. Robotics and autonomous
systems are one of the ‘eight great
technologies’ in which the UK
government is driving the UK to
become a global leader, and there
are a number of initiatives seeking
to build on this1. Furthermore, the
UK is collaborating with a number
of foreign navies in this area, most
notably France and the USA.
MHC Aims
The MHC programme has now
completed a thorough concept
phase, which demonstrated the
potential utility of autonomous
systems for the MCM and H roles.
The concept phase concluded
that the solution space could be
narrowed to an RN ship-based
capability, either based on lowsignature MCMVs and specialist
survey ships, or a solution based
on a common class of steel ships
deploying off board systems for
both the MCM and H roles. Due to
the level of technical risk inherent
in the as-yet unproven OBS and a
lack of clarity, at this stage, of the
effectiveness of such systems, it is
not yet possible to discount a future
capability based on a modernised
version of the existing ships. The
assessment phase will now focus
on refining the analysis of potential
solutions, with a particular focus
on demonstrating and de-risking
off board systems. At the end of
assessment phase, it should be
possible to specify a single solution
with good confidence that the
1. Eg Marine Industries Alliance Maritime
Autonomous Systems and Defence Growth
Partnership.
Multi-role USV
Mission Modules
Influence sweep
Means of transport and
deployment
Towed sonar
Portable C2
Container
Recce UUVs
UAV
Mine disposal ROV
MIE ROV – manned
MODULAR
PORTABLE
CONFIGURABLE
Figure 1: MHC Baseline concept
Military Data Gathering
performance is understood and the
risks are manageable.
Unmanned Surface/
Underwater Vehicles (UXVs)
Why has the programme proposed
the use of autonomous unmanned
surface/underwater vehicles
(UXVs), why are they suitable and
what are the expected benefits
of using such systems? During
concept phase a key output was
the identification and assessment
of programme options – in this case
six were identified. In carrying out
further option assessment, evidence
gathered2 fully supported use of
OBS, deployed from low-value steel
ships and in portable form. As the
programme matures, the delivery
team will look to leverage the
considerable developments in OBS
technology to increase operational
effectiveness, reduce risk (“remove
the man from the minefield”) and
ensure a more cost-effective,
flexible capability is delivered in the
future.
Marine OBS are widely used in the
commercial sector, but are not yet
fully proven for Naval operations.
Assessment phase will de-risk
Naval OBS and determine their
cost-effectiveness through the
use of technology demonstrators
(more on this later), a controlled
trials programme and thorough
technical and programme analysis.
So, what are the perceived uses for
OBS when utilised for MHC (See
Figure 1)?
• Unmanned Underwater
Vehicles (UUVs). These
autonomous vehicles are
deployable from the MHV, USV,
or from land; where they would
primarily conduct MCM and H
surveys to gather data.
• Reconfigurable Unmanned
Surface Vehicles (USVs).
These will be used in several
guises; firstly to act as a “taxi”
2. Derived from the experience of the
Maritime Autonomous Systems Trials Team
(MASTT) and the previous FAST (Future
Agile Sweep Technology) programme and
SOSA (System of Systems Approach)
Technology and Capability Concept
Demonstrators.
Jump to
Contents
36
for UUVs alleviating any
potential endurance issues
inherent with operating small
vehicles; secondly to conduct
mine disposal or mine recovery
tasks; thirdly to conduct MCM or
H survey evolutions; and finally
to conduct influence sweep
operations when fitted with a
towed sweep system.
• Underwater Glider. This
is a specialist vehicle used
for long endurance specific
oceanographic surveys and will
be deployed from the MHV.
• Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV). Typical small airborne
vehicle that will act as a
communications relay providing
situational awareness when
operating over the horizon.
• Mine Disposal System (MDS).
This will perform a similar role
to the current SeaFox system to
dispose of or neutralise mines.
• Remote Operated Vehicle
(ROV). This will conduct mine
recovery or deploy delayed
disposal charges.
As can be seen, the uses of OBS
are considerable. By delivering a
hybrid solution of conventional and
autonomous systems, a number of
significant benefits are expected
to be realised. Firstly there will be
vastly improved safety of operation
by negating the need for personnel
to enter a minefield – refer back
to the earlier “removing the man
from the minefield” statement.
Secondly, operational flexibility
will be greatly increased – using
portable systems allows a faster
and less constrained capability
deployment option. Thirdly, there
will be procurement flexibility as the
mission systems (C2 and mission
specific modules) will be procured
individually. And fourthly, as the
capability will be scaleable it can
respond quickly and effectively to
any policy changes; additionally this
will allow it to maintain stride with
an ever evolving and increasingly
sophisticated threat.
In order to fully realise these
benefits, significant challenges
will be faced when delivering a
wholly integrated, operationally
capable system. To attempt to
overcome these challenges and
de-risk the future programme a key
element of assessment phase will
be to run a series of demonstrator
programmes. These demonstrator
programmes are:
FR/UK MMCM Demonstrator
The UK is collaborating with
France on this demonstrator as the
nations have similar requirements.
The programme will develop an
advanced Maritime MCM (MMCM)
demonstrator seeking to develop
and de-risk the system of systems
approach as a basis for future
operations from a steel hulled
ship. This demonstrator will be the
primary means of demonstrating
an integrated technology solution
able to deliver remote, unmanned
MCM. It will deliver an end-to-end
MCM system with all components
and sub-systems fully integrated,
including; mission planning, detect,
classify, identify, disposal and postmission analysis with operation to
the horizon initially and following
future upgrades it will allow
operation over the horizon. Although
this demonstrator is focused on
MCM, as many of the technologies
are common to H the demonstrator
is highly relevant to de-risking H
aspects of the overall programme
as well.
An indicative MMCM demonstrator
architecture can been seen below.
Sweep Demonstrator
The unmanned sweep demonstrator
will enable MHC to test and
evaluate an unmanned system for
suitability in a minesweeping role
operated from both a Hunt Class
vessel and portably. The primary
purpose is to demonstrate a
complete sweep solution that meets
Figure 2: Indicative MMCM Demonstrator Architecture
Comms and
Launch & Recovery
UK Sweep Module
Integrated separately
pending successful tech
demo
Unmanned Surface Vehicle
C2 FR/UK
MMCM
Comms
Towed Sonar Module
Comms
VSW UUV
MDS UUV
UUV for S/D water
Jump to
Contents
ROV
37
Unmanned Surface Vehicle
Towed Combined Influence Sweep
Hunt
upgrade
Comms
C2 Software
Launch & Recovery
Figure 3: Indicative schematic of sweep demonstrator
the MHC requirement and is able to
The equipment and expertise
Maritime Autonomous
be integrated onto the Hunt Class.
within MASTT will ensure that a
Systems Trials Team
comprehensive trials programme is
(MASTT) Trials Programme
Both the sweep and UUV elements
delivered and will allow an impartial
will be integrated with the ship’s
and expert assessment of the
MASTT act as the prime trials
combat management system and
performance of various systems.
agents to the delivery team,
therefore needs to be cognisant
To ensure coherence between
providing SQEP to operate,
of the future upgrades to NAUTIS;
the engineering and programme
evaluate and maintain equipment
close liaison with Maritime Combat
management functions within the
throughout the evaluation process.
System (MCS) team is an enduring
project team, and with externallyThe team constitutes uniformed RN
and well matured task undertaken
managed DLoD work-streams, an
personnel who are solely tasked
by the delivery team. In bringing
engineering question set has been
by the MHC team, via a dedicated
these together into a single contract
produced. This question set will
trials manager, and provide a key
a coherent solution is ensured.
facility in demonstrating the ability
shape the assessment phase work
of UXV technology to deliver MCM
and will ultimately be answered
Integrated MCM and H
and H capabilities; as such they
during this phase.
development
are a considerable asset in derisking the future of this technology.
The methodology for using the
As previously discussed,
MASTT will also play a key role in
question set is that it addresses a
assessment phase analysis will
evaluation and acceptance of the
desired end goal without focusing
seek to develop and justify a single
other demonstrators.
on the means of achieving that
baseline architecture for MHC.
goal. It presents questions as
Technical analysis, operational
The team is well equipped with
a top-down analysis and does
analysis, physical trials and
relevant trials equipment which
not assume any proposed
demonstrations will provide the
is either already owned or ondemonstrator programmes
evidence to give confidence in the
contract and their inventory is ever
exist nor does it attempt to map
architecture chosen.
expanding. The equipment includes: questions to demonstrators. In
essence the question set ensures
To ensure an effective, coherent
• Twelve VSW UUVs including
the engineering product-based
programme, it is necessary for
MCM and H variants with upwork breakdown structure can
the baseline architecture to be
to-date sensing and navigation
be validated and all engineering
developed as early as possible.
equipment.
activities, particularly trials and
This will support the definition
technology demonstrators, will be
and procurement of initial mission
• Four recce UUVs fitted as
focused on the ‘exam question’.
above.
packages for sweep, very shallow
water, recce and H, all of which will
Delivering the Assessment
• HAZARD trials boat equipped
be compatible with the baseline
Phase – An Engineering
for launch and recovery of recce Perspective
architecture. These systems will be
UUVs, with the potential to be
procured during the assessment
upgraded to USV specification
phase and be rolled out to the
With all this in mind, how exactly
in the future.
RN as quasi-operational systems.
will this capability be delivered over
The purpose of this is to provide
the coming years? As with all MOD
• ROV.
equipment acquisition programmes,
a level of additional capability
adherence to the Acquisition
whilst gradually building the RN’s
• Miscellaneous equipment
Operating Framework (AOF)3 is
experience in unmanned systems.
including mission planning,
a requirement that ensures the
It will also drive in commonality
transport vehicles, boats, etc.
across the mission packages.
3. AOF – Version 3.2.14 – July 2014.
Jump to
Contents
38
programme is conducted, controlled
and governed appropriately and
ultimately ensures value for money
to the taxpayer. In bounding a
programme within these guidelines
an acquisition lifecycle process is
followed which provides a clear path
from identification of a capability
gap to delivery of a final product.
For equipment delivery the lifecycle
process is the CADMID cycle. This
cycle covers six phases; Concept,
Assessment, Demonstration,
Manufacture, In-Service, Disposal.
For the MHC delivery team to
ensure coherence is maintained
throughout the lifecycle process a
systems engineering approach was
adopted in the early days of concept
phase. The adoption of a systems
engineering approach ensured
a baseline system architecture
was determined that completely
satisfies the user requirement.
This approach also provides a
framework for the development and
analysis of programme options and
for design solutions to be defined.
Furthermore, it provides a central
store of reference products, using
MOD Architectural Framework
(MODAF), to ensure consistency
across all of the engineering
functions.
In following the systems engineering
approach, the key engineering
objectives in assessment phase are
to define the solution space and to
assess solution options which build
upon the concepts taken forward
from concept phase. As this process
matures a preferred solution will
be down-selected. This solution is
then developed and defined in detail
and prepared for procurement after
Main Gate. In order to effectively
achieve this the critical assessment
phase deliverables will be;
scientific analysis and engineering
studies, and physical trials and
technology demonstrators. How
these objectives and deliverables
are integrated and feed in to one
another is shown in Figure 4.
Delivery of these will reduce
technology risk, specifically for
OBS, whilst framing an optimise
system architecture, and it will
allow the most cost-effective and
deliverable solution to be identified.
Jump to
Contents
Through this process each option
is defined and assessed using the
MODAF. Use of MODAF ensures
coherence and consistency across
all of the engineering functions – a
reoccurring theme you’ll notice. It
delivers this by providing a coherent
set of rules and templates, known
as ‘views’, that, when populated,
provide a graphical and textual
visualisation of the business area
being investigated. Each view
offers a different perspective on
the business to support different
stakeholder interests.
With a mission specific capability,
both discrete and common
components are required. Common
components could well include a
C2 ‘backbone’, launch and recovery
systems and so on. Whilst the
mission specific packages, the
‘building blocks’, will need to integrate
with the common, ‘backbone’,
components. A likely solution will see
the building blocks kept in a storage
facility and assembled to generate
mission-specific mission packages;
with a single backbone able to
operate any or all mission modules.
Backbones and Building
Blocks
As can be seen, getting the baseline
system architecture right from the
outset is key, as is the requirement
for open systems architecture. Open
systems must be achieved to enable
the modular approach which will
allow future cost-effective upgrade
options – something not necessarily
available in previous procurement
programmes. It also ensures the
smooth integration between building
blocks and the backbone without
detriment to the operational capability
whilst also minimising the number
of backbones required. Finally, it
will allow significant leverage over
suppliers in that there will not be
bespoke systems that only niche
providers have contractual or
intellectual rights to. This again is
an area of significant consternation
to many in engineering support
who have their hands tied by
contractors – it is therefore a key
benefit that must be realised to
reduce through-life costs of the
programme.
We keep talking about a baseline
system architecture, so what do
we mean by this? This aspect of
the systems engineering approach
is critical for the success of the
programme as the early definition of
the baseline around which the OBS
would be developed was key in
ensuring all development work was
focussed on a single solution. Early
identification ensured that minimal
nugatory work was undertaken
on solutions that would not be
taken forward thereby saving time
and money in the process. Most
importantly this allowed coherent
delivery methods to be defined
for the mission system backbone
and will allow a building block type
capability to be delivered which
necessitates an open systems
architecture which is a key facet
of the successful delivery of this
capability.
Technical Studies
Demonstrators and trials
Information flow
Define
Programme
Options
Operational
Analysis
Select
optimum
system
architecture
Refine
system
architecture
Engineering
development
Time
Figure 4: Delivering the Assessment Phase
39
Means of transport and deployment (land, sea or air)
Mission package configured to suit mission
Mission module
Storage facility
Mission module
Common components (“backbone”)
Conclusion
Mission module
C2
module
Mission module
Figure 5: Indicative Building Block Approach
Legal and regulatory
hurdles
The past decade has seen a
massive proliferation in the use
of unmanned vehicles in the
maritime domain. There has
been a consequential growth of
research in to the legitimacy and
legal ramifications of utilising
these technologies, predominantly
in the commercial arena but
increasingly in the military
domain too. In order to fully utilise
unmanned autonomous vehicles
to achieve the aims of MHC, clear
legal groundings will need to be
established, so that appropriate
CONOPS and CONEMP documents
can be detailed which will bound
much of the programme.
The legal area pertaining to the
operation of this type of vehicle is
complex at best. It will be covered
by many international laws and
regulations, such as health and
safety from both civil and military
authorities, laws of armed conflict,
rules of engagement, national
laws when operating outside of the
home nation – this list goes on.
Furthermore there are the questions
of ethics and indeed to whom is
blame apportioned if things go
wrong. It is a definite legal mine
field – pun intended – and an area
that the delivery team will not be
MCM SPECIALISM
Sweep
MIE
Mine Disposal
REA
MDG
pursuing as a deliverable but will
look to other authorities to bound
these areas.
Interaction with Defence
Lines of Development
(DLoDs)
Such is the step change in the
delivery of the capability proposed
by the MHC programme that
there will be a large impact
across all DLoDs. As the MCM
and H capabilities are likely to be
delivered via common systems,
there is a consequential outcome
that the MCM and H branches
can be merged so as to leverage
the skills and expertise from both
source branches whilst reducing
training overheads and personnel
costs. An integrated branch would
mean common equipment is
used allowing for standardised
training and facilities. Furthermore,
updated concepts of operation and
employment will be required due
to the merger and organisational
and cultural changes will need to
be implemented. Figure 6 shows
the change from today’s overlap
between the two source branches
compared to the future that will
be delivered by MHC. These
changes are considerable and
take significant time and detailed
interaction to ensure they are
achieved successfully. The delivery
HYDROGRAPHY SPECIALISM
GEOINT
Figure 6: Impact on DLoDs
team have developed a strong
DLoD linkage from the outset and
the sustainment of this interaction
will be critical to support the
capability delivery.
TODAY – small overlap
The main task of the MHC
programme in the near term is to
demonstrate the viability of using
autonomous systems to deliver
MCM and H capabilities and that the
promised benefits can be delivered.
This will be achieved by three
primary means; by commissioning
a range of advanced technology
demonstrators, an intensive trials
programme using MASTT, and a
programme of studies and technical
analysis. These will be supported
by cost and risk modelling and other
programme management functions.
The MHC programme bears a
significant responsibility as it is the
first major maritime programme for
autonomous systems. It is therefore
seen as a pathfinder for wider
exploitation of autonomous systems
within the RN. As such, the ability
of the programme to demonstrate
not only the utility of the systems,
but also their reliability, robustness,
safety and legality, to pick a few
examples, will be of great interest to
the RN in general and may well be
the foundation on which much of the
Navy of the future is built.
Glossary of Terms
AOF
Acquisition Operating
Framework
DLoD Defence Lines of
Development
GEOINTMaritime Geospatial
Intelligence
MASTT Maritime Autonomous
Systems Trials Team
MCS
Maritime Combat System
MDS
Mine Disposal System
MHV
Mine countermeasures
and Hydrographic Vessel
MMCM Maritime MCM
MODAF MOD Architectural
Framework
OBS
Off-board systems
ROV
Remote Operated Vehicle
UAV
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
USV
Unmanned Surface
Vehicle
UUV
Unmanned Underwater
Vehicle
UXV
Unmanned Surface/
Underwater Vehicle
Jump to
Contents
40
The Squeaky Wheel –
NEWO’s update
WO1 Nick Sharland
When the Editor asked me to write
a short article for this magazine,
I jumped at the chance of an
opportunity to thank all of the units
that have been kind enough to host
me thus far. It also gives me the
chance to, hopefully, advertise this
role to the engineering ratings; I’m
your voice at the highest level and
I will feed back your concerns and
suggestions to improve our branch,
so please use me. At the Editor’s
invitation, this will become a regular
‘spot’ to present the prevalent views
as the ‘wheel of change’ turns.
My first six months in this unique
post have been both challenging
and enjoyable. I visited a wide
range of units and have been
continually impressed with the level
of understanding and engagement
with which I am met every day. This
is particularly remarkable given the
challenges that Engineering Branch
currently faces. I deliberately don’t
shy away from the fact that we are
all coping with severe manning
shortages, difficulties with support
and often with an ageing or
inadequate set of equipment and
systems. It’s not an easy time; and
that’s true whether you are AE, WE
or ME, bobbing on the surface,
gliding underwater or floating
through the air; the problems are all
slightly different, but are all biting
just as hard. I’ve seen the challenge
met with practicality, ingenuity and
dedication, but also understand and
have reported back that it has been
increasingly difficult to maintain a
level of professional pride against
the tide of issues.
“But it’s not all doom and gloom”.
I’ve found some really good news
stories out there. Apart from the
standard of our people (which
is really not underestimated),
the biggest ‘positive’ is that the
problems are recognised at the
highest levels (not least of all
CNEO) and there is a genuine
desire to rectify them. Proof is
Jump to
Contents
within Programme Faraday and the
Support Improvement Programme;
both populated by people who
have the desire, the ability and the
mandate to make it better. Over the
past six months they have made
strides into changing the way we
are trained, employed recognised
and supported. I understand that,
to some, this might seem like
“small beer”, but the change of
ETICC, streaming, the introduction
of an ICF and a whole raft of other
measures that they are delivering
should properly improve the lot of
the engineering ratings; they do
need your engagement though,
so please engage with them either
individually, as a unit (on JIVE) or
through me. Similarly, I found that
DE&S are looking at the way we are
supported and are trying to address
many of the problems. It’s a slightly
slower process (it’s still DE&S!),
but it is underway and movement
can be seen. As examples, a hand
tools contract has eventually been
placed which should finally provide
the standard of tools we need,
numerous events have been held to
improve the supply of consumable
stores and support services to front
line units. Again, we need to make
them aware of the problems in order
to address them, so please use
the proper methods (or me) to help
keep them on track. Finally, I found
CNPers under no doubt about the
engineering manning challenges we
face and almost constantly engaged
with trying to minimise the impact
of this while trying pretty much
everything within his gift to improve
retention.
I’m nothing if not honest, though,
and we’re not out of the woods yet.
There is still a long way to go and
it won’t always be an easy path.
I know that other RN manpower
issues, the NEM, platform
availability, national financial
prosperity, civilian opportunities
and a host of other issues will all
continue to throw up obstacles.
However, because this is more than
‘just a job’ for us (a fact that needs
recognition), I think we’ve got a
good chance of getting through. So,
please continue to be as honest,
open and engaged with me as you
have; I promise to continue to speak
up on your behalf as we try and get
sight of some clear sky.
... improve the supply of
consumable stores ...
THE FAA
41
is benefiting from “an extraordinary renewal
of its maritime capability” with a £48Bn equipment
programme for new carriers, ships, jets and helicopters.
Only through outstanding leadership, modern training,
exemplary Standards and Practices and continuous
intelligent evolution of our organisation will any of the
battle-winning capabilities be safely and confidently
achieved.
AEOC
OUTLINE
Air
Engineer
Officers’
Conference
15 July
Icarus Party
LEADING
A NEW
GENERATION
16 July
MAN AND MACHINE
Conference Dinner
15 - 16 July 2015 | HMS SULTAN
Context
Branch Matters & Tech
Update
The modern leadership
challenge
Operational competence
Evolution of our
organisation
AE branch leadership
panel
http://authdefenceintranet.diif.r.mill.uk/Organisations/Orgs/Navy/Organisations/Orgs/ACNS(AC)/ACOS(CSAV)/Pages/AEOsConference.aspx
AUTUMN 2014
AUTUMN 2014

ARB 203 第一級総合無線通信士「英会話」試験問題 XRB 203 第一級

Vectors, position, vel., accel. - Physics at Oregon State University

Philadelphia PA Inquirer 1942 a

On the mod p reduction of Fredholm

e - Procurement Notice No.EE-HID- 01/2014-15

Classified - Gulf Times

recording form - The Royal Room

If you are reading this now , A re you a future world shaker

BULLETIN - Australian Maritime Safety Authority

Spring - HMS School

York Navy Systems: Chilled Water Plant with