THE NAVAL ENGINEER
SPRING/SUMMER 2019, VOL 06, EDITION NO.2
All correspondence and contributions
should be forwarded to the Editor:
Clare Niker
Email:
By Mail:
The Editor, The Naval Engineer, Future
Support and Engineering Division,
Navy Command HQ, MP4.4,
Leach Building, Whale Island,
Portsmouth, Hampshire PO2 8BY
Contributions:
Contributions for the next edition are
being sought, and should be submitted
by:
31 July 2019
Contributions should be submitted
electronically via the form found on
The Naval Engineer intranet homepage,
the RN and UKNEST websites.
All photographs and graphics are to
be high resolution wherever possible
(300dpi), and supplied separately.
Feedback:
The Naval Engineer is your journal.
If you have any feedback regarding
The Naval Engineer, please complete
the feedback form located on the TNE
Intranet Homepage, the RN and UKNEST
websites, or email the Editor.
Distribution:
If you would like to update your contact
details, or if you are the representative
of a unit or organisation that would like
to be added to the distribution, please
contact the Editor.
Editorial Board Chair: Capt Matt Bolton RN
Members: Cdr Rachel Singleton RN
WO1 James Stuart RN
CPO Ben Pillar RN
PO Tim Moore RN
PO Daniel Piper RN
PO Marc Ryan RN
Chloe Woodger-Smith, UKNEST
Editor: Clare Niker
Welcome to the new edition of TNE! Following the successful relaunch last year as part of our Year of Engineering campaign, the Board has been extremely pleased to hear your feedback, which has been almost entirely positive. Please keep it coming, good or bad, TNE is your journal and we want to hear from you, especially on how to make it even better.
‘..it’s great to see it back, and I think you’ve put together a great spread of articles’
‘Particularly love the ‘Recognition’ section’
‘I must offer my congratulations on reviving this important journal with an impressive
mix of content and its presentation’
‘..what a fantastic publication that is bang up to date and packed full of really
exciting articles’
Distribution of our revamped TNE has gone far and wide. It is hosted on the MOD Intranet, as well as the RN and UKNEST webpages. Statistics taken from the external RN web page show that there were almost 500 visits to the TNE page and people spent over a minute longer on the page than average. This is in addition to all the units and sites that received almost 2000 hard copies, those that have requested electronic soft copies, plus around 700 visitors to the internal site. All in all, TNE is out there, reaching people and is a great way to get your message or story heard across the Naval Engineering community.
We hope you enjoy this new edition in which we have our first “Letter to the Editor”, and we are very grateful to all the contributors.
TNE cannot succeed without you. This is your journal. Make it yours!
The views expressed in The Naval Engineer, unless otherwise stated, are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Ministry of Defence.
All images are courtesy of Fleet Photography, unless otherwise stated.
THE EDITORIAL BOARD’S TOP PICK!
With so many excellent articles in the relaunched first
edition of TNE it has been very difficult single out
any particular one. But the Editorial Board
highlighted “A GEM of an idea” by WO1
Hughes for special mention. Why? Because
it epitomises the value that engineers
bring; in solving what might appear to be
mundane problems engineers safeguard
operational capability and can also save
Defence millions of pounds. It is said that
engineers are “solutions looking for a
problem”. We should always be curious
and never be afraid to propose answers
– well done Mr Halton and
WO1 Hughes.TNE Autum/Winter 2018, Vol 06, Edition No 1
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
CONTENTS
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
8 Explosive Safety in the Modern Warship Our first Royal Corps of Naval Constructors article discusses maritime explosive accidents, and the ongoing safety culture to reduce them.
12 How Technology Can Alter Grand Strategy The second in a series of articles looking at what history can offer, Cdr Barton examines what history can add to our current and future strategy.
14 Engineering the Remnants of Yesteryear The MOD owns over 5700 wrecks which lie all over the world, whose job is it to manage them? Madeleine Parsley explains.
16 Mission Modularity: Toward Enhanced Flexibility Modularity is not a new concept, but how is it being utilised in the modern warship context?
OPERATIONAL ENGINEERING
20 The Cost of Human Factors
Lt Andy Vance raises awareness of the
impact that human factors have on
capability.
24 What are the RN Fleet’s Miles Per
Gallon Figures? …or Should That be
Gallons Per Mile?
Are MPG costs just something to consider
when buying a car, or could Marine
Engineers play a part in managing fuel
consumption costs for ships?
28 Defensive Cyber as an Engineering
Discipline
The first in a series of three articles, Lt Cdr
Nick Jones examines what cyber and cyber
defence mean in the context of the RN.
52 Rewards and Recognition A look at recent awards, celebrating award winning engineers.
58 Meet Your Heads of Specialisation A brief introduction to your Heads of Specialisation.
60 Letter to the Editor Lt Cdr Jim Briscoe writes to the Editor about the delivery of AI in the RN.
62 The Final Word How could issues around the safe launch and recovery of unmanned surface vessels be resolved?
ENGINEERING PEOPLE
34 The Year of Engineering – Delivered Cdr Neil Benstead rounds up the significant contributions made by the RN to YOE18.
40 #Innovation at HMS Collingwood Supported by DARE and the drive for innovation, find out what was achieved by an intake of Weapon Engineer Officers eager to solve a real ship issue.
44 Accelerating Our Apprentices PO Derek Nicholls reflects on the journey taken by the first entry of Weapons Engineer General Service Accelerated Apprentices.
47 Maintaining the Present to Operate in the Future How are we developing and supporting Engineering Technicians to become Robot Hive Mind Control Node 10 – or the WO1s and Cdrs of the future?
50 Underwater Engineering – Deployed Read what happened when the SALMO Underwater Engineering team were tasked to support HMS Albion in Japan.
51 Project Keyham Update A look at the priorities emerging from the Project Keyham recommendations.
Produced on behalf of Chief Naval Engineer Officer, The Naval Engineer (TNE) is a professional journal for all Engineers across the Naval Enterprise, managed by the Future Support and Engineering Division in NCHQ. TNE celebrates the success of naval engineers, provides opportunity for academic recognition, and generates interest and discussion on topics relevant to the delivery of naval engineering. Articles are welcomed from all ranks and rates of Royal Navy, Royal Marine, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Royal Corps of Naval Constructors specialisations, and from our civilian partners in industry. Refreshed as part of the RN’s Year of Engineering 2018 campaign, TNE is proud to be working with UKNEST and The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.
Font: Comfortaa Bold Pantones: Warm Red C 640 C
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
CNEO Foreword
My son is thinking about a job in Engineering
– hallelujah! When you look at all the
uncertainty facing some elements of our
economy, engineering looks a pretty good
bet doesn’t it? It’s one of the most productive
sectors in the UK economy, contributing at
least 20% of the UK’s gross value added
and half our exports. ‘Tech’ is touching
every part of our lives and the prospect of a
4th industrial revolution, driven by artificial
intelligence and advanced production
techniques, suggests no letup in the pace
of change.
I see every bit of that same sense of
opportunity and excitement in Naval
Engineering. In the most straightforward
sense, the RN is an organisation that is
growing… growing for the first time in
over 30 years. We’re growing the number
of people in the Service and the size and
numbers of our ships. Next year, Portsmouth
will be operating more tons of grey steel
than at any time since 1956 and, from 2015
to 2025 the tonnage of the RN Fleet overall
will grow by 30%; supported by new Tide
and FSS classes for the RFA. Programmes like
T26 and T31 are arriving right behind our
two carriers. Beneath the waves, Astute and
Successor represent a truly exciting present
and future for our submariners and these four
programmes alone provide a very tangible
£50Bn commitment from our nation to the
future of our Service and the engineers that
will design, deliver and operate it. Add to
that, the absolute step change in aviation
capability that the F35 will bring, capabilities
like unmanned mine countermeasures vessels
and unmanned rotorcraft, open architecture
command systems, high energy weapon
systems and I hope you’ll take my point about
opportunity and excitement.
Rear Admiral Jim Higham OBE BEng(Hons) MSc MA FIMarEST RN
Rear Admiral Jim Higham OBE BEng(Hons) MSc MA FIMarEST RN
Of course, technology alone doesn’t win
wars. The Navy will continue to need the
very best talent our nation can produce and
we must be innovative in the ‘how we do
things’, not just the ‘what with’. In this area
we have, perhaps, our biggest fight; to attract
and retain our nation’s best talent in a very
competitive market. The UK has an annual
shortfall of 59 000 engineering graduates and
technicians to fill core engineering roles. And
a lack of diversity is fundamental to this – the
engineering workforce is 92% white and 88%
male. So, we’re missing out on the talent we
need and young people are missing out on
the chance to make a positive difference to
their future, that of the planet and everything
that calls it home.
So as I take on the role of CNEO, my first
priority is our people, right across our sector,
building on the success of the Year of
Engineering 2018. Recruiting and retaining
the very best our country has to offer will
be crucial. I look forward to getting out and
about over the coming months, meeting as
many of you as possible and hearing your
issues and ideas. The breadth and vibrancy
of Naval Engineering is clear from the
pages of TNE, for which I am grateful to all
contributors. Please use this, your journal, to
share your experiences, successes, challenges
and concerns and, in the meantime, my inbox
is always open.
Regards
Rear Admiral Jim Higham
CNEO
THE NAVAL ENGINEER6
From the Editor
By Clare Niker
A very warm welcome to the second
edition of the The Naval Engineer.
Firstly, I want to thank all of you who took the
time to let me have your comments about the
new style journal. The overwhelmingly positive
response has been amazing. You will have seen
from the Editorial Board comment on page
2, that TNE is really getting your stories and
messages to people. Over time, I hope that
you will see the journal develop in response to
your feedback so please do keep that feedback
coming. We have developed both a feedback
and a submission form, which you will find on
the TNE Intranet homepage and the RN and
UKNEST web sites. I cannot stress enough how
much we want you to help us make this journal
relevant to you, so do please check these out.
Last year saw the considerable success of
the Year of Engineering 2018. The RN made
a substantial contribution to this campaign,
and whilst the wider effects of this campaign
may not be seen for some years, there have
been some real achievements already, The
Naval Engineer being just one. This year sees
the move into the Era of Engineering, keeping
engineers at the forefront of minds of the next
generation. Of course, this year also sees a
new Chief Naval Engineer Officer (CNEO) take
over in the shape of Rear Admiral Jim Higham
CBE (see the CNEO Foreword on page 5), with
the annual CNEO’s conference to take place in
May at HMS Sultan. If you have any questions
you want to put to CNEO through TNE, why
not write to me?
In this edition we are so fortunate to continue
to have some fantastic articles. PO Derek
Nicholls writes about the first Accelerated
Apprenticeships on page 44, whilst SALMO’s
Madeleine Parsley looks at the management
of wrecks on page 14. We have our first article
from a member of the Royal Corps of Naval
Constructors (check out Phil Pitcher’s article on
page 8), as well as our first Letter to the Editor.
I hope these articles will continue to promote
some really good discussions.
As before, we have a great Reward and
Recognition section in this issue. Naval
engineers are doing some amazing work, and
rightly being rewarded for it. Please help me to
celebrate their recognition by sending me your
or your team’s achievements. You really have
so much to be proud of.
Once again I have to thank those of you who
have taken the time, and significant effort, to
write an article for this issue. You all have busy
‘day jobs’, so this makes your contributions all
the more valuable. This edition is only possible
because of you. Please do keep sending in
those articles, letters, rewards and messages.
My thanks also go to the Editorial Board for
their support, and the wonderful Graphics
team at NCHQ.
As always, I hope you enjoy the read, and
I look forward to hearing from you.
Clare
Clare Niker
ENG
INEE
RIN
G T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
THE NAVAL ENGINEER8
Explosive Safety in the Modern Warship
This paper discusses maritime explosive
accidents and the ongoing safety culture
to remove/reduce these. It covers legacy
issues and considers todays timeline
with the significant changes to munition
chemistry formulations and weapon
design. The Insensitive Munitions (IM)1
programmes are continuing to reduced
risks to host munitions from threat
weapons and accidents. It has made
significant improvements to munition
safety moving them from ‘ship sinkers’
to fire risks as worst case scenario
and in some cases, no reaction at all.
It concludes with considerations that
platform duty holders and construction
stakeholders can do for magazine design
to integrate these new risks beyond that
of the current regulations.
History – Operational tempo balanced with safety constraints and survivability
The Battle of Jutland in late May 1916
highlighted a handling deficiency of British
shells [1]. The practice of storing as many
shells as possible in the gun turrets, coupled
with the fact that the propellant charges were
stored in highly flammable bags, effectively
turned the turrets into powder kegs waiting
for an errant flame. Conversely, propellant
charges aboard German warships were
stored in brass cartridges, which were
more resistant to flash fires. This resilience,
along with the German practice to avoid
over-filling their main batteries with
ammunition, rendered the German battle
cruisers less prone to catastrophic explosive
fires. The sinking of HMS Hood [2] by the
German Cruiser Bismark during WWII was
believed to be a result of burning host
munitions confined in the magazine, a
testament to the massive pressure rise that
occurs from burning munitions is in the region
of tens of tons.
During the US involvement in the Vietnam
War several munition safety related munition
incidents occurred within their maritime
domain. In particular, the US aircraft carrier
incidents in the mid to late 1960’s was
significant, the USS Forrestal being the most
noteworthy. In this incident 134 personnel
died, 161 critically injured and 21 aircraft
destroyed. A decision to embark Korean
War Composition B bombs filled with very
shock and heat sensitive bombs that were
in poor condition was not a popular one
with the munition experts. This is a good
example where the operational requirement
to meet the daily mission tempo had over
ridden known risks concerns leading to the
devastating consequences. The illustration
in figure 1 shows how the first munition
safety failure escalated with the detonation
of several non-IM high explosive bombs [3, 4,
5 and 6].
Implementation of IM policy into maritime safety regulations
NATO nations now strive to comply with the
Insensitive Munitions (IM) goals detailed in the
Standard NATO Agreement (STANAG) 4439.
This has been achieved using less sensitive
Energetic Materials (EM), improved munitions
technology design, bespoke packaging or a
combination of all three.
Ship and ammunition design criteria has
also improved significantly to reduce the
vulnerability of ammunition and explosives to
As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
These risk requirements are defined in the
Defence Safety Authority (DSA) 02 Defence
Maritime Regulator (DMR) and supports the
survivability statement of a maritime platform.
Contributing to these regulatory goals,
UK MoD has tried and tested standards2 for
MoD platform magazine construction. These
provide mandatory performance requirements
for the design of MoD ships in respect of
explosives safety issues arising from stowage,
handling and use of explosives on board.
The performance requirements are
supplemented by Approved Codes of Practice
(ACOP) and guidance, which provide design
best practice based on corporate knowledge
and experience.
In addition to these standards, new munition
procurement policy encourages greater
use of IM and the intelligent planning of
the stowage for all munitions within the
magazines to protect and provide mitigation,
therefore reducing the risk of catastrophic
scenarios. The historic munitions are being
gradually replaced by stores that only burn as
By Constructor Lt Cdr Phil Pitcher MSc CENG FIExpE MIMechE RCNC DE&S & SDA Specialist Fellow, Naval Authority Group, SDA
Figure 1. 29 July 1967 – USS Forrestal. This figure showing the location of aircraft prior to the catastrophe. Likely cause is that a Zuni rocket accidentally initiated from F-4 (Phantom) aircraft No. 410 which then struck an external fuel tank on A-4 (Skyhawk) aircraft No. 405. The Rocket’s warhead safety mechanism prevented it from detonating, but the impact tore the tank off the wing and ignited the resulting spray of escaping fuel, causing an instantaneous conflagration. Soon after explosive ordnance on other planes a thermal explosion (cooked off). As the fire spread on the flight deck approximately nine bombs detonated during the fire and another one by sympathetic reaction [3].
US Senator John McCain was in an A-4 Skyhawk Pilot in 416 and survived this catastrophic incident. It has been argued and debated that efforts once he succeeded a political career was the impetus to ‘kick start’ the Insensitive Munitions (IM) programme.
1 This is where the chemical formulations or weapon design is less sensitive to heat and shock. Packaging design can also alter the sensitivity of the weapon. Many Subject Matter Experts in the field of explosive testing prefer to use the terminology ‘Reduced Risk’ or the French term MURAT (Munitions à Risque ATtenués) rather than the term ‘Insensitive Munitions’. The latter can give an over-safe description to the non-experts within this specialised field. 2 Defence Standard 00-101 (Design Standards for Explosive Safety) and Naval Authority Notice Exp/03 (Classified Annex to Defence Standard 00-101).
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
EMs exposed to SCJ still have a propensity
to detonate (Type I) but the newer munitions
exposed to SR are meeting the Type III goal
and occasionally exceeding it with Types IV/V
results. In some instances, the expert opinion
will dictate that the munition will fail a
bespoke test and therefore there is little value
in conducting it.
If a munition cannot meet the STANAG
criteria, and has a higher response level,
a Ships Explosive Threat Hazard Analysis
(SETHA) may indicate that a specific IM
test is not credible or the risk is mitigated
by platform integration measures. The
munition inventory in a modern warship may
have a mixture of IM and non-IM stores in
magazines. The NATO policy, and onus on
munition duty holders, is to ensure that the
criteria of STANAG 4439 are applied. Table 1
highlights the stark difference in results and
the risks from legacy munitions can still be
encountered today.
ENG
INEE
RIN
G T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
a worst case when subjected to the STANAG
4439 testing regime.
The STANAG 4439 IM testing regime
In complying with the STANAG policy, every
munition must have an IM footprint statement
on their response to the following stimuli
(representing threat weapons and accident
scenarios):
a. Fast Heating (FH) – a fuel fire.
b. Slow Heating (SH) – a test to represent a
heat rise incrementing by a few degrees
C per hour to represent temperature rise
in a ships magazine with a fire in adjacent
compartments.
c. Bullet Attack (BI) – a 12.7mm armour
piercing ammunition at a velocity
>850m/s.
d. Fragment Impact (FI) – these are slow
and fast fragment cubes >1000m/s and
<2500m/s.
e. Shape Charge Jet (SCJ) – basically an
anti-armour warhead. SCJ tip velocity
>6000m/s.
f. Sympathetic Reaction (SR) – this is where
an identical munition (or an EM element
of) is detonated adjacent to the test store.
Commonly referred to as a detonating
‘donor’ store to assess the response of
the ‘acceptor’ store.
These can be conducted either by a series of
very expensive test procedures or evaluation
of previous similar EM tests by a team of
subject matter experts. Due to the time
and expense of each test, only one serial of
each is generally conducted. Therefore, the
robustness and confidence in each result can
lack statistical assurance. The results3 are
graded from Type I to Type V with the former
being the most severe. The target for the
munition to pass is a Type V response for FH.
SH, BI and FI, and no more than Type III for
SCJ and SR. Most new munitions coming into
service have technical challenges to achieve
SCJ and SR Type III signatures. However, most
The words High Explosives (normally
warheads) have always been accepted was a
worst-case scenario with propellants (rocket
motors) giving less of a concern. Under the
right circumstances propellants can exhibit
a Type I response and for the large Guided
Missiles (GM) this may have explosive mass
forty times that of the warhead. A GM rocket
motor used on warships can >200kg for each
munition in the magazine. Multiply this by the
total number of GMs held on a warship and
the explosive mass (commonly referred to as
NEQ4) can be many thousands of kilograms.
Table 2 shows a typical example of an IM
response of a GM following the STANAG
test processes. Highlighted in red is the SH
result of the rocket motor. Some propellant
chemical formulations find the current
SH criteria challenging to pass but severe
reactions usually occur tens of hours after
the temperature has reached few hundred
degrees C.
3 Type I = detonation, Type II = semi-detonation, Type III = explosion, Type IV = deflagration and Type V = burning. 4 Net Explosive Quantity.
Test (meeting STANAG 4439 criteria)
Munition IM Energetic Material
Non-IM Energetic Material
FH SH FI BI SC SR
‘No Such’ Naval Gun
Shell
Comp. B (TNT/RDX) IV I I I I I
‘No Such’ Strike Bomb
ROWENEX 1400 V V V V I V
Table 1. An example of STANAG 4439 test results for a complete store. The ‘traffic light’ colour coding identifies what passed (green), failed (red) and what has nearly passed (amber). This is referred to as the IM signature.
Ammunition Warhead EM
Rocket Motor EM Test (meeting STANAG 4439 criteria)
‘No Such’ Guided Weapon
Comp. B (TNT/RDX) FH SH FI BI SCJ SR
PBXN109 V V IV V N/A N/A
HMX/HTPBIV I V V N/A N/A
Table 2. The ‘traffic light’ colour coding identifies what passed (green), failed (red) and what has nearly passed (amber). The munition clearly ‘fails’ the SH test. As an example, a SETHA may mitigate this risk with application of Rapid Reaction Spray Systems and/or escape & evacuation will be completed before a reaction occurs.
9
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
The effects of a munition Type V reactions in a magazine
An IM store with a NEQ of more than
100 kg can burn for up to 20+ minutes at a
temperature more than 2000°C depending
on the shape, chemical composition and
confinement mechanisms. There have been
many studies tackling the incipient fires5 and
cooling effects within the magazine (including
weapons) but with the increasing risk from
insulted burning IM, there is little knowledge
how to control, mitigate or possibly remove
this risk. Recent trials conducted by the SDA
Naval Authority Group (NAG) in the UK have
highlighted that the application of water via
Rapid Reaction Spray Systems (RRSS) does not
control the burning IM6 store but may induce
increased pressure on the magazine structures
by the creation of copious amounts of steam
(introducing a separate and unforeseen
problem).
Project Phoenix was the first NAG initiated
trial to understand the effects of burning
aluminised IM stores within a magazine with
and without the application of water RRSS.
Two magazines were represented using ISO
containers and one of these was fitted with
an automatic RRSS as defined in the Defence
Standard 00–101. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the
post trial results.
The results and instrumentation evidence
identified a significant increase of over
pressure causing structural deformation
of the ISO container. These containers had
identical venting arrangements embodied
into the structure. These were calculated
using the accredited STG venting software7.
These early Project Phoenix produced several
observations, the important ones being:
(a) An aluminised IM store that had
undergone an insult creating a Type
V reaction would continue to burn
regardless of the prescribed amount of
water from the standard spray system
applied.
(b) The burning reaction lasted for
approximately the same length of time
irrespective of whether the aluminised IM
store was in air or in a container being
sprayed with water from the fire-fighting
system. The water from the spray system
did, reduce the temperature (measured
via thermocouples on the IM store casing
and the upright deck plate).
(c) The water that fell on the burning IM
store was rapidly turned to steam. This
combined with gaseous products from
the combustion of the energetic material
contained in the IM store was enough
to produce a significant overpressure
which it is believed caused structural
deformation. STG vent algorithms for
magazine vent sizes only currently
consider the burning propellants.
This work has moved forward, with NAG-Exp
advice and guidance, into design proposals
for future platform magazines (the use and
application of fire fighting and heat shielding
methods to reduce the risks from burning
IM stores). For instance, the effects from
multiple burning munitions caused by the
elevated heat rise being communicated
from an insulted store to an adjacent store
(donor to acceptor) or multiple insults to
many weapons invoking a burning response
(i.e. caused by fragmentation strikes from an
Anti-Ship Missile or armour piercing small
arms ammunition).
Another recent Phoenix trial involving a
similar set up to those in figure 3 used a
donor and an acceptor munitions where
no RRSS was applied. A pre-trial modelling
activity replicating the test parameters and
predicted that after about 10 minutes of the
donor munition burning the acceptor would
exhibit a Type V reaction. During the live trial
the acceptor exhibited no response at all, it
remained intact. This is a valuable example of
the limitations of modelling may not show an
accurate result for large, expensive projects.
Conversely, and like an IM trial, only one trial
was conducted so the statistical value of the
result would need to be considered.
The way forward
The NAG-Exp conducted a ‘deep dive’ review
into how many munitions have been damaged
by smoke / fire in the magazine environment
during peacetime. Detailed information
obtained from the MoD Munitions Incidents
Database (fed by NLIMS8) revealed that there
has been no recorded damage to stores from
incipient smoke or fires but there were many
Figure 4 – Results from burning IM store with RRS system in operation (external view of the ISO container)
Figure 3 – Result from the burning IM store without RRS system in operation
Figure 5 – Results from burning IM store with RRS system in operation (Internal views of the ISO container).
5 Incipient fires are those that happen locally from the ignition of flammable magazine non-EMs. 6 EMs have their own fuel and oxygen. Once burning even with the application of RRSS are almost impossible to extinguish. 7 Sea Technology Group (STG) Vent software. This is a NAG endorsed spreadsheet calculator for ensuring the correct size vent plate size is place based on the propellant mass stored in the ships magazine. Particularly important for large GM rocket motors. 8 Fleet Lessons Identified Management System.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
accounts of damage created by ‘wetting’.
This has been due to human error or RRSS
design/maintenance faults with considerable
munitions inventory loss from water
contamination.
This observation and Project Phoenix trials
results have raised some interesting questions:
(a) Is RRSS required with the low risk incipient fire in every magazine storage scenario9?
(b) If it is proven that thermal transfer from acceptor munition does not reach ignition point, would RRSS still be required as they have been over the last 30 plus years?
(c) Could future technology systems (i.e. cold gas) be considered in lieu of RRSS?
(d) Is the burning munitions communication an issue in storage with the excessive burning times and ability to control the event?
(e) Is the current firefighting mechanisms enough to cool adjacent munitions sufficiently from donor burning munitions to gain operational recovery?
(f) What more do we need to do to understand these effects in a mixed munition magazine in an action damage scenario?
(g) As fires in other areas of the ship are relatively common, is the real peacetime risk from adjacent compartment fires, which may prevent access to magazines to effect boundary cooling?
(h) Would Type IV reactions be more acceptable where once integrated into a maritime platform10?
Conclusions
The last 30 years has highlighted a significant
reduction in munition catastrophic incidents
from intentional (enemy action) or accidental
stimuli, thereby improving the safety of
crews and platforms. RRSS systems have
served the ships magazine community well,
but the continued introduction of more IM
compliant munitions presents opportunities
to rethink the way many things are done.
Whilst a Type V reaction is the safety target,
risks remain that must be considered and
managed effectively. Further studies and
analysis like Project Phoenix will provide the
correct answers so ship designers based on
the accuracy of munition risks.
The author has written this article from his
own personal experience and observations
from experimental/trial results and should not
be taken as a view of the MoD.
References
1. Ott, N.G, ‘Battle cruisers at Jutland: A Comparative Analysis of British and German Warship Design and its Impact on the Naval War’. A Senior Honours Thesis. The Ohio State University. July 2010.
2. Taylor, Bruce (2008). The Battlecruiser HMS Hood: An Illustrated Biography, 1916–1941. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. pp. 218 – 221. ISBN 978-1-861-216-0
3. Wikipedia accessed 30 August 2013 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood_(51), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arizona_(BB-39) , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire /
4. Coffelt, John (24 July 2012). “Forty-five years later, veteran remembers worst naval disaster since WW II”. Manchester Times
5. Freeman, Gregory A. (2004). Sailors to the End: The Deadly Fire on the USS Forrestal and the Heroes Who Fought It. HarperCollins. pp. 123, 124. ISBN 978-0-06-093690-7.
6. Department of the Navy – Naval History and Heritage Command, 805 Kidder Breese SE, Washington Navy Yard, Washington DC 20374-50. USS Forrestal (CV-59).
7. Joint Service Publication 862. MoD Maritime Explosives Regulations Part 1 (Surface Ships) Issue 6.
Constructor Lieutenant Commander Phil Pitcher
Phil has worked in UK Ministry of Defence
(MoD) Explosive Safety Organisations as
a Technical Specialist for 14 years. He is a
Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S)
and Submarine Delivery Agency (SDA)
specialist fellow for maritime explosive safety
technology. His current role is to support
Naval Authority Group (NAG) trials and
evaluation programmes for the explosives
section. He also advises maritime project
teams and external stakeholders on mitigation
techniques and threat protection design
solutions to remove/reduce associated risk(s).
Before his MoD civilian career, he was a
weapons engineer in the Royal Air Force
(RAF) for 26 years where he was employed on
aircraft weapon systems including air to air
missiles, ejection seats and explosive licencing
before moving into the world of Joint Service
EOD/IEDD operations.
Phil is a Fellow in the Institute of Explosive
Engineers, a chartered engineer to the
Institute of Mechanical Engineers, a member
of the International Ballistics Society and holds
the rank of Constructor Lt Cdr in the Royal
Corp of Naval Constructors (RCNC). He is a
chairman for UK Engineering Council (EC)
Professional Review Interviews supporting
the mechanical institute. Since 2012 he has
produced several academic papers which have
been published in the International Ballistics
Symposium, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
Elsevier, Explosives Institute Journals and
Defence Technology. In 2018 he successfully
completed the Advanced Command Staff
Course for Reserve Officers at the UK
Defence Academy.
9 Risks from incipient fires in magazines seem statistically exceptionally low due to the comprehensive explosive safety regime detailed in JSP 862 [7]. 10 Low peak/duration blast pressure may only rupture the munition but this event will be over in a nanosecond unlike the uncontrolled burning.
there is little knowledge how
to control, mitigate or
possibly remove this risk
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
By Cdr Mark Barton BEng MA CEng MRINA RN, Eng Support SO1 Doctrine & Policy, Navy Command Headquarters
How Technology Can Alter Grand Strategy
Lessons from History 2The second in a series of articles looking
at what lessons history can offer, this
article considers what history can add
to our understanding of future, or
even current strategy. The next article
in the series will consider how even
experiments that do not work out can
still be useful.
While it has been said, “those that fail to
learn from history are condemned to repeat
it.”1 we also must remember the corollary that
“we can learn from history, but we can also
deceive ourselves when we selectively take
evidence from the past to justify what
we have already made up our minds to do.”2
So we must be open to what that past
teaches but not fixated on parallels – the
past provides a lesson not a prophecy.
We tend to think technology is changing
more rapidly now than at any time in the
past. However, when you look at the rate of
change over the past 60 years and contrast
that with the rate of change a century
before, you can see how we may be fooling
ourselves. For the Royal Navy, the past 60
years takes us from a Leander Class frigate
(first one built 1959) to the Daring Class (first
one commissioned 2009). Both of these are
powered by a fuel oil, both have steel hulls,
both have screw propellers, both travel at
around 30 knots. Both use a mixture of a
helicopter, missiles and a 4.5 inch gun to fight
with. Both use radars and other electronics to
find the enemy.
However, taking the 60 years from the end of
the Napoleonic War, we see a very different
picture. You might expect to see a slowing
down of the rate of change, given that it
was largely peacetime, but the truth is quite
different. The very first civilian steam ship
operated in Britain in 1812, while the war was
still going on. This was called the
Comet3 and was used to ferry people to a
hotel near Glasgow. It was not until 1822,
after the war, that the Royal Navy took its
first steam ship into service. This was a
238-tonne paddle steamer also called the
Comet. However, less than 50 years later,
in 1871, the Royal Navy commissioned
HMS Devastation. Those 49 years saw the
Navy move from sail to paddle wheels to
propellers. It saw the move from using wind
and being completely dependent on its
unpredictability to be able to manoeuvre and
for passage time, to coal with a reliable 12
knots moving directly towards the destination.
It saw hulls change from wood to iron and
then to steel. Weapons altered from a cannon
broadside, where you tried to get as close
alongside as possible and use the number
of cannon to achieve the effect with each
cannonball being relatively small (the first rate
HMS Victory had 104 guns, the largest firing
a 15kg cannon ball) to, in the case of HMS
Devastation, two turret-mounted pairs of
12-inch guns, firing shells weighing more than
300kg forward over 20,000 yards.
These immense changes in technology also
drove significant change in the support
needed. Even the manning structure of a ship
completely changed; a new branch came
into existence that would account for up to
50% of crew – the Engineering Branch. It
even changed the national alliances needed.
No longer did the RN depend on fir being
delivered from Canada and the Baltic and
hemp from the Baltic. Instead, it became
dependent on coal mined in Wales. No longer
could vessels deploy for years away from
any base. Captain Vancouver’s expedition
that left in 1791 took four and a half years.
Throughout that time, it was self sustaining
and had no supply chain. They arranged and
conducted their own maintenance, finding a
quiet beach to careen the vessel and clean the
hull. They purchased or acquired supplies as
the opportunity arose. Steam ships, however,
were completely dependent on coal depots
set up around the world; while iron hulls
depended on having a network of docks
where they could be repaired. We created
the Colonial Dock Loan Act in 1865 to pay
for docks in other countries. We even built a
floating dock and sent it to Bermuda in 1869.
The Royal Dockyards at home also underwent
considerable change. In 1865, the plan for a
significant change to Portsmouth Dockyard
were presented to Parliament. While these
were not fully incorporated, the Number
3 basin (with the docks leading off it and
using locks to access) was the main feature
and was built.
Therefore, the new technology and the
support it required drove changes in our
grand strategic alliances. Britain now needed
to be friends with those able to provide us
access to coaling depots and we no longer
needed our Baltic allies. It is interesting to
note how quickly the changes in strategy
came about. Although the first iron-hulled
RN vessel was HMS Aetna in 1855, it was
built for a specific theatre and did not need a
global system. The first iron-hulled warship,
Leander Class frigate & Daring Class – Sixty years of change, 1959-2009
1 This is often attributed to Winston Churchill but is a paraphrase of George Santayana in his book The Life of Reason: The phrases of Human Progress (1905). 2 Attributed to Margaret MacMillan Professor of International History and Warden of St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. 3 Paddle ships were not given the title HMS until 1827.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
HMS Warrior was commissioned in 1860 and was designed to deploy and operate as required –
within five years of that launch we had started funding docks around the world and altering our
main naval base.
But while recent developments in technology over the past 60 years have not brought the need
for strategic change in any way comparable to the same period 150 years earlier, we cannot
assume that the same will be true for the next 60 years. It is possible that the move to new
technologies will increase our dependence on rare earth materials, for example, and significantly
grow their demand. Much as with the Baltic and the colonies 200 years ago, this might mean
we need to change our allies. Recently there were significant finds4 of rare earth minerals off
Minamitori Island in Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone. These supposedly contain enough yttrium
to meet the global demand for 780 years, dysprosium for 730 years, europium for 620 years,
and terbium for 420 years.
Could this shift global power balances and remove some of the power of China as the
main source for these currently? Likewise, the move to new fuels, with shale gas being
included within marine engines and even the work on nuclear fusion mean we could lose
our dependence on oil imports and no longer need to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for
global trade. Adaptive manufacturing could significantly reduce international maritime trade,
particularly if it occurred at the same time as a rise in nationalism and protectionism. The future
of maritime security may be all about protecting maritime mining and farming – not routes. We
have got used to engineering changes being small enough to not need to adjust our national
strategy, but recent trends are not necessarily indicative of the future.
HMS Victory anchored off the Isle of Wight – artist John Carmichael 1800–1868 © Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy
4 Nature Journal, Scientific Report dated 10 April 2014 The tremendous potential of deep-sea mud as a source of rare-earth elements by Yutaro Takaya et al.
A port broadside view of HMS Devastation (turret ship, 1871) at anchor. © Trustees of the National Museum of the Royal Navy
Commander Mark Barton
Commander Mark
Barton has had
a career that has
tended to alternate
between naval
architecture roles
and operational
support, having
completed five sea
appointments and three Op Tours. His 5th
sea appointment was as Commander E of
HMS Bulwark. He is currently employed
as the SO1 Doctrine and Policy in the
Engineering Support Division at NCHQ and
has been responsible for authoring Volume
2.9 of Fighting Instructions which is Maritime
Engineering. He is now writing the Naval
Engineering Policy BR. Tied in with this he
supports various engineering aspects of
operational planning and provides input
to support aspects for strategic planning.
With an interest in Naval history, he has
several publications including the book
British Naval Swords and Swordsmanship,
writes regularly for The Naval Review and
is currently endeavouring to complete a
PhD in Napoleonic naval history. As part of
his contribution to Year of Engineering he
researched and authored the history of The
Engineering Branch of the Royal Navy, which
has been distributed around the Navy.
See: TNE Autumn/Winter
2018, Vol 06, Ed. No. 1 For Lessons from
History Part 1
THE NAVAL ENGINEER14
By Madeleine Parsley, MSc BA(Hons), Project Professional Graduate, Salvage & Marine Operations
Engineering the Remnants of Yesteryear
The Ministry of Defence is responsible
for over 5700 wrecks across the world.
These wrecks are not romanticised
wooden sail-powered shipwrecks, they
are huge steel carcasses with hazardous
material on-board. A leak of this
hazardous material has the potential
to have a devastating impact on the
environment.
The HMS Royal Oak is a Second World War
battleship which was sunk by torpedoes in
1939 in Scapa Flow in Orkney, Scotland.
It is a good example of the work required
to manage a wreck. Natural decay of the
wreck lead to a significant release of oil in
the 1990’s so intervention was requested.
Continued maintenance work has been
carried out on the vessel over the past two
decades. The most recent tasking was in
September 2018; SALMO tasked an in-house
dive team to carry out essential cleaning
of the valves and install anodes to prevent
corrosion. Whilst doing this, we were
able to assess the overall condition
of the wreck to allow us to
effectively manage the wreck in
the future.
Who manages the wrecks?
The Ministry of Defence owns over 5700
post-1870 wrecks which lie all over the world.
Salvage and Marine Operations (SALMO),
part of Defence Equipment & Support, were
delegated responsibility for managing these
wrecks on behalf of the Royal Navy in 2009.
These wrecks have an associated liability cost
estimated to be in excess of £3 billion, due
to the safety and environmental concerns
associated with these wrecks in the event
of a serious oil leak. SALMO took on the
responsibility without full knowledge of the
scale of the Wrecks portfolio, which was
estimated to be 1500 wrecks at the time.
Since then, SALMO has worked to identify
the full scale of the mission to support the
safety and environment of the wrecks all
over the world.
The Wrecks team is comprised of Matt
Skelhorn, Wreck Researcher, and Dr Polly
Hill, Wreck Environmental Scientist. Matt’s
background is in archaeology and Polly’s in
marine science and oil spill modelling, risk
assessment and contingency planning.
This varied background enables
them to pool their knowledge to
develop in-depth understandings of
wrecks and their environments.
Which wrecks are the MoD responsible for?
The wrecks include all MoD shipping sunk
during either peace or war time and all
foreign military ships sunk up to the end
of WW2 within the UK counter pollution
zone, as well as all sunk MoD shipping
in the territorial waters of the UK Crown
Dependencies and Overseas Territories or
High Seas. Also included are commercially
owned ships that took up from trade in
direct support of war fighting in either
National or High Seas or those operated by
military crews.
Ships that sank before 1870 are included if
they pose a pollution or safety risk, however
it is assumed that the likely risks associated
with these wrecks will be negligible as the
ships were made of wood and driven by sails.
The Ministry of Defence is responsible for over 5700 wrecks across the world
HMS
Roya
l Oak
in 1
937.
Imag
e co
urte
sy o
f Ork
ney
Libr
ary
and
Arc
hive
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
Why is it important to manage the
wrecks?
The wrecks can damage the environment
and marine wildlife if not properly managed
because many contain oil and ammunition.
Most of the wrecks are from the First and
Second World Wars, with those from the
Second World War posing a greater risk due
to the switch from using coal to oil for fuel.
A leak of hazardous material from a wreck has
the potential to cause major environmental
harm as well as severely impacting tourist,
recreational and business concerns.
Additionally, there is the problem of illegal
salvage, especially of those wrecks in remote
locations that are difficult to monitor closely.
This problem is two-fold in that theft of British
intellectual and physical property occurs, such
as in cases of the illegal salvage of engines,
but also because several of the wrecks are
classed as war graves that must be treated with
sensitivity and are not if they are the victim of
illegal salvage
How are the wrecks managed?
Managing the wrecks is a three-staged
process, comprised of desk-based assessments,
on site surveys and, finally, intervention.
The historical component of the desk-based
assessment delves into archives to compile
detailed information about the vessel, its
cargo, the circumstances of its loss and any
potential pollutants/hazardous materials.
This gives us an idea of how likely the wreck is
to release oil. The environmental component
of the desk-based assessment uses oil spill
modelling and environmental sensitivity data
to assess the potential impact of an oil spill.
This assessment allows us to prioritise wrecks
for further investigation.
Priority wrecks are investigated further with
an on-site survey to assess the physical
condition of the wreck, the potential for
harmful materials to remain, and to look for
evidence of local contamination. This survey
may show that direct intervention is required
to reduce any identified risks to ALARP
(As Low As Reasonably Practical) status.
Intervention is likely to be the extraction of
oil from the wreck, which tends to be carried
out by our in-house dive team with their
specialised underwater engineering expertise
and equipment.
The future of wrecks management
We are looking forward to upcoming surveys
in the next year on high priority wrecks, as
well as the continued challenge of dealing
with emerging situations as they develop.
The wreck inventory is ageing. As such, there is
a risk that some wrecks may be approaching a
critical threshold of corrosion that may lead to
a significant number decaying/leaking within
a short space of time. In the future, we hope
to expand and get more involved in research
projects to enable them to manage the wrecks
more scientifically.
Madeleine
Parsley
Madeleine
is a Project
Professional
Graduate
undertaking her
first placement
as a project
manager in SALMO. She holds degrees from
the University of Exeter and the University
of Bristol where she completed a Masters in
Gender and International Relations.
Aerial image of the tasking carried out on HMS Royal Oak. Drone image taken by and courtesy of Tom Booth
Image of the hot tap valves previously installed on the HMS Royal Oak wreck by SALMO to facilitate the oil removal ops, with the sacrificial anodes which the team attached in September 2018 along with carrying out essential maintenance of the valves to ensure their functionality for any future pump off.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER16
by Edward Blackwell MEng AMIMechE, UKNEST
Mission Modularity: Towards Enhanced Flexibility
Modularity is a not a new concept in
the marine sector. After the Second
World War, converted tankers became
the earliest container ships; these
vessels paved the way for the advent of
containerisation in the 1950s. It was so
efficient, shipping time and costs were
reduced by 84% and 35%, respectively,
and by 2001, 90% of world trade in
non-bulk goods was transported in
ISO containers. [1]
It was the Danish who pioneered the modular
approach for their naval vessels, in the
1980s, as financial constraints dictated that
three classes of minor warships could not
be replaced on a one-for-one basis. A single
class of multi-role ships could be modified to
include mission specific payloads built into
modules, which would fit into standardised
slots to allow the vessel to assume a particular
role when required. The term “Standard Flex”,
or “StanFlex” for short, was coined for this
modular payload system. [2]
Having witnessed the Royal Danish Navy’s
StanFlex system, many countries began
substantial research into the modularisation
of their own naval capabilities and came
to realise the potential benefits, such
as increased operational flexibility and
availability, which led to a reduced total
number of mission modules for the fleet.
Despite some higher structural costs,
these resulted in significant procurement
improvements as well as capital expenditure
and through-life cost saving opportunities for
multi-ship classes. Cost savings are vital to
government interest in warship modularity.
[3] [4]
Maintenance is the one of the main cost
drivers when considering a vessel throughout
its life. A conventionally outfitted ship will
be required to be taken out of service during
its maintenance period which results in a
significant amount of associated non-value
added time, which predictably translates to
cost. However, if new systems and weapons
are modularised these can be swapped out
for maintenance so the ship is no longer
required to be taken out of service and
negates the need for refitting the entire ship,
reducing downtime and cost. Inevitably,
there will come a time when a ship or class
is required to be decommissioned, at which
time the modules can be reused by other
vessels. [2]
Theoretically, a module could be taken from
a vessel at the end of a long operation and
slotted straight into another vessel. However
it makes more sense, for the Navy, to rely on a
mature production line, whereby an outbound
vessel receives a module that is in the best
condition. The inbound, “exhausted”, module
would receive precautionary diagnostics and
undertake any necessary maintenance. Once
in an operable condition it would be stored in
a controlled environment, reducing the need
for any preventative maintenance, until it is
required by another vessel. This also provides
an opportunity for a land based common
user facility to maintain, store and load the
modules of the fleet. Although this approach
may benefit the Navy’s needs, it will innately
cost a government more to have spare units
lying dormant, therefore a robust supply
chain and management system would need
to be established in order to strike a balance
between a lean production line and the
availability of modules.
Vessel design is another area where costs
can be reduced. Modular weapons and
systems remove the need to be built into the
ship; therefore do not have to be factored
into the purchase cost of a new ship. In
2006, a proposed Danish 6,000-ton frigate
modular design was predicted to cost DKK
1.6 billion (GBP 188 million) per ship, while
similar non-modular European projects were
stated to cost between DKK 2.6 billion and
DKK 6.3 billion (GBP 305 million to GBP 740
million). This potential discount might scream
“no-brainer”; however other factors have to
be considered at the design phase. Two of
the main concerns are power and weight.
The weight of the modules and supporting
structure will naturally differ; therefore the
amount of power required by the ship will
be higher. The size of the ship will also need
to be larger in order to maintain stability and
to ensure adequate deck space when adding
and subtracting modules. [4] [5]
Stanflex VDS module: Image courtesy of David Manley
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
There is a danger of creating a multi-role ship
that “spreads itself too thin” when modularity
is taken to extremes. Overloading a vessel
with a multitude of responsibilities can have
an opposite effect on the intended result
of flexibility. A prime example would be the
crew, as modularity would require the ship’s
company to operate a number of different
systems, rather than specialising in one. This
leads to the requirement of more training,
which will increase the complementing cost
of a vessel. Compromising capability would
lead to the vessel becoming less efficient
than a dedicated ship in a particular role. It
is important to be certain of what is in the
scope of the vessel when defining its roles at
concept. [7]
What if the mission changes and the ship is
thousands of miles from home port? In theory
the modules could be air delivered or changed
at sea whilst on deployment; however this
potentially negates the aforementioned
cost savings to do so. The Danish currently
decide on the configuration of the modules
in the preparation phase of the operation
and will only reconfigure in the home port
after a deployment, which could last up to
12 months. However, this protocol might be
altered under extreme circumstances when
cost is not the primary consideration. [4]
Despite the drawbacks, the Royal Navy
recognises that modularity is the way
forward and is ensuring it is not left behind
by other navies, which is why it is developing
a Modularity Strategy with MARCAP. The
strategy looks to agree the direction to an
increased modularised capability, in order
to maximise the potential benefits for the
RN and wider UK defence. The Type 26
Global Combat Ship is an example of the
RN’s commitment to an increased flexibility
and capability as the design includes the
integrated MK41 Vertical Launching System
(VLS). The MK41 is able to launch anti-air,
anti-submarine, surface-to-surface, and strike-
length missiles, making it the most versatile
British warship in decades. [8]
A recent Dstl study suggested ten broad
categories in which mission modularity could
be applied; the Vertical Launch Missile Silo
was at the top of the list. The other categories
include: Deck and Compartment (Stanflex);
Deck Only (e.g. Phalanx, Small Calibre Guns);
Container (TEU); USV/UUV Launch and
Recovery System (boat, towed body on ISO
Skid); Large boat/USV/UUV (modular chocks
and lifting points, payload craft compatibility
with recovery sled); Flight Deck, hanger or
vehicle deck; small modules (e.g. Minicons);
Compartment, rack or component modules;
Personnel (austere accommodation or built in
accommodation margin). [9]
Stanflex has gained a good reputation within
the Western navies, but has not been adopted
outside Denmark. This is just one example
of how the current applications of mission
modularity tend to be nation specific, such as
the US Littoral Combat Ship which has been
designed with a number of surface warfare
and mine coountermeasures packages whcih
are class-specific. While this is satisfactory
from a national perspective, there is a clear
opportunity to increase interoperability
and cooperation between nations if a
standardised approach was employed. NATO
is interested in pursuing the possibility of
a modular system owned and operated
by one member nation to have a standard
interface to allow it to be deployed on the
warship of another. For example an RN mine
countermeasures team could be deployed on
a French OPV. [9]
To allow nations to buy into this model, a set
of international naval standards for Mission
Modularity needed to be investigated and
developed. Therefore, in order to achieve
this research, and to the demonstrate the
potential significance of this concept, NATO
established a Specialist Team on Mission
Modularity (ST/MM) which is supported by
a succession of NATO Industrial Advisory
Group (NIAG) teams. The short to medium
focus for the ST/MM has been based around
developing interface standards for mission
modules based on 20’ ISO containers, as
well as associated design guidance for
modules and ships. There have also been
considerations of wider aspects such as
logistics, maintenance and training. These
themes and more are explored further in the
2016 INEC paper on Mission Modularity by
Manley et al; it was used as a reference for
this article and has much more information on
the future potential of modularity. [9]
From the UK’s perspective, it is clear from the
government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy,
as well as the examples already identified in
this article, that mission modularity is going
to play a part in the future of the Royal Navy;
the extent of which is yet to be confirmed.
However, it could become significant if there
is a decision to pursue a MoD ‘Joint Concept
Note’ entitled “Future Black Swan-class
Sloop-of-war”. The note was published in
2012 and outlines the future maritime needs
and challenges of the Royal Navy.
Font: Comfortaa Bold Pantones: Warm Red C 640 C
Modular ship
Standard ship
Mission A
Mission B
Mission C
ABC
+
ABC
ABC
ABC
ModuleA
ModuleB
ModuleC
Mission flexibility of modular adaptability vs. robustness. [6]
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
The publication focused on the Royal Navy
theoretically returning to large numbers of
sloops, proposing a class of approximately
40 sloops-of-war, displacing 3,150 tonnes,
a length of 95m and a relatively low unit
price of £65 million. Crucially, these sloops
would incorporate a modular design which
would include a mission bay for UAVs, USVs,
and UUVs during mine countermeasures
and hydrography tasks; a large flight deck
capable of accommodating a Boeing CH-47
Chinook sized helicopter for disaster relief;
and external modular stowage for the ability
to add and remove various offensive and
defensive weapons when required. [10] [11]
Whether or not you think the idea of
standardising and modularising a vessel to
create a multi-disciplined fleet is the way
forward for the Royal Navy; it is incredibly
exciting to witness the conceptualisation
of a radical idea that could change the
way that NATO navies operate together in
the future. There is the potential for vast
cost savings by eliminating the design of
incorporated systems; reducing maintenance
time periods; and reusing modules after the
host ship is decommissioned. However, it is
clear that a balance needs to be struck. The
vision is still very much in its infancy and
the next challenge is to produce a set of
naval standards that will act as guidelines to
designing and operating the modules and
vessels to ensure a compliant interface for
as many NATO member nations as possible.
These standards will provide a robust
foundation for further development of this
emerging technology as NATO strives to
increase interoperability.
References
[1] Bohlman, M., 2001. ISO’s container standards are nothing but good news: containers standards help to remove technical barriers to trade. ISO Bulletin, pp.12-15.
[2] Richard Scott 1 Oct 1999 Versatility the key to Denmark’s evolving navy
[3] International Maritime Conference 2010: Maritime Industry – Challenges, Opportunities and Imperatives, 27-29 January 2010, Sydney, Australia
[4] Modular Warships, Janet Thorsteinson, Canadian Naval Review, Volume 8, Number 4 (Winter 2013)
[5] Lok, Joris Janssen (2006-06-01). “New Danish combat support ships offer greater flexibility for NATO operations”. Jane’s International Defense Review. 39 (6). ISSN 0020-6512.
[6] A module configuration and valuation model for operational flexibility in ship design using contract scenarios – M. Choi and S. O. Erikstad (2017)
[7] Scott, Flexing a snap-to-fit fleet
[8] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-type-26-frigate-could-be-the-most-capable-royal-navy-warship-in-decades-if-funded-properly/
[9] INEC Conference 2016 paper: Mission modularity and the adaptable fleet – a NATO perspective. David Manley MSc FRINA RCNC, Ministry of Defence, UK. R A Logtmeijer MSc Defence Materiel Organisaition, NL. Jennifer Lin MSc, Naval Sea Systems Command, US.
[10] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7737/CBP-7737.pdf
[11] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658163/20120503-JCN112_Black_Swan-U.pdf
Edward Blackwell
Ed moved to
Edinburgh last
September after
graduating
from Newcastle
University with
a Master’s
Degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is
currently coming to the end of his first year
in Babcock Rosyth’s Graduate Scheme.
During this time, in addition to the rigorous
placement schedule, Ed became a member of
FutureNEST (a sub-group of UKNEST) which
has broadened his outlook on industry as he
works towards chartership with the IMechE.
The Aut/Win 18 edition of TNE carried an
article titled ‘Gaming Technologies – Are
We on the Brink of a New Age of Human
Interaction with Naval Ships?’. The author,
Natalie Mitchell, would like to acknowledge
the authors of the original paper that gave
the context for her piece; The contributing
authors were:
N. Mitchella, A. Anandb, E. Grayc, C. Shewellc
and E. Trivyzac, UKNEST, United Kingdom
a. BAE Systems Submarines b. BAE Systems Naval Ships c. Babcock International
Stanflex 76mm Gun Module
Modular Hospital HDMS Absalon
Stanflex ESSM Module HDMS AbsalonStanflex deck HDMS Absalon
Imag
es c
ourt
esy
of D
avid
Man
ley
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
L EN
GIN
EER
ING
Photo: Winner of the Peregrine Trophy 2018 Engineering Excellence
Award (PO Phot Hoare MNT Portsmouth MW170020019).
For further information, see RNTM 09-007/19.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
By Lt Andy Vance MSc BEng(Hons) CEng MIET RN. Carrier Strike and Aviation Performance Manager
The Cost of Human Factors
“I can’t help you if you won’t help yourself” – Amy Winehouse
It’s not just about SafetyWe are always being told that safety
is the top priority in all we do… but is
it?? With an inherent risk in any type
of flying, especially flying in a military
environment, surely the safest thing to
do is to pack up and go home? Then all
the risks being held at all levels simply
go away. The fact is we tolerate risk to
deliver operational capability to defend
our shores, our allies, to protect sea-
goers from piracy, to prevent illegal
drugs trafficking etc. This is the top
priority and to be successful we need
serviceable aircraft. Yes, we should
ensure we are as safe as possible at
all times and that all risk is As Low as
Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and
tolerable, but without aircraft available
to use, Air Safety ceases to be an issue.
Post the Nimrod crash in 2006 and
subsequent Haddon-Cave investigation, Air
Safety has had even more focus, and rightly
so… but with this increase in focus, are
we failing to sufficiently focus on platform
availability? Are we guilty of focussing too
much such that we are taking our eye off
the ball with achieving aviation operational
capability? As a junior rate, is aircraft
availability and platform capability even
anywhere close to the radar? If I am being
honest, it probably wasn’t when I was in that
position years ago.
The ‘Top Down’ approach – Defence Reform
If things weren’t complicated enough, we
are now experiencing times of significant
severe financial constraint. 2010 and 2011
saw reviews of DE&S by the then Chief of
Defence Materiel, Sir Bernard Gray1 and
Lord Peter Levene2, respectively. These were
programmed to reform DE&S processes,
imposing increased rigour such that all
stakeholders were incentivised to ensure that
capability acquisition would come in on time
and at cost.
Gray stated that DE&S were to use open
procurement and buy ‘off the shelf’ whilst
also ‘up-skilling’ DE&S personnel to reduce
the risk of cost overrun. Holding DE&S and
Industry to account was also instigated.
Furthermore, Levene ensured that TLBs were
made accountable for their projects and
programmes using the Senior Responsible
Owner/Responsible Senior Officer construct
and that requirement setting was improved.
Available evidence suggests that these
changes have worked as far as possible,
streamlining capability acquisition and
bringing improvements overall.
The 2010 SDSR3 sought to bring efficiencies
to Defence. Thus, several capabilities were
retired. The SDSR 154 looked to backfill those
gaps. Due to timing, and the degradation
of the Sterling (at a 30-year low against the
dollar post-Brexit referendum), the MOD is
forced to consider full capability deletion
to balance the books. Current costs are
increasing by £700m per annum at present.
This suggests that despite the reforms and the
political and economic benefits delivered, the
Capability Acquisition Strategy (CAS) remains
unsuccessful.
The ‘Bottom Up’ solution?
With Defence reform struggling to keep
us afloat there is a necessity to solve the
problem from the ‘bottom up’, to drawing
on innovation where we can, looking for
efficiencies in our business and minimising
the amount of times we ‘shoot ourselves in
the foot’. This is paramount in enhancing
resilience in our Support and Personnel
Capability across the Fleet Air Arm. A perfect
example of these ‘foot shooting’ events is
Human Factors5 (HF) – repeatedly discussed
from an Air Safety perspective but not
analysed in terms of availability and resources
lost. Think about it – when a HF event occurs
there can be a loss in the following forms:
1 Ministry of Defence. The Defence Strategy for Acquisition Reform. Ministry of Defence, 2010. 2 Ministry of Defence. Defence Reform: an independent report into the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence. Ministry of Defence, 2011. 3 Ministry of Defence. The strategic defence and security review: securing Britain in an age of uncertainty. Ministry of Defence, 2010. 4 Ministry of Defence. The strategic defence and security review. Ministry of Defence, 2015. 5 The interaction between; people and people, people and machine, people and procedures and people and the environment. The understanding and application of physical, physiological and behavioural factors in the design, operation, maintenance and management of aerial systems to optimise safety, performance and capacity. It is multidisciplinary, and embraces individuals, teams and organizations.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
L EN
GIN
EER
ING
1. Cost to capability/output – what is
the reduction in the ability to meet the
Command Plan experienced with each
HF event? Any damage to components
will create a protracted period of
unserviceability, as the mythical hangar
of spares6 simply does not exist. With
current support contracts financially
constrained, any components damaged
by an HF event are out of scope for repair
so we need to find extra money which we
hadn’t planned to spend to recover those
assets.
2. Cost (in £s) – how much do HFs actually
cost us in financial terms and where could
that money be spent elsewhere to help
ourselves? Do 10 blade strikes on the
hangar door equate to losing funding
for 20 tool boxes or modular support
containers, or could it even be used to
fix a hangar to ensure our personnel are
getting the lived experience we want
them to and that they signed up for?
3. Cost in terms of personnel hours7
consumed – how many extra personnel
hours are consumed, due to HFs, on
the shop floor above and beyond
the aircraft’s prescribed maintenance
schedule? Would reducing our 10 blades
strikes enable more people get away
on sport, AT, training and leave? And
don’t forget the additional time burden
associated with the investigation (safety
and technical) required to resolve the
issue.
These costs will be felt at all levels across the
full hierarchy of the FAA for differing reasons
and varying, including personal, agendas.
It is noted that although HF training and
education across Navy Command already
exists, it is likely that these associated costs
are not fully understood and/or appreciated
at all levels.
RN DASORs 2016 – 2017250
200
150
50
0
HF Main
tain
er
HF Airc
rew
HF Main
tenan
ce
Organ
isatio
nal
HF Oth
er
Unsat E
quip
HAZOB
Natura
l Oper
atin
g Facto
rs
HF AO
HF ATC
/ABM
HF Gro
und Serv
ices
Hostile
Act
HF Ser
vicin
g
HF SE
100
Analysis
Of the 2,327 Defence Air Safety Occurrence Reports (DASOR)8 raised since Jan 2016 nearly
80+% are deemed to be due to HFs. On further investigation, nearly half are linked to
maintenance activities, or activities maintenance personal would be expected to complete i.e.
ground moves etc, with 27% tagged HF Aircrew.
Having identified the number of air safety events arising due to HF (which generously assumes
that ALL HF events are reported, via DASORs, to the Air Safety Information Management
System (ASIMS)), let’s look at a hypothetical subsequent chain of events post an HF occurrence,
using recent real-world evidence and examples…
Fig. 1: RN DASORs raised 2016-2017
6 A ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ end scene-style hangar filled with thousands of wooden crates, presumably all complete with shiny new spares. 7 The total number of hours that the equipment is manned by rectification personnel. 8 DASORs figures provided by RN Flight Safety Centre.
Solve the problem from the ‘bottom up’, drawing on innovation where we can
THE NAVAL ENGINEER22
Working through the diagram using recent real-world examples 9 10
Following the HF event, the aircraft will be
lost to Command impacting upon the Force’s
ability to meet its tasking. Some examples:
• In the third quarter of 2016, several
usable days were lost for CHF Merlin
ramp/tail boom damage due to incorrect
aircrew procedures.
• In the second quarter of 2016 – several
usable days were lost to an over-torqued
Merlin Main Rotor Gear Box (MRGB).
If a component is rendered unserviceable we
must either repair or replace, for example:
• Seven days for the dented aircraft due to
damage during maintenance, requiring
a REQCAT. Extra time taken for a Repair
Officer to get to the aircraft to inspect
and design a repair scheme.
• Several Merlin Main Rotor Head Hubs,
procurement replacement post physical
damage from incorrect maintenance.
• Merlin Tail Rotor Blades, repaired
following damage caused by incorrect
handling and incorrect maintenance
activity.
Once time and money has been spent,
the aircraft needs to be recovered in terms
of personnel hours. Looking at Wildcat
for January 2017 alone, we lost (list not
exhaustive):
• 13.5 hours rectifying an incorrectly fitted
wheel brake.
• 22.5 hours rectification post application
of a Rotor Brake at too high a rotational
speed.
• 22.5 hours expended on loose article
searches.
• 5.5 hours rectifying a plug not correctly
wire-locked.
• 2.5 hours rectifying incorrectly fitted wire
locking.
££
££Fig. 2: Additional activities caused by an HF event
HF Event
9 All costs used in these examples are provided by the Merlin Delivery Team. 10 All ‘personnel hours consumed’ figures are provided by GOLDesp data.
New component required...
Which cost money...
...and more Spanner turningto achieve serviceable
aircraft/flying
Investigation time including
Occurrence Safety Investigation...Which costs even
more time and money
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
L EN
GIN
EER
ING
These are all basic mistakes where the correct
procedures have not been followed11 for
various reasons. In addition to the impact
on availability and capability, it is worth
considering the impact to individual sailors.
To contextualise where these 66.5 personnel
hours could12 have been otherwise used (for
any of the following):
• 2 members of the watch could have
carried out a week of AT.
• 22 members of the watch could have
claimed their 3 hours per week PDev
(equates to 5 members 3 hrs weekly phys
for all 4 weeks of the month).
• Many other types of mandatory/
competence training, CPD courses,
other extra-curricular activities… And
that’s just one month of HF recovery
effort!!
Finally, many HF events will incur additional
time lost, personnel hours, admin burden for
subsequent investigations and Occurrence
Safety Investigations to learn from mistakes
minimise chances of a repeat occurrence. All
in all, everyone works harder AND we lose the
chance to do lots of the things we want to do.
Did you know?
The FAA has spent an extra £11 million on
Merlin alone in the last three years for specific
Human Factor events13.
Finally, the ‘So What’
The point of this article is not to provide a
‘telling off’ or to proffer a new ingenious
method of reducing HF events. No amount
of increased training or additional supervision
will completely stop them occurring. HFs are
a result of us not being perfect; we are not
robots, we have our flaws and we always will.
The point of this article is to raise awareness;
awareness of the cost to capability during a
time where we are being asked to ‘do twice
the job with half the kit’; awareness of cost
where there are other pressing uses for it;
awareness of time lost on the shop floor
during a time where I hear a lot of ‘we are
snowers’ and ‘cannot get away for AT’ or
even ‘our three hours of physical development
a week’ comments.
Having repeatedly heard the phrases ‘this isn’t
the Navy I joined’ and ‘you just don’t get the
perks you used to’, coupled with increasingly
limited resources to rectify the situation, we
really need to exercise some self-help. We
cannot change the financial climate, nor can
we simply ask foreign regimes, pirates, or
domestic and foreign enemies to stop what
they are doing. What we can do, however,
is do what we already do… but much more
efficiently. In raising awareness of the real
and sometimes forgotten costs of air safety
incidents and accidents (and individually
and collectively driving down circumstances
that cause them), we can look to a future
where we can have our cake and eat it – a
future where we can provide the required
output, in warm and dry hangars, with
the correct tooling, inside a secure fence,
whilst getting our PFS16 – mandated AT and
physical development – simply by reducing
the common and avoidable errors that we too
regularly do.
11 Work is ongoing with Navy Command’s Failure to Follow process programme to understand causes and attempt to reduce the number of occurrences. 12 It is conceded that the use of these personnel hours is not quite as binary as suggested in these calculations but it just highlights what ‘can’ be achieved if we reduce our HF incidents. 13 All monetary figures in this article are based on Net Book Value and do not consider any depreciation deduction. 14 Costs provided by Merlin Delivery Team. 15 Provided by Navy Command Finance. 16 1st Sea Lord’s Personnel Functional Standards.
Financial Year Total Cost (£s)14
16/17 1,240,000
15/16 4,328,000
14/15 5,502,000
Total 11,070,000
This could have paid for15
Culdrose Dummy Deck update, repair of 3 hangars, power issues rectification,
recovering perimeter fences up to standard, ATC radar control room repairs and 5 Wildcat Main Rotor Head Special
Type Containers
Lieutenant Andy Vance
Andy Vance joined the RN in 2002 as an
Artificer Apprentice. After serving with
848 NAS (Sea King Mk4), 702 NAS (Lynx
Mk3/8) and JARTS (including brief spells in
Basra, Iraq and Camp Bastion and Kandahar,
Afghanistan) he was successful at AIB in 2008
and selected on the Upper Yardman scheme.
After reading Mechanical Engineering and
Manufacture at Portsmouth University he
was commissioned at BRNC on completion
of Initial Officer Training, before carrying
out his Specialist Fleet Time in HMS Ocean
during OP Ellamy (see the winter 2011 edition
of the Naval Engineer). Post achieving AEOs
CofC in 2012 he was appointed to 829 NAS
as the DAEO during the Merlin Mk1/Mk2
transition, took a detachment to Ex Proud
Manta, Sicily and concurrently completed an
MSc in Engineering Management, again at
Portsmouth University. Achieving Chartered
Engineer status whilst in the Materials
and Monitoring section of 1710 NAS, he
wrote and presented papers for both Naval
Engineer (see the Spring 2015 edition of
the Naval Engineer) and the International
Naval Engineering Conference 2015. Having
completed Intermediate Command and Staff
Course (Maritime), he has resumed his role as
the CSAV AE Performance Manager at Navy
Command Headquarters.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER24
By Lt Cdr Francis Griffiths MEng CEng CIMarEng MIMarEST MNI RN, Engineering Support Operational Planning SO2
What Are The RN Fleet’s Miles Per Gallon Figures?
...Or Should That Be Gallons Per Mile?
If you were researching options to buy a
car, it is likely that a major consideration
would be running costs, including the
approximate cost of fuel through life.
You would be keen to understand the
typical ‘Miles Per Gallon (MPG)’ figures
and could assess how much fuel you
would be likely to consume – and how
much this would be likely to cost you.
You might monitor how much fuel the
car consumed and use this information
to budget for fuel costs in the future.
Running the RN and RFA’s surface ships is
no different in principle.
Fuel represents a major operational cost for
the RN, with an annual fuel bill in the tens
of millions; additionally, the RN Operational
Energy Management Target is a 10%
improvement in efficiency by 2025/26 against
the 2015/16 baseline1. There are therefore
both challenges and opportunities in
managing fuel usage and these will become
increasingly important when operating
Maritime Task Groups. The aim of this article
is to raise awareness of these challenges
and opportunities and explain the part that
sea-going RN and RFA Marine Engineers play
in the management of fuel consumption for
surface ships.
Forecasting Fuel Usage and Fuel Allocations
In order to manage the consumption of fuel
by surface ships, there is a requirement to
forecast the volume of fuel which will be
consumed by each unit on a monthly basis
and inform units. Predictions of fuel usage
also inform the RN’s Annual Budget Cycle
(ABC) planning for each FY. Forecasting of
fuel usage is achieved through use of the
‘Force Programming (FP)’ software on the
SECRET IT system ashore – this generates the
Long Term Operations Schedule and Fleet
Operations Schedule. FP is used to schedule
ships’ programmes through assigning ‘bricks’
of activity to units by date (an example is
shown in figure 1). Each activity will have
an associated fuel code which denotes the
anticipated fuel consumption rate for that
tasking for that class of ship. Blocks of activity
provide a high level overview of tasking and
are made up from 6 hour (¼ day) multiples.
Table 1 shows the main fuel codes used for
surface ship fuel consumption forecasting
– against each code, for each class of ship,
a rate (cubic metres (cz) fuel per ¼ day) will
be assigned. Using the fuel codes and a
unit’s programme, the FP software will then
calculate the anticipated monthly or annual
fuel usage by unit.
CODE TITLE EXAMPLE TASKING
Z Zero Alongside, shore power
A Auxiliary Alongside/at anchor, ship’s power
N Normal Maritime Security, some Operations, Survey
EX Exercise Operational Sea Training, Exercises, some Operations
U Under Consideration Programme detail under consideration
VARIOUS Other Codes
Used for specific classes, where required, for example:
– AT – Alongside (Tropical)
– NH – Normal (Hydrodynamic Improvements) – for
ships with unit specific fits which reduce drag)
Table 1: Fuel Code Summary
1 Navy Command Energy Efficiency Board response to DCDS MILCAPs Policy on enhancing energy efficiency (measured in volume of fuel consumed per tonne of ship per nautical mile).
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
L EN
GIN
EER
ING
25
Fuel usage forecasts are sent to all surface
ships in the weekly Fleet Operational
Schedule (FOS) amend signals; these provide
a monthly fuel allocation (in cz). This will be
based on the ships’ programmes in FP and
fuel usage rates associated with the units’
fuel codes. Noting that the programme will
be comprised of ¼ day units, monthly fuel
allocations provide an estimate only for high
level planning. On board, a ship’s Navigator
should receive the fuel allocations from the
FOS amend signal and plan usage against this
figure, monitoring actual usage (provided by
the ME department) to track usage against
allocation. If there is a significant change
to a ship’s tasking, FP will be updated, the
allocation reviewed and promulgated in the
next FOS amend signal. If it is identified by
Ship’s Staff that the unit is likely to exceed
the fuel allocation in the latest FOS Amend
signal, ‘Commanding Officers are required
to request, with suitable justification,
all fuel uplifts in excess of the monthly
platform fuel allocation to COMOPS’2. Fuel
uplift requests will be reviewed by Navy
Operations/Commitments staff and, so
long as appropriate justification is provided,
approved. Once approved, the uplift will be
added to that unit’s allocation for the month
and included in the figure shown in the next
FOS amend signal. There is, however, no
ability to ‘roll-over’ any unused fuel allocation
from one month to the next.
Tracking Fuel Usage
Monthly fuel usage is reported using the
Fuel and Lubricant Consumption (FLUBCON)
report3; these are required to be submitted on
the first working day of the month, reporting
data for the previous month. Monthly, data
from all FLUBCON reports is compiled,
alongside the latest fuel allocations (from
FOS amend signals, as detailed above), to
provide an overview of fuel consumption for
all RN and RFA surface ships. This information
is then briefed to DACOS Commitments (as
the ‘owner’ of the activity budget, which
includes fuel) in order to enable tracking
of fuel consumption against ABC forecast
and monthly allocations. Where units have
consumed fuel either over or significantly
under allocation (based on the last FOS
amend of the month), this is reviewed in
further detail; Figure 2 provides an example
showing how the brief is delivered. As the
fuel uplift system should have been used,
there should be no over usage of fuel against
the allocation.
Where trends of inaccurate allocation are
identified, further investigation is conducted
to understand the reason for this and, where
required, review fuel usage rates associated
with fuel codes.
It should be noted that there are a number of
other ‘users’ of FLUBCON data, including:
• Navy Finance to reconcile fuel usage and
invoices charged to NCHQ.
• Fuel Ops to record receipts for FLUBCON
data and match fuel usage to invoices
when received.
• Diesel and Gas Turbine Equipment Teams
to track engine data.
• DE&S Ship Hydrodynamics Team to
monitor hull fouling data.
Figure 1: Example LTOS/ FOS – Each coloured ‘brick’ has an associated fuel code, each row represents an individual unit’s programme
Figure 2: Example monthly review of actual fuel usage against allocations
Monthly Allocation/Actual Fuel Consumption Review
Ship 1 Ship 2 Ship 3 Ship 4 Ship 5 Ship 6
Unit
Fuel
(cz
)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1150
1200
508550
1300
900
589
800
008090
Allocation (FP)
Actual (FLUBCON)
Operational Energy Management Target is a 10% improvement in efficiency by 2025/26
2 BRd 9424(1) Feet Operating Orders (FLOOs) Para 0504.b. 3 RNTM 05-023/17 Surface Flotilla Electronic FLUBCON Report.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Fuel Consumption Rates
CB 2002, Navy Maritime Warfare Centre
Logistics, provides data for fuel consumption
rates for RN and RFA ships. This data is
currently being reviewed and updated using
the following sources:
• Design data; calculations for both ships
and improvements, for example T23
Hydrodynamic improvements4, T45 Power
Improvement Programme (PIP) and the
fitting of LED lighting.
• Feedback from individual units and
records based on experience from plant
operation.
• Trials data, including the use of data
gathered during the BAE Systems Sea
Cores trial in HMS Dragon5.
• Analysis of FLUBCON fuel consumption
data against allocations.
The intention is to provide the most accurate
data possible to ships and ensure that all
stakeholders are working from a single,
correct set of data which is regularly updated;
this will be of significant benefit in Maritime
Task Group Logistics planning.
What can you do to help?
To ensure fuel usage is accurately monitored
in order assist in improving the Fleet’s
efficiency and support effective operational
logistics planning, Marine Engineers in surface
ships can assist through the following:
• ‘The MEO is to ensure that the machinery
and systems in their charge are operated
to achieve maximum fuel economy. Fuel
usage is to be monitored and managed by
the NO with the assistance and oversight
of the MEO6’
• Ensure timely and accurate submission
of FLUBCON returns; where fuel usage
is over or under allocation, provide
comments in the FLUBCON which explain
the reasons for this. Further details are
provided in RNTM 05-023/17.
• Monitor hull fouling in accordance
with the Marine Engineering Manual7
and the current RNTM for hull fouling
management.
4 ‘Making the Duke less of a drag! The Type 23 hydrodynamics improvement programme’; J J Bailey, T Dinham-Peren, N Ireland, G, N Lidiard, C Pyke, Conference Proceedings of INEC 2016. 5 https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/new-software-could-transform-ship-maintenance. 6 BR 3000, Marine Engineering Manual, Para 0313.a. 7 BR 3000, Marine Engineering Manual, Para 0332 and RNTM 04-035/18.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
L EN
GIN
EER
ING
Improving Efficiency
Co-ordinated by the Marine Systems and
Naval Architecture Capability Planning
Working Group, several initiatives are being
investigated to further improve the efficiency
of RN and RFA surface ships. The gains in
efficiency can be significant; as an example,
the fitting of ‘transom flaps’ to T23 reduced
drag by 12%5. Recent work has included
hydrodynamic improvements to T23 and
the BAE Systems Sea Cores trial in HMS
Dragon. There are, however, some resource
and requirement challenges to the full
implementation of spend-to-save measures
across all surface ships.
International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 22 requires
vessels over 400 gross tonnage to have a
Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
(SEEMP). The SEEMP is intended to assist Ships
Staff and tasking authorities to understand
the actions that can be taken to reduce fuel
consumption, delivering both financial benefit
and reduced impact on the environment.
SEEMPs are currently in production for all
required vessels and will be rolled out across
the surface fleet early in 2019.
Programme Nelson has partnered with the
Maritime Warfare Centre Logistics pillar to
explore new ways to manage and report
fuel usage across the fleet. The team of
researchers, designers, developers and data
engineers is looking at the systems and data
sources that indicate fuel usage, as well as
prototyping new user interfaces that give
Group Logistics Commanders the information
they need in a clear and flexible way. Nelson
is delivering a service that supports planning,
enabling the Commander visibility of the
Recognised Theatre Logistics Picture. This will
lead to more informed decisions that could
drive fuel efficiencies and more sustainable
Maritime Task Groups.
Further recommendations for improvements
which would improve energy efficiency are
always welcome via the submission of S2022s,
S1182s or through the DARE Innovation route.
Conclusions
So, what are the RN Fleet’s MPG figures? The
answer to this question is that the figures are
SECRET and contained within CB 2002 (as cz/
nm or cz/ day) and this document is currently
undergoing a comprehensive update, using
data from a variety of sources. It is safe to say
though that, for the majority of classes, the
figures would be gallons per mile not MPG!
Accurate fuel consumption rates are central to
success in operational planning and used to
inform monthly fuel allocation figures based
on ships’ programmes. To meet the RN’s
efficiency target, there will be a requirement
to continue to improve understanding of
actual and predicted fuel consumption and
provide information to assist Ships’ Staff
in operating their platforms efficiently, in
order to maximise operational capability,
reduce unnecessary fuel costs and reduce
environmental impact.
Looking to the future, work by Programme
Nelson and other projects should enable the
exploitation of ‘big data’ to better manage
task group sustainability. This will also support
the tracking of efficiencies gained through
implementation of design improvements
and new equipment fits such as the Type 23
hydrodynamic improvements and PIP in Type
45. Meeting the RN’s efficiency target will
require an accurate understanding of actual
and predicted fuel consumption; this will
provide information to assist Ships’ Staff in
operating platforms efficiently to maximise
operational capability and reduce unnecessary
fuel costs and the RN’s impact on the
environment.
Lieutenant
Commander
Francis Griffiths
Lieutenant
Commander
Francis Griffiths is
a General Service
Marine Engineer
Officer; his career
has included assignments as DMEO in HMS
Portland, EO in HMS Enterprise and MEO in
HMS Dragon. He has also previously worked
on the staff at BRNC Dartmouth and within
the Operating Safety Group of Ships Division
at NCHQ. In his current role in Engineering
Support Division, he is embedded within
the Navy Commitments and Navy Force
Generation areas to provide engineering
advice in the scheduling of ships’ programmes
and force generation. In addition to this, his
role includes supporting Commitments in the
monitoring and management of surface ship
fuel usage.
Programme Nelson is currently working to explore new ways to manage and report fuel usage across the fleet
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
By Lt Cdr Nick Jones PhD MBCS, Cyber SO2, Information Warfare Division
Defensive Cyber as an Engineering Discipline
Cyberspace has become increasingly
pervasive, posing both threats and
opportunities from a national and
Defence context, as well as in everyday
life. Cyber security is therefore of
growing importance for both national
and personal security. In the first of
a series of three cyber articles, Lt Cdr
Nick Jones introduces some of the
underpinning concepts and orientates
cyber in a Naval context.
Despite its popularity there is no universally
accepted definition of the term cyber so its
meaning varies from one person to another.
It follows that the understanding of what
constitutes cyber defence is equally subjective
and open to interpretation depending on the
perspective, knowledge and experience of the
individual. Within Defence doctrine the term
cyber is defined as “to operate and project
power in and from cyberspace to influence
the behaviour of people or the course of
events”, with a slightly abridged definition of
cyberspace being “the operating environment
consisting of the interdependent network
of digital technology infrastructures and the
data therein spanning the physical, virtual and
cognitive domains.”
The Defence model of cyberspace has 6
interdependent layers: social, people, persona,
information, network and real. By contrast
the US DOD model has just 3 layers: physical,
logical and cyber-persona. A description of
the layers is given in figure 1.
There’s no need to remember the specific
differences between each layer of the
cyberspace model, but it is important to
appreciate that cyberspace is so much more
than just the physical and logical networks
and systems, the Internet, or in our case the
Defence Intranet.
Figure 1. The layers of cyberspace.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
L EN
GIN
EER
ING
It is not the purpose of this article to repeat
doctrine, so if you want to learn more
take a look at the documents listed in the
bibliography. Some of them are surprisingly
accessible, others less so.
We should expect our adversaries to exploit
and operate offensively in cyberspace
therefore contesting our freedom of
manoeuvre. Within Defence doctrine
defensive cyber operations are “active and
passive measures to preserve the ability to
use cyberspace”. Even this definition is still
subjective, but it is evident that our ability to
conduct defensive operations in cyberspace is
mission critical: we need agile capabilities that
can anticipate, deter, prevent, detect, assess,
protect, respond to and recover from attacks
against us.
The foundation for good cyber defence is
cyber hygiene, that is getting the basics
right. The UK National Cyber Security Centre
(NCSC), the public facing wing of GCHQ,
has published a guide “10 Steps to Cyber
Security” which is aimed at UK industry but
applies just as well to the Royal Navy. The
steps it identifies are shown in figure 2.
It should be self-evident that we must protect
our systems, networks and information, not
least because the threat to cyberspace has
been categorised as a tier 1 threat to National
Security. Indeed, we have been doing so
for years under the less-trendy terms of IT
security and Information Assurance. Except
for home and mobile working, the NCSC
steps to cyber security should look familiar
and should be being undertaken for all Royal
Navy platforms. Most of these functions are
the preserve of the system maintainers and
ITSO, although security risk management
is a core executive responsibility and user
education and awareness is typically achieved
through the annual security brief and the
Defence Information Management Passport.
To bring some focus and rigour to cyber
hygiene a RNTM titled Cyber Essentials: Level
One Cyber Protection for the Naval Service
was published in July 2017. This was the
mandate to establish and sustain a foundation
level of cyber protection for all platforms
and deployed units across the Naval Service.
It explains that cyber protection is to be
delivered by anyone with responsibilities for
CIS system management or administration
and goes on to list the requirements and
responsibilities, which are conspicuously
similar to the NCSC 10 steps.
The importance of cyber defence has been
recognised at the highest levels of Defence
and by the single Service Commands. The
current model is that ISS defend the enterprise
and the single Service Commands defend
their own networks, systems and data.
Cyber defence comprises six specific
functions, as shown in figure 3.
The five functions of identify, protect,
detect, respond and recover are taken from
the US National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework
which is widely used as an international
standard.
• Identify. Develop an organizational
understanding to manage cybersecurity
risk to systems, people, assets, data, and
capabilities.
• Protect. Develop and implement
appropriate safeguards to ensure delivery
of critical services.
• Detect. Develop and implement
appropriate activities to identify the
occurrence of a cybersecurity event.
• Respond. Develop and implement
appropriate activities to take action
following a detected cybersecurity
incident.
• Recover. Develop and implement
appropriate activities to maintain plans for
resilience and to restore any capabilities
or services that were impaired due to a
cybersecurity incident.
Figure 2. The NCSC 10 Steps to Cyber Security.
Figure 3. Op AUGITE Cyber Defence Functions.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
The overarching function of assure has
been added specifically by Defence.
In order to truly defend freedom of
manoeuvre in cyberspace we must defend
at all layers of cyberspace. Too often
cyber defence is considered exclusively
at the network layer and dismissed as an
administration function. Furthermore, it
is often only considered for traditional
enterprise information systems. Holistic cyber
defence must consider every layer of every
system, from the physical security of the
components through to the social identities of
all those who interact with the systems.
For the Royal Navy the scope of cyber defence
extends beyond traditional IT systems to
include systems such as weapons systems,
navigation systems, platform management
systems and aviation systems. Therefore, to
a greater or lesser extent, everyone with a
responsibility for operating or maintaining
such a system needs to be a cyber defender!
Historically the focus for cyber defence has
concentrated on the network and information
layers. Within the Royal Navy this is managed
from the Cyber Defence Operations Centre
(CDOC) which is effectively the Network and
Security Operations Centre for those systems
over which we have responsibility. As is
common across industry we are continually
developing and maturing our cyber defence
capability across all the functions detailed
above, being aware that we must not overly
focus on one function to the detriment
of others.
The Royal Navy cyber defence capabilities
are aligned with the wider Defence cyber
programme, specifically we are using common
tools and systems. The deployed cyber
defence system which we are generating
for use on our platforms is a variant of the
capability which protects the fixed Defence
enterprise, so provides consistency of tooling,
training, procedures, and so on. The deployed
capability collects and fuses cyber data and
information from multiple sources, ranging
from raw network traffic capture through to
cyber threat intelligence, to provide platform
cyber situational awareness. The main effort
is currently directed at generating platform
cyber defence capability for those units
deploying with Carrier Strike Group 21,
although our intent is to provide a scalable
cyber defence capability for all RN platforms.
The development of afloat network
monitoring solutions means that current
cyber defence capability development within
the Royal Navy is resoundingly engineering
focussed. However, this is but one line of
development in the delivery of a cyber
defence capability and can be considered as
an enabler of future operational resilience.
At the same time the Royal Navy is making
organisational, doctrinal, personnel and
training changes which will enable us to
exploit the wider defence enterprise approach
to cybersecurity. The contribution of other
Royal Navy organisations engaged in the
wider cyber defence enterprise should not be
overlooked.
In order to truly defend our use of cyberspace
we must consider the totality of the domain.
I hope I have argued that this is much more
than just the networks and systems. Defence
of the network is unquestionably the remit of
the WE and CIS department so cyber defence
in its current state can indeed be considered
an engineering discipline. However, the
Royal Navy can only grow its cyber defence
capability, and be prepared to face ever
evolving cyber threats, by broadening cyber
defence into a whole-ship activity. Cyber is
inextricably linked to delivery of the Future
Force Concept, and as such demands
command focus at the strategic, operational
and tactical level. Cyber defence must
inherently have an operational focus.
Lieutenant
Commander
Nick Jones
Lt Cdr Nick Jones
left industry to join
the RN in 2005
as an Engineering
(Information
Systems) officer. This
branch was later merged with the Weapons
Engineering leaving him as a legacy WE(IS).
His career has varied from the ‘proper’ WE
path and instead he has done CIS-centric
posts: DCCIS, JFCIS(ME), MBS N6, PJHQ J6,
MCSU Systems Support and he is now the
cyber desk officer within Navy Information
Warfare Division.
Bibliography
Cyber Primer (2nd Edition), 2016, DCDC.
Joint Doctrine Publication 0-50, UK Cyber Doctrine, DCDC.
US Joint Publication 3-12, Cyberspace Operations, 2018, DOD.
10 Steps to Cyber Security, 2018, NCSC.
RNTM 03-037/17 Cyber Essentials: Level One Cyber Protection for the Naval Service, 19 Jul 2017.
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity v1.1, 2018, NIST.
CDS Operational Directive 29/13 (Op AUGITE), 10 Dec 2013. MOD.
In the next Edition: Lt Cdr Trevor Bradley, Cyber Vulnerability
Investigations – Beyond Ones and Noughts
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
4,500,00 people reached across al RN owned SM
channels (Facebook, Twitter & Instagram) and
over 400 SM posts
71,000 people saw our INWED18 videos highlighting the opportunities that are
available to young women
1,000,000 people reached with separate stories of engineers
personal achievements over the course of the campaign
594,000 people who were reached
with our RN STEM outreach content alone
175,000
views of INWED 18 and related content in support of young female engineers
RN marks International Women’s Day with one of many STEM events
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
136,000 total reach for the
Royal Naval Engineering Challenge at HMS Sultan
249,000 people reach with the
media coverage of the RN attendance at the Big Bang
Fairs across the country
1,200,000 people reached through Navy News readership and dedicated YoE articles and feature page each month
280 events across the country
7,000,000 estimated audience reach throughout campaign based
on content shared/created across non RN media channels
266,000 number of people who saw the success of the Royal Navy hosted Sea
Cadet Corps Engineering Summer Camp at HMS Sultan
4,500,000 audience reached through RN social Media channels alone
49,000 people saw that Naval
Engineering isn’t confined to grey ships or
just engines.
Naval engineers launch the nationwide schools competition at Westminster
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
By Cdr Neil Benstead BEng (Hons) MSc MA CEng CMaeEng MCGI FIMarEST RN, Chief of Staff Future Support & Engineering Division
The Year of Engineering – Delivered
The Year of Engineering 2018 (YOE18)
concluded officially on 31 Dec 18 and this
article aims to provide a round-up of the
contribution made by Royal Navy.
The most obvious way to report on the
success of the campaign is to highlight
the numbers of people who attended RN
stands at various events and who may have
directly interacted with members of the
RN, particularly STEM Ambassadors who
assisted at specific events. Such a report
would, however, only give part of the overall
picture; a more precise (and modern) way
to assess how many people were contacted
or influenced can be achieved by including
analysis of the media aspects of the
campaign. This was therefore completed
by the RN Media Comms and Engagement
(RNMCE) team who made a significant
contribution to the campaign, working across
the service and with partners across all areas
of industry. The aim of this article is not to
list every contributor and thank them, but
to highlight the success of the RN’s YOE18
campaign, noting where the significant
campaign goals were achieved and where
improvements could have been made, while
also highlighting our future role in the
‘Era of Engineering’.
To provide some background, the UK
continues to suffer from a significant shortage
of engineers and technicians and research
shows that many gatekeepers (parents/
teachers etc) do not fully understand what
engineers do. There is also a significant
gender imbalance in the sector – while
women comprised 47% of the overall
workforce in 2016 they only made up 12%
of those in engineering roles, and 30% of
girls, when surveyed, said ‘No’ when asked if
they thought they could become an engineer.
Something therefore needs to be done
address the gender imbalance. Recognising
the problems faced, the pan-Government
campaign, led by the Department for
Transport (DfT), sought to raise the profile of
engineers in society, especially highlighting
the role that engineering plays in our everyday
lives. The UK has a proud engineering
heritage and the sector contributed 25% of
the total UK GDP in 2015 (£420.5bn).
As the old perception that engineers always
work in dirty conditions in boots and a hard
hat persists the Government’s challenge
was to demonstrate to young people and
gatekeepers that while there were some
roles that these ideas applied to, there are
thousands of roles in engineering that are
available and open to all, whatever their
background.
There were over 2,000 industry partners to
the pan-Government campaign
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
The campaign was led by Stephen Metcalfe
MP, who as the Government’s YOE18 Envoy
worked to demonstrate the Government’s
involvement and commitment, with input at
a Ministerial level from Nusrat Ghani MP too.
There were over 2,000 industry partners to
the pan-Government campaign and as a large
employer of engineers and technicians the
RN was identified as a key strategic partner in
the campaign; our involvement was therefore
a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to
promote engineering and make a significant
difference nationally. Rather than watch it
happen around us, the RN took an active
part in promoting the variety and creativity
of engineering and generating an interest in
STEM subjects amongst young people and
their ‘gatekeepers’. The efforts of everyone
involved in the RN’s own campaign meant
that the RN was recognised for setting best
practice in many areas. Whilst the goal was
not to boost recruiting, there was clear
cross over, and so Captain Naval Recruiting
(CNR) teams were also involved in aspects
of the campaign, particularly as many
schools careers advisors may not even have
been aware of the breadth of opportunities
available.
The YOE18 campaign therefore celebrated
and promoted the world and wonder
of engineering, challenging ideas and
perceptions, and inspiring the next generation
of innovators, inventors and problem solvers
by showing them what engineers actually
do. The campaign was also part of the
Government’s industrial strategy to ensure
that engineering industry is boosted across
the UK, ensuring everyone has the skills
needed to thrive in a modern economy. The
Royal Navy was therefore perfectly placed
as a key partner in the national campaign,
highlighting the roles and responsibilities that
engineers have and demonstrating the ‘cradle
to grave’ benefits to individuals through social
mobility. The RN is unusual in that it has a
nationwide footprint, recruits from across
the country, and is recognised nationally as
an outstanding provider of apprenticeships
and training. The RN campaign was therefore
tasked to engage heavily with young
people through STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Maths) Outreach events and
open days. The RN’s YOE18 campaign sought
to reaffirm engineers as the ‘beating heart’ of
operational capability and demonstrated how
engineering is fundamental to the design,
build, generation and sustainment of ships,
submarines, vehicles and aircraft globally on
operations.
The RN’s YOE18 campaign was led by Capt
Matt Bolton RN, DACOS ES, supported by
Cdr Neil Benstead RN, YOE18 SO1 (now
COS FS&E) and was coordinated by a
YOE18 Working Group (co-chaired by Capt
David Joyce RN, UTC TL, now DACOS BM).
Effective delivery of the campaign relied upon
proactive STEM Ambassadors and YOE18
Champions at all Naval Bases, Establishments
and Air Stations (including the RN presence at
RAF Cosford and RAF Marham), tied together
with RNMCE and CNR support. The Working
Group met regularly and established the RN’s
extensive YOE18 Calendar of Events, which
oversaw the delivery of over 280 events and
activities nationwide, enabled by RN YOE18
branded banners and materials which were
shared amongst the various outstations.
...our involvement was therefore a
“Once in a generation” opportunity to promote engineering
IET Young Woman Engineer of the Year Awards, December 2018
Presentation of the Sir Donald Gosling Award with VAdm Sir Robert Hil at the International Naval Engineer Conference 2018
Capt Matt Bolton with VAdm Sir Alan Massey, CEO MCA, signing the MoU.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
The 280 events hosted or attended by
the RN in various formats included STEM
Outreach events, school and/or college visits,
talks, presentations, fairs and engineering
challenges. Although it’s impossible to list all
the events that were held, some of the key
ones are outlined below:
• In April 18 the flagship event for the Royal
Navy YOE18 campaign was launched;
the RN-UKNEST Naval Engineering
Competition challenged schoolchildren
aged 5-18 to design vessel that was
capable of rescuing 1000 people from the
sea. The Royal Navy is actively engaged
in such tasks daily and the competition
encouraged schoolchildren to think
of a solution to a real-world problem.
With entries from over 200 schools,
around 1200 schoolchildren took part
in the competition until 1 Dec 18, when
entries were judged by a panel from the
RN and UKNEST. The quality of work
demonstrated that significant effort was
put into creating the entries and the
winners were fully deserving of Apple
iPads for their entries, which were kindly
donated by UKNEST. The prizes (three per
each age group) were presented at the
winning schools/cadet units in early 2019.
• To coincide with Information Warrior
18 the Royal Navy partnered with
QinetiQ and developed a cyber puzzle,
highlighting the role that cyber is
expected to play in the future. The
competition was set so that entrants
had to solve several stages of a puzzle,
drawing information from a variety of
sources, and then solve a final stage.
The competition had 507 entries,
exceeding the target number of entries
and reached over 200,000 people on
social media. A Sea Cadet Engineering
Summer Camp was held in HMS Sultan in
July 18 where 24 cadets from around the
country completed a range of activities,
including leadership tasks, sport, and
lectures in engineering and naval
architecture. Their week included a visit
to the ship testing tanks at Qinetiq Haslar
and engineering focused ship visits to a
T23 and a T45 in Portsmouth, reinforcing
what they had learnt in the classroom.
Their week finished with a small parade
to mark their achievements. Despite there
being only 24 cadets at the camp their
achievements were seen by over 266,000
people through social media.
• The Human Powered Submarine Race is
a series of annual competitions entered
by teams from across the world. Whilst
not a specific YOE18 event it was used
as a STEM event to spark an interest in
young people from across the region
and involved us supporting and working
closely colleagues from IMarEST.
• The RN STEM Outreach team attended
a series of Big Bang events across the
country. The Birmingham Big Bang Fair
in April 18 was by far the biggest RN
stand at any such event; with 88,000
people attending it was a fantastic way to
demonstrate the role of the RN and the
engineering careers available. It was also
the largest ever UK MOD STEM stand.
Coverage of such events reached 249,000
through the RN channels alone; reach
amongst non-RN channels would have
been significant, however is not counted
as a part of this campaign.
RN STEM event at NEC
RN-UKNEST Naval Engineering Competition – Pupils from Overmonnow Primary with their winning entry HMS OPS BARC
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
• There were also numerous regional STEM
events, for example the Solent Festival
of Engineering in October 2018 was
organised by the MP for Fareham (Suella
Braverman MP) and attended by over
700 children from the region. The RN had
a significant presence there and reached
thousands of people through social media
(approx. 100,000).
• The RN was also involved in mentoring
teams in the national final of the Race
For The Line. Regional heats were held
at RN establishments across the country
and the final was held at RAF Wittering,
where it was pleasing to see that the
final was won by a school which had
been mentored by Royal Navy engineers.
Through this series of events over
79,000 schoolchildren were engaged by
STEM Ambassadors. It was pleasing to
see that the overall winners in June 19
were mentored by a team of RN STEM
Ambassadors.
All of the events hosted by the RN had one
common theme. The volunteer RN STEM
Ambassadors all chose to give up their time
to explain to young people about what they
do as an engineer – and the results speak
for themselves. Estimates indicate that up
to 350,000 students and schoolchildren
had face-to-face interactions with RN STEM
Ambassadors, a significant achievement when
considering that one of DfT’s main objectives
was to achieve 1 million face-to-face STEM
interactions during the campaign. This was a
particular area of success for the RN YOE18
campaign, especially as the number of RN
STEM Ambassadors rose from 70 in Dec 17
to 280 in Dec 18, demonstrating the RN’s
commitment to the individual and society
as a whole by taking individual stories and
personal accounts out to the community.
The increase in numbers is not a direct
result of the YOE18 campaign, but more a
combination of factors which have helped
highlight the benefits of registration. Every
naval engineer has a wealth of knowledge
and experience to share with a young
audience, demonstrating that there is a
career open for them.
Much effort has been expended in recent
years in developing the STEM Ambassador
scheme. Steps are in place to formalise the
qualification as a competency in JPA and most
Officer, SR and JR courses at HMS Sultan
and HMS Collingwood now include a STEM
Ambassador Introduction Lecture. If you are
interested in becoming a STEM Ambassador
you can go to www.stem.org.uk or read
RNTM 07-059/18 for further guidance.
It’s worth noting that becoming a STEM
Ambassador is not only for engineers, it is
also open to other professions, including
medical branch officers and ratings,
hydrographers and meteorologists, Navigators
and senior Warfare Officers, Pilots and
Observers, Survival Equipment Specialists,
Physical Training Instructors, Chefs and
Caterers, MoD medics and pharmacists, MoD
mathematicians, computer scientists and
information analysts. The majority of STEM
Ambassadors are serving members of the
Royal Navy who see the benefits to be gained
in the promotion of STEM careers, and it’s
fully supported by the service.
STEM Ambassadors report that they find
volunteering in this manner to be very
rewarding, and in many cases report that
it helps build confidence in their role when
back at work. Many STEM Ambassadors
like to return to their hometowns to ‘give
something back’ to their old school or
community, where activities can range from
speaking about experiences (in engineering
or disaster relief activities, for example) to
assisting at careers fairs or supporting science
or practical experiments in class. The social
media awareness of many STEM Ambassadors
really took the YOE18 campaign to the public,
representing the face of the RN, and making
a career in engineering an achievable goal for
the thousands of people they met.
Alongside all the activities that were run
externally, there was also parallel activity
within the RN to assist in repositioning
engineers. At CNEO’s Conference in May
18 the repayment of Professional Body Fees
through JPA (see RNTM 07-039/18) was
announced and the history of the Engineering
Branch of the Royal Navy was published, as
well as the promotion of the 181st Birthday
of the Engineering Branch on 19 July 18.
The Rewards and Recognition available to all
engineers and technicians in the Engineering
Branch (see RNTM 09-006/19) were also
revitalised, and several new awards have been
established, including the new ‘Institution
of Engineering and Technology (IET) Armed
Forces Apprentice and Technician of the
Year Awards 2018’ (see RNTM 09-009/19),
the Royal Navy Effectiveness Trophies, RNTM
09-001/19, the Admiral Wildish Award, and
the IMarEST’s Operational Engineering Award
for Engineering Technicians, a new category
in an established set of awards.
Interested in becoming a STEM Ambassador? You can go to www.stem.org.uk or read RNTM 07-059/18 for
further guidance
RN STEM evet at NEC
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
As highlighted above, the campaign
maintained momentum and built an ever
increasing digital footprint through a
comprehensive media and communications
plan, which was ready at the very start
of the campaign. From the launch of the
campaign in December 2017 a continuous
media presence across the internet and
social/print media was established, including
a monthly full-page spread in Navy News.
The media campaign achieved considerable
penetration and built awareness, with positive
sentiment displayed right across social
media, and included articles in periodicals
and newspapers. Analysis of the media
penetration demonstrates the success of the
campaign across all media channels, with the
highlights being that over 7 million people
were reached across the RN YOE18 campaign
based on content shared/created across
non-RN media channels, and of these over
4.5 million were reached through RN social
media channels alone, 1.3 million through
non-RN channels and 1.2 million people
reached through Navy News , as well as
87 internal intranet stories and 47 external
stories on the RN website. The RN also
featured in the IET’s annual online current
affairs style programme showing the RN as a
modern engineering employer and provider of
apprenticeships. Further details can be
seen in the centre pages of this journal.
It’s also worth noting that the above figures
do not include content for which the RN was
not able to manage directly. Information
regarding external quoting of the RN YOE18
campaign does not appear either, and
significantly, despite promotion of the three
official hashtags (#yoe, #takeacloserlook
and #inspireanengineer) a number of posts
from RN units did not actually include
these hashtags. Where possible they were
corrected, however there was a significant
amount of content that didn’t refer to the
campaign at all!
In addition to our own campaign, the
Royal Navy was involved with several other
organisations. The RN was a key sponsor
of International Women in Engineering
Day (#INWED18), hosting an event for over
300 people in HMS Bulwalk and also made
nominations for the Women in Engineering
Awards, as well as providing nominations for
events such as the Young Woman Engineer
of the Year Awards at the IET in London,
and also hosting the Team Portsmouth
Engineering Awards dinner at HMS Nelson,
celebrating the range of engineering activities
that take place there. Relations with external
organisations such as WES and WISE were
also developed, in order to share ideas across
a range of engineering industry sectors and
the RN’s key STEM partners worked well
together to deliver a coherent message to
meet the campaign objectives.
The range and diverse nature of positive news
stories from deployed units, waterfronts,
establishments and URNUs added significant
colour and personal interest, and to harness
the benefits of a having a focal point for
engineers a digital footprint was established.
A YOE18 Intranet site and Defence Gateway
page were created, with the intranet site
gaining an increasing number of visitors
until Aug 18, when issues with the transfer
to DefNet (across MODNet) stymied further
growth. There was also a Defence Gateway
site, although the content of these sites will
transfer to the ‘Engineers’ Portal’, which, it
is hoped, will become the focal point for all
engineering related information.
The YOE18 campaign clearly relied heavily
upon the involvement of the RN’s engineering
cadre, raising the profile of engineering to
external audiences, who often don’t see what
we do as being ‘engineering’, so the more
that we can promote our own stories the
more people will witness how engineers form
the ‘beating heart’ of operational capability.
Over 7 million people were reached across
the RN YOE18 campaign based on
content shared/created across non-RN media channel
RN STEM event HMS Bulwalk
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
Commander Neil Benstead
Commander Neil Benstead is a General
Service Marine Engineering Officer. His early
career included serving in Type 42s, as well
as assignments to HMS Sultan, UCL and a
period in MOD Abbeywood. After three years
as the MEO of HMS Iron Duke he worked in
Engineering Operations as the Senior Staff
Officer Ships Systems Readiness in Halifax,
Canada, before becoming MEO of HMS
Dauntless in 2011. This was followed by
Staff Training at the Joint Services Command
and Staff College, then an assignment to
COMUKMARFOR, followed by an Op Tour
in Bahrain. After a period at West Battery,
in Nov 17 he took over management of the
Royal Navy’s very successful contribution
to the Government’s national Year of
Engineering 2018 campaign, which sought
to reposition engineers in society and show
that engineers are the ‘beating heart of
operational capability’, and which is set to
become the ‘Era of Engineering’. Since Jan 19
he has worked as the COS at Future Support
and Engineering in NCHQ.
It has been shown how the RN made a
significant contribution to all Government
and Defence campaign objectives and
strengthened relationships with numerous
engineering stakeholders, including
Professional Engineering Institutions, the
MoD’s strategic STEM partners, the Royal
Academy of Engineering, WES, WISE and
across industry through support and
co-operation in various activities and
initiatives. Now that the YOE18 has come to
an end however, we simply cannot stop all
our activities. In addition to the competitions
listed above, the campaign is setting the
conditions for an ‘Era of Engineering’, for
which we are well prepared, having set the
standard for management of the campaign
and being highlighted across Defence as
‘best practice’. The RN has contributed to
the proposed aims and objectives for the
‘Era of Engineering’ which are being worked
into the national governance framework.
The nomination of a Ministerial level
‘Government Champion for Engineering
Skills’ and the formal launch of the ‘Era of
Engineering’ is awaited, and the RN is ready.
Through the YOE18 campaign of events and
competitions, and by raising gatekeepers’
awareness of the range of possibilities
available to engineers, we have helped
thousands of young people benefit from
a career in engineering in future years and
improved the view that many in society have
of engineering.
The foundations are there for us to now build
upon, especially as the young audience is
aware of the range of engineering disciplines
available, across industry and the RN. We have
planted the idea of a career in engineering in
thousands of young minds, it is now up to us
to demonstrate how that idea can become
a reality; using creativity and imagination to
solve real problems…one of the key roles of
an engineer!
… the Legacy must continue,
brace yourselves for the
Era of Engineering!
IET Young Woman Engineer of the Year Awards, December 2018
See: TNE Autumn/Winter
2018, Vol 06, Ed. No. 1 Delivering the Year of
Engineering
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
By Lt Aaron Marshall BEng (Hons) RN, AWEO(SWS) – 1 HMS Victorious
#Innovation @HMS Collingwood
Each intake of Weapon Engineer Officers
starting System Engineer & Management
Course (SEMC) undertake a project
module. Spurred by the latest MoD drive
for Innovation, Lt Marin-Ortega, one of
three Principles Instructors responsible
for their learning, has evolved this
project from a (sometimes tedious)
research paper to an innovation hub,
eager to solve issues from within HMS
Collingwood to in our Ships. The primary
lesson is taken from Silicon Valley; the
idea of rapid prototyping and “moon-
shooting” – investigating ideas that could
radically change how we operate (but
don’t get discouraged when they don’t,
which is often!)
Supported by DARE, Lt Marin-Ortega is an
innovation ambassador and believes that
this module is the best way to instil its core
tenants of fully “thinking outside the box” by
utilising the varied experience, expertise and
skillsets which the modern Upper Yardman
and direct grad can bring when they are
unleashed upon a task. “The most novel
and unexpected solutions come from when
differing backgrounds and experiences are
brought together. Much like
on a Ship these future
DWEOs, TWEOs, CISEs and SMOs may need to
call upon those skills from his or her team and
join the dots in a systems approach”.
The following article describes one such
project submission over 13 weeks and
what can be achieved by a small team.
The team consisting of Lt Aaron Marshall,
Lt Rachel Ormston, Lt Daniel Kenyon,
Lt Rajdeep Mehon, SLt Andy Rose and
SLt Harry Wagstaff, working together with
other considerable commitments. The issue
is not uncommon and can be juxtaposed
with many other similar issues for which the
solution could easily be adapted for.
The Problem:
Armoury equipment, including swords,
belts, rifles and bayonets, are regularly used
for Divisions and other ceremonial events.
Consequently, there is a requirement to
track the movement of such equipment to
ensure items are accounted for and who
has taken ownership. The Officer of the Day
(OOD) is currently required to muster the
armoury equipment every Wednesday. This
activity takes a considerable amount of
time detracting from more critical issues.
The process is
laborious, error prone and, because of the
current log book approach, is difficult to audit.
Therefore, there is an engineering opportunity
to modernise and automate the current
armoury accounting system that can be
intuitive, real-time, accurate and auditable.
HMS Collingwood is the centre for Ceremonial
Training within the Royal Navy. Consequently,
the Armoury contains many items used
by Ratings and Officers for such activities.
Furthermore, due to weekly Training Divisions
and termly VIP Divisions; Ceremonial Staff
training courses and a commitment to meeting
the highest standards of Ceremony as set by
the Establishment Command, the Armoury
is under constant pressure to ensure the
availability of all items and, when requested,
provide assurances to Command of the
condition and readiness of such equipment.
The current system employs a logbook system
under the supervision of the Armoury Leading
Rate with the OOD completing weekly musters
of the Armoury for oversight.
With the current system, it was noted that
responsibility for all Armoury items is
assigned to one person, the OOD,
during their duty, conducting a
muster once per week. This
is followed by a thorough
monthly executive
muster. Consequently,
when the Armoury
Leading Rate was
unavailable due to
other commitments and
duties, few items could
be accurately checked
out or back in. Other
personnel were also
unacquainted with the
records in the logbook,
meaning that auditing
and reporting was
problematic. Another
issue arose from
Ratings and Officers
(particularly senior
Officers) not signing
for equipment correctly
and returning items late.
The consequence would
Team
“SA
BRE”
L-R
Mid
Ros
e SL
t Meh
on, S
Lt K
enya
n Sl
t Wag
staf
f, Bo
ttom
SLT
Orm
ston
, SLt
Mar
shal
l
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
lead to a reduction in numbers (most notably
swords) over a prolonged period. Considering
these issues, after consultation with the
Armoury staff and the customer, the following
requirements were identified by research
highlighted below.
The Research:
The research for the Project was
predominantly centred on the development
of a platform that would suitable, safely
and seamlessly work within the Armoury
environment. Based on available consumables
and equipment the three main platforms to
evaluate were: QR coding, radio-frequency
identification and near field communication.
The square code is distinct and easily visible on
any surface. As a result, people do not have to
be notified of a QR code. However, the same
is not true for RFID. People must be notified
that a device is RFID capable or contains a
transmitting RFID chip. This is the main reason
why QR codes are preferred over RFIDs.
One of the things that make a real difference
is the kind of equipment required by the end
user to decode information. For RFID, this
usually involves expensive scanning equipment
that is designed to do one job only – scan
and decode RFID tags. Comparatively, all one
needs to scan a QR code is a smartphone.
All smartphones can be equipped with a
variety of QR code reading and generating
apps, irrespective of which operating system
they use. This makes QR codes a lot more
accessible.
The truth about RFID is that you need a
database for the technology to be effective.
Without a proper database, there is nothing
for RFID scanners to decode, even if they
have detected a RFID transmitting chip. A
custom QR code does not need access to any
database to decode and provide the user with
relevant information. NFC offers faster, easier,
more secure transactions and options, yet
QR codes currently have greater access since
more phones can read them than those that
can read NFC tags. As NFC becomes more
popular, however, it narrows the gap between
itself and QR codes. The major advantage of
NFC is its flexibility.
With NFC technology, the
user waves the phone near
the NFC tag area and the
information is transferred
instantly. No need to open an
app or wait for analysis. The
tag and reader communicate
with each other to complete
complex transactions quickly
and securely.
Raspberry Pi has the advantage over the other
options available including microprocessors
and Arduino, due to the access to the high-
level programming language Python and that
the equipment utilised for the initial design
was specifically designed to work with the
Raspberry Pi. The Project Team is also at an
advantage using the Raspberry Pi due to
extensive prior experience using this platform.
The Arduino micro-computer utilises its own
brand language, of which the Project Team
has limited experience and the microcontroller
uses binary language and would require the
hardware to be constructed to support the
design.
The Software:
Raspberry Pi (Raspbian Stretch with
desktop image). The biggest factor in
choosing this operating software, is that a
Raspberry Pi with the native coding software
being python incorporates many libraries
and versions. This allows quick coding with
advanced features ready to go, that allows
facilitates prototyping but with a robust
flow system.
Qt (User interface). The user interface was
created using Qt GUI Designer V4.6.2 this
is a graphical and code-based designer for
GUI screens shown in Figure 1. This program
allows rapid prototyping of display screens
to get basic features working, but it does
allow extensive and
in-depth work to be
conducted to provide
a comprehensive
and fully interactive
experience. Each file is
coded in C++ and each
screen is given a UI file.
PyQT (Python Qt). Qt has a python C++
converter PyQT installed as a library for its UI
files that allows the GUI to be created under
python coding. Other features include:
a. Actual rendering of the display files with
interactions and images.
b. Internal process triggering allowing
seamless background transitions and
controls.
2MFRC522 (NFC). This library includes the
hardware bus decoding and interpretation of
the software into the NFC reader, without this
the project would not work and is delivered
straight from the manufacturer. To ensure it
met the right specification requirements of this
project; some modifications were made.
Squid (LED). This is the software interface to
the hardware LED and comes direct from the
manufacturer. This enables external triggering;
a modification was added that allowed this
function.
Sqlite3 (Database). This open source
database library and software is run with
inside the SABRE program and maintains all
the registry entries with the relevant data. The
biggest advantage of using this database is
that it is open source and well supported. It
is secured following correct procedures. The
database can be opened on any platform
meaning it can be transported off and opened
if an incident or system corruption was
to occur. This means
all data is secured by
several means.
GUI POWER HDD
NFC RASPBERRY Pi INTERNET
Block Diagram
Figure 1: Software Graphical Design
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Hardware:
Raspberry Pi 3B. The Pi was chosen as a
flexible platform to program on to, normally
priced £30 to £40. The Raspberry Pi has huge
capability in terms of programming, hardware
expansion and optional extras.
Pi LCD Screen. Connecting to the Pi
Computer is the Raspberry Pi Official LCD
touch screen to display the GUI for the
project. Costing £60-£70, it has a viewable
screen size of 155mm x 86mm, a Screen
Resolution of 800 x 480 pixels and 10 finger
capacitive touches.
2MFRC522 NFC Reader. The reader used to
scan the NFC tags connected to swords and
belts is the MFRC522 NFC Reader. Costing £5,
the reader is non-contact communication
(0-60mm range), designed for low power,
small size and a re-writable chip.
The LED provides status light for each action
of the Raspberry Pi that will reassure the user
and maintainer that the operation
has succeeded.
The project casing several designs were drawn
up by the project group, one was identified
as most suitable but as opposed to using
something such as CAD to create a case from
scratch, 3D printing was used to print off the
case. A design like the groups was found on a
3D printer library and the casing was printed
using the Ultimaker 3. The printer itself costs
around £3,000 as of July 2018. It is 342 x 505
x 588 mm and weighs 10.6 kg. It has a build
volume of 215 x 215 x 200 mm and can build
up to a speed of 24 mm³/s. It supports several
materials; the material used for the project
casing is CPE.
Coding:
To start a development log was used to
document changes and hours required to
do the project this is a good way to show
development and changes to the software
that are made. In theory anyone picking up
this document should be able to recreate the
environment to run the program.
The actual coding starts with designing
importing of the libraries and importing the
first round of designs from the GUI designer
and then converting it into the python format
using the converter. By learning classes and
definitions and understanding the interface
between the library and external files, the
GUI is now able to be interfaced by the user
by simple buttons, the code translates those
actions into a serious of presentable windows
and interaction areas to the user in a series
of screens. The code must be converted
from C++ from the graphical designer into
the python language, this is done by setting
up a small script file that does in short time,
this allowed for any minor changes in the
graphical designer to be quickly changed the
script run to update the python code files for
the GUI. When converting the C++ to Python
the code is converted to friendly format for
python. This becomes a sub code that PyQT
reads and draws on the display and presented
to the user. The code also houses the
interfaces that are required for the buttons
and user interaction points.
The next phase was to import and make
use of the database in order to meet the
requirements of the project at storing
information. The next biggest challenge was
to store the information input into the system
in order to hold and represent it later. SQL3
is a simple database program that allows
for multiple language to interact is using
some common lines. The code is given an
execute command that carries out functions
in SQL. The next process was to modify the
hardware code to allow certain functions
to be used and equally blocked from the
given manufacturer code. This was to ensure
security and remove any scanning loops from
the NFC reader. By modifying simple code
snippets, the ability to improve the robustness
of the whole code was increased.
Once the main sub codes had been converted
written and modified, the main script was
able to be produced. The starting point as
always is to import all files, functions and
external code required. It then becomes a
case of then writing a code that matches the
specification of the project.
In order to provide backups to data, archiving
and to ensure that the correct NFC tags were
allowed, the code was written with several
definitions of essentially sub routines that can
be called throughout the GUI interaction.
Allowing hardware and software to interact is
the hardest part of coding and requires some
time to understand how both work and how
they able to interface. Simply calling hardware
code does not give the results required, it’s
the manipulation of the data that you call that
is the real asset. Once you have called your
assets the data must be used or saved, this is
done using temporary memory or software
storage files, such as pickles and text files.
There are multiple ways to transfer data, but
it is knowing the software and its capabilities
i.e. PyQT 5 doesn’t allow the interaction
using global flags, therefore data transfer
or flags must be done using QTimers which
is essentially a trigger flag or set time than
will be called by PyQT while python still run
through the code.
Ultimaker 3 3D Printer
Pi LCD Screen
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Once the code has been written and
checked through the beta version was
created. Beta testing allows the system to
checked through and to find any bugs or
errors or allows for addition or modifications
of GUI through code. This whole process
allowed the system to be seen by the
customer and to amend any changes they
may require or want removed. In this instance
the addition of a rolling save database
was implemented, ability to email the code,
and addition of NSN to the database.
The final step is to clean up unwanted code,
by commenting out the code or the complete
removal of the unused code snippets.
Making it: Once the beta testing stage has
been completed the final code and software/
hardware is able to be delivered as a finished
product fit for purpose to the end customer.
Of course, there may be some further
modifications required not every scenario can
be catered for, or the operational requirement
might change, legislation may require further
modifications to ensure compliance etc.
Summary:
The project itself came together very quickly
and in its infancy showed potential through
the interfacing of the software languages.
Comparing this to procurement several
designs would have to go back and forth in
order to finalise the project finish. However
due to the little oversight required the team
was able to develop the project speedily
evolving into a final design and layout
that was simple to operate while looking
professional for use. All the while retaining
key features and functions required to meet
the criteria laid down from the outset.
Coding itself is a simple and quick to learn
skill and is being taught to all generations
and children at primary ages that’s can build
amazing projects. Coding itself is so big that
if you get stuck you will for sure find others
have taken the same road and found a
solution. The communities will also investigate
resolving your stuck path with a couple of
lines of code or find another working way to
develop the code and bring it forward.
The team was made up of various
coordinators and researchers, however the
coding was allocated to one person who was
able to research and learn the specifics of the
coding languages and deploy the code, in
practice this wouldn’t be ideal as the project
could have easily failed if the main person
was to fall out of the team. As such coding
practice should be adhered too to ensure any
one taking up the role would be able to get
straight into the coding side and continue the
project, a key takeaway being have a good set
of hand over notes – always.
The project proves compared to industry
that our own engineers have the ability and
creativity to solve our own problems without
the need to spend excessive amounts of
money on equipment and procurement
within a given timeline.
Is this a good template for WE officer of the
future? The Answer is simply yes from design
to concept and prototype took the whole 13
weeks of SEMC and lots of personal time to
complete outside of the core working week
of the already tasking course. However, with
a bit of grit and determination it can be
shown that a project can be successful. It also
shows that working as a team is essential to
coming out with a combined output that has
ingredients of success.
Our challenge: take a moment when you
go back to your offices and workplaces, look
around and ask yourself what I can solve?
Don’t accept “that’s the way it’s always
been” then challenge yourself to innovate a
way how. WE can all innovate to improve our
output as a collective branch, it takes but a
small amount of inspiration and time. I DARE
you to do better…
Or… If you have a problem, if no one
else can help, and if you can find
them in Marlborough Building at HMS
Colllingwood, maybe you can hire the
SEMC TEAM.
Lieutenant
Aaron Marshall
Lt Marshall joined
the Royal Navy as
an Engineering
Technician. Lt Marshall
was selected for Fast
Track and selected
for promotion to complete POETQC gaining
his Engineering Foundation Degree. After
a successful attempt at the AIB, Lt Marshall
went onto study Electronic Engineering at
Portsmouth University achieving a First with
Honours before starting INT(O) at BRNC in
September 2017. Lt Marshall passed out of
BRNC on 19 April 2018. He completed SEMC
at HMS Collingwood in August 2018, and has
recently completed OTC in Dec 2018.
Finished Project
SLts Ormston and Kenyan from team ‘SABRE’ demonstrating their prototype
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
As the first entry of Weapon Engineering
General Service Accelerated Apprentices
(AA) line up on the flight deck of
HMS Queen Elizabeth to take part in
Procedure Alpha on return from Westlant
18, it seems a perfect moment to reflect
on their journey so far and revel in
several momentous events for the Royal
Navy. As the first entry of Weapon
Engineer (WE) AAs it has been a series of
steep learning curves interspersed with
dynamic problem resolution in order to
lay the foundation for future AA classes.
Not only that, the first deployment
in their career coincided with the RNs
return to the world stage of Fixed Wing
Carrier Operations with the extremely
impressive F-35B. The cherry on top of
course was the first visit to New York for
a British Aircraft Carrier in many years.
The initial transition from Civilian to Matelot
takes place at HMS Raleigh and takes 10
weeks. The AAs have successfully completed
this transition and done so in the face of many
challenges and unanswered questions about
their abilities. Their journey began as they
entered their Armed Forces Career Offices
(AFCOs) with a spark in their eyes and very
little idea of the path their career would take.
After carefully reviewing their engineering
backgrounds and qualifications which
included BTEC Level 3, A-Levels in Maths &
Physics, Scottish Advanced Highers/Highers
and University experience, the 16 were hand-
picked to join the Scheme. The onus would be
on them to demonstrate the ability to learn at
an accelerated pace and fulfil the expectations
placed on their shoulders.
In the wake of the hard work put in by
the respective AFCOs and the Royal Navy
Acquaint Centre, the next step began on the
12th November 2017 as the 16 AAs arrived
at HMS Raleigh with no idea what awaited
them. Just 10 weeks later and following
many challenges including stretcher runs,
Initial Military Fitness (IMF), drill and endless
presentations on C2DRIL (Naval Core Values),
these not long-ago civilians passed out of
HMS Raleigh. Their next port-of-call was
HMS Collingwood to undertake Phase 2 (Ph2)
professional training.
Having already proven their Engineering
acumen with civilian qualifications, the
purpose of their professional training was
to transfer these skills and knowledge from
a civilian way of thinking to training them
to apply them as Naval Engineers. With
their previous engineering experience, the
AAs easily adapted to this new mindset and
enjoyed a very successful time in Phase 2
(Ph2). In the first month of their training,
the AAs were tasked with competing in
an Engineering Challenge. This involved
designing and building a craft which could be
steered and powered on water whilst having
a device capable of lifting objects out of the
water and placing them onto a jetty. Despite
the limited time scale and resources, the AAs
were successful in this challenge and had
relished this first opportunity to show off their
engineering skills.
By PO Derek Nicholls RN, Training Coordinator and Mentor for the Accelerated Apprentices
Accelerating Our Apprentices
...they entered their Armed Forces Career
Offices (AFCOs) with a spark in their eyes and very little idea of the
path their career would take.
AA Class of 2018 Graduation Ceremony
LET Barlow, LET Catley, LET Robbins, LET Porton at the Royal Navy Engineering Challenge
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
They also had the opportunity to take part
in several large-scale training exercises.
These included Op Trafalgar, a humanitarian
aid exercise set up to introduce Ph2 trainees
to situations they might encounter during
their naval career and start to encourage them
to develop leadership and communication
skills. There were also opportunities for some
Adventurous Training (AT) through Op Nile.
The activities included a day of walking or
mountain biking through the countryside and
a second day at the RN Sailing School at
HMS Excellent. There were opportunities
to try activities such as stand-up paddle
boarding, kayaking, canoeing and sailing.
The real proof of how far they had come
was evident in the last week of Ph2 where
they achieved the record time in the Victory
Squadron Assault Course Challenge, leaving
a lasting impression on their time in Ph2.
After 26 weeks of professional training,
the AAs successfully graduated from HMS
Collingwood on Friday 14th September 2018
before setting off for their initial sea training
onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The first day onboard, and reality struck
with a harsh blow. They were met by
the WE Department Management Team,
including; Commander & Senior WE, Weapon
Engineer Departmental Co-ordinator (WE
DEPCO), Information Systems Officer (ISO),
Communications Systems Officer (CSO)
and Flag Systems Officer (FSO), who all
welcomed them onboard. The AA Mentor
then arranged a meeting for the AAs in
which he laid out the training plan and
what needed to be accomplished during the
short time onboard. First and foremost was
the initial joining routine, followed by the
notorious 21-day questionnaires. Following
that would be working towards their Safety
Checks, Roundsman Qualification and finally
Professional Examination (PE) Boards. All that
work would run alongside Task Book and
CBRNDC (Chemical, Biological, Radiological
and Nuclear Damage Control) Training. This
was going to be a challenge in their 3 months
onboard and with the minimal amount of RN
experience they had up to this point. To make
this possible, the AAs were split into groups
and rotated around the five WE Sections
onboard, spending two weeks learning about
each one. From this they gained valuable
experience on how a WE Section is run and
the different roles of individuals within the
section and department as a whole. They
shadowed the more experienced Engineering
Technicians (ETs) and Leading Engineering
Technicians (LETs) in their day to day roles,
having the opportunity to carry out a variety
of engineering tasks. This encouraged them
to start to understand what is required
of a Naval engineer and their roles and
responsibilities once they become fully trained
LETs heading out to the fleet to potentially
take charge of their own Section.
A standard routine was quickly adopted;
working on Sections until 1600, task book
work until 1800, supper at 1900 and for
good measure it was more task book work
until 2200. This hard work however did have
its rewards. After 4 weeks at sea all the
AAs were on target with their progression
and were able to enjoy the ship’s visit to
New York. During their time at sea they had
already taken part in the largest Store Ship
the RN had undertaken in modern times, as
well as many other whole ship evolutions that
would soon become second nature to them.
Many had also taken full advantage of the
helicopter trips offered to members of the
ship’s company, where they spent 30 minutes
flying around HMS Queen Elizabeth, which
many of them described as “the experience of
a lifetime”.
After a few days of seeing the sights in
New York, the AAs fell straight back into
routine for a further 4 weeks at sea. This
was not to be however as an emergent
defect meant that they would head straight
back to Norfolk for a second time, having
already spent their first week in America
alongside here. This presented a challenge
as time alongside meant it would be harder
for them to progress with task books and
remain above the infamous “Progress Curve”
that their PO Mentor reminded them about
on a regular basis. As the ship’s company
took full advantage of the opportunity to
explore Norfolk, the AAs were left with tough
decisions to make. Either Integrate with the
ship’s company and accompany them on their
various nights out, or stay onboard and work.
The lesson of learning to balance ‘playing
hard’ with ‘working hard’ was a harsh one.
Several Members of the AA Class with the New York skyline in the background
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Following a week alongside, it was back to
sea, where it soon became very clear that
time was running out to complete everything
required of them. They again dropped into
their routines, with only three weeks left
to complete task books the nights started
to get longer as the work load dramatically
increased. As they had now been onboard
nearly two months, their responsibilities
within sections had been increased and they
could now carry out jobs independently.
Most notably on Infra section where they
would each be given a defect at the start
of the day and would work to rectify this,
seeking guidance from the LETs if required.
This helped to increase their knowledge
on various WE systems and equipment and
would benefit them when undertaking their
Safety Checks, Roundsman Qualification
and finally their PE Boards which was an
accumulation of everything they had learnt
so far onboard. A welcome distraction from
the revision and PE preps came in the form of
the WE sponsored church service which was
organised by the AAs. Not only did the AAs
ensure things were set up and ran smoothly
but they also prepared the order of the service
and produced artwork for the occasion, with
several individuals even exercising their skill
of hand and baking brownies which were
well received.
Having arrived in Norfolk once again, the
AAs had just completed their most successful
period at sea. In just 3 weeks, all 16 had
successfully passed Roundsman Qualification
and Safety Checks, as well as finishing off
task books. Now they were to enjoy 10 days
alongside in Norfolk again, which felt like
the first real bit of downtime since the first
day onboard. Taking full advantage of this
they took a trip to Washington for five days,
competed in the Fredericksburg 10k run,
visited shooting ranges, abused Black Friday
Sales, volunteered for the Thanksgiving Adopt
a Sailor programme, as well as enjoying a
variety of organised AT including surfing and
Go Ape. However, this was a short lived high
as they were soon to sit their Professional
Examination (PE) Boards and preparations
had to start early for these.
Over the course of 2 weeks, on the
transatlantic passage back to Portsmouth,
all of the AAs sat their PE Boards. This was
the final assessment of their short but very
strenuous 3 months. This took into account
everything they had learned from their
time onboard and tested how broad their
understanding of not just the WE Department
and its routines but also whole ship evolutions
were and what part they would play as an
LET. A brief respite from this however was the
opportunity to enjoy the festivities organised
by Command for the trip home, and even had
their first ever Christmas dinner onboard an
RN vessel, served to them by an Officer. All of
this is what has led the Weapons Engineering
AAs to their first ever Procedure Alpha,
onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, after a very
successful first trip at sea.
At present, the AAs are back at HMS
Collingwood commencing their Phase 3
training. Those streamed Sensors have already
started their career course, whilst those
streamed Weapons will start in early February.
The CIS Stream follow a different path as they
are currently completing leadership preps
and will complete LRLC before proceeding
on to their career course. The AAs will only
be deemed to be fully trained once they have
completed both Leading Rates Leadership
Course and Leading Engineering Technician
Qualifying Course, at which point they will
achieve Trained Strength status.
Some quotes from the AAs on their
experiences so far:
“Sailing into New York in Procedure Alpha,
watching the skyscrapers in the distance
grow ever larger as we approached was
the absolute highlight of the trip for me”
– LET Bradford
“I feel grateful to be a part of the scheme
and help pioneer the future of Weapons
Engineering within the Royal Navy”
– LET Harding
“Seeing the jets touch down for the first
time on a British warship and hearing the
roar from the hangar is something that will
stay with me forever”
– LET Catley
Petty Officer
Derek Nicholls
PO Derek Nicholls
joined the Royal
Navy in July 2001 as
a WEA/APP. After
completing initial sea
time on board HMs Ocean and completing
Artificer’s course at HMS Collingwood he
was promoted to LWEA in 2004. Following
a draft on HMS Nottingham as ADAWS
maintainer he was promoted to PO WEA in
2006. Subsequent drafts have been spent
maintaining a variety of equipment ranging
from Command and RADAR Systems to EW
and Decoys, as well as time spent at the
Royal Naval Acquaint Centre (RNAC) in
HMS Collingwood. Currently based at
HMS Collingwood and working under the
WE Branch Manager, PO Nicholls is involved
daily with the AAs as Mentor and Training
Co-ordinator. He has recently returned from
a very successful initial deployment on HMS
Queen Elizabeth with the first ever class of
WE General Service Accelerated Apprentices.
The second entry of AAs has now joined
HMS Collingwood and is settling into their
Phase 2 course, in preparation for their own
embarkation on HMS Queen Elizabeth later
this year.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
By Lt Thomas Smith RN OiC Engineering Training Squadron, DEVFLOT
Maintaining the Present to Operate in the Future
Reading the first Issue of the revitalised
Naval Engineer I was inspired. The future
is the domain of innovation, of robots,
machine learning, integrated networks
and information superiority. The future is
bright, a technological wonderland.
However, for the Royal Navy to progress to
the bright future our focus must remain on
our people. There will be a requirement for
changes to the grass roots of engineering
but first there must be a consolidation of the
good progress that has already been made.
Cdrs Clarke and Brennan have emphasised
the change to ICF via Faraday; the balance
of their articles in this respect was about the
formal training environment. I would like to
shift that focus to what is happening both
shore-side and at sea to consolidate and build
on those formal foundations, so as to create
a generation of engineers that will bridge the
gap between the present and the potentially
“man-unmanned” future. Today’s ET2s will be
2040’s WO1s and Cdrs (or Robot Hive Mind
Control Node 10).
Our first challenge to arrive at the future is
keeping engineers long enough to get there.
Therefore, it is up to the first assignment
to inculcate a love of the Navy, a desire to
achieve and grow, and the knowledge that
they are respected and looked out for. Within
Devonport this is achieved by a combination
of strong, professional, Divisional care and
agile employment of ET2s coming from
Phase 2 prior to their first sea assignment.
In 2018 Engineering Training Squadron
trained ETs in embarkations and
produced 72 passes. Our 2018 success rate
was 78%
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Beyond buzzwords, this means that a New
Joiner should expect to be assigned to the
Engineering Training Squadron (ETS) where
they will have a Professional Divisional Officer,
a CPO and 2 WO1s to support them. This
team will be working in conjunction with all
shore and sea units of Devonport Flotilla and
beyond, finding employment in any unit with
gainful engineering opportunities. Gaining
bunks for the ET to gain more lived experience
at sea for a month; as in HMS Dragon and
HMS Montrose over Christmas. Fundamentally
they find areas with real engineering work to
be done; from completely stripping a Main
Engine in HMS Bulwark, or supporting
HMS Protector in Cape Town, if the future of
the branch can benefit, utilise and improve
their experience, they will be sent out.
This may be outside of the experience that
the readership has of the ETS: 12-week
embarkations. Where groups of 15 ET(WE)
and 15 ET(ME)s join a unit supported by ETS
Trainers, who coach, mentor and support
the juniors to achieve ET1 by the end of the
embarkation.
ETS works closely with the ship which in
turn supports the ETs in the embarkation.
Dramatically increasing their lived experience
of the RN, gaining qualifications and having
an experience where they are pushed to
ask questions, find answers, think about
problems, and find themselves held to a
higher standard of knowledge and thinking.
All while the ship benefits from having an
enthusiastic and motivated manpower pool
on board. This is part of the second step to
the future: growing the skills of our people,
giving practical application in an environment
between a training establishment and a
complement draft.
The WO1s of the ETS also go out throughout
the Flotilla, assuring that
ships are managing to
support their ETs in the
most effective way and in
adherence with the spirit
of the ICF and Career
Development Journals
(CDJs). Where this is lacking
then there is not a big stick
but support to the ships;
coaching and mentoring
to improve and encourage
departments to think how to achieve their
requirements.
How does this focus on our present conduct
bring us closer to the bright future? After all
the ETS is not teaching coding, and unless
Terminator is playing in the Mess deck there
is not even AI awareness. The root of this
journey is in the CDJ and where the ETS
sits as part of Naval Training (N7) pipeline.
The CDJ itself is designed to show that an
ET understands an engineering concept or
principle. It asks ETs to complete tasks but
then goes beyond demanding a thorough
write up of processes which ultimately goes
towards fulfilling competencies of the role.
Knowing the foundations and the why of a
task allows the ET to reapply those lessons to
different environments and cope with change,
rather than simply knowing how to do a task
on a single piece of equipment. It also shows
a new way of learning which is a skill in itself.
The SME training in the use of the CDJ
allows ETs in Devonport to think in this
325 The number of people
given CDJ briefs by the ETS Shore Trainer between Sept 2018 – Jan 2019
By the time of publishing ETS will have visited
every ship on Devonport Flotilla except Protector
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
way which will increase their resilience as
the future arrives in increments, or as a sea
change of technology.
The pipeline for an engineer is Raleigh, Trade
School, First Sea Assignment or Assigned to
Shore (ETS in Devonport). This means the
ETS is privileged to check that the output
and training of the Trade School is fit for use
in the front line while the ET is in a more
controlled environment. The CDJ then is under
constant scrutiny. Feedback on what ETs
are expected to achieve, on the applicability
of their competencies, on the missing
areas in their growth to LET and beyond, is
constantly compiled and delivered to the key
stakeholders. This ensures the relevance of
training in a more flexible manner than relying
solely on S3018s (which should still be used
as a valuable tool for change). The ETS can
quickly see where the training gaps really are
and often advise on practical solutions to
mitigate them. This happens in conjunction
to feeding forward information to ships as
part of ongoing support to ET training.
All of which will become more vital as a
generation of ‘screenagers’ and ‘digital
natives’ join our ranks with a very different
attitude towards learning which we may not
be equipped for and current systems are not
future proofed against.
This article has been
written around the first
steps to 2040, and so has
focussed on ET2s and
ET1s, who are the centre
of ETS and current N7
waterfront activity. With
good reason as these will
be the sailors still in the
RN in 2040. However,
before they become
that far future’s WO and
policy maker, they will
be an LET, PO, UY/SUY
much sooner. As such I
hope that some of the
strands shown here are
of interest to how we can keep developing
beyond the ET level in this same vein. That
is strong Divisional support, locally and
systemically, to encourage retention through
the next 20 years and beyond. Motivation
achieved through encouraging mastery of
skills, challenges, coaching and the like, to
keep the individual striving for more. An
emphasis on learning, developing themselves
and their understanding of engineering and
systems which will allow greater flexibility
and agility of thought with novel technology,
encouraging their own innovation as they
turn a problem and a process over in their
mind to work out if the two match most
efficiently. Sharing knowledge with the HQs,
the Training Schools and units. We are all a
stakeholder in the future of the RN but also
in the development of our people, as such we
should all be engaging with those that shape
these systems. Growing people who can
dominate and thrive in an AI world
rather than be at the behest of those
with the skills we lack.
Lieutenant
Thomas Smith
Lieutenant Thomas
Smith is the OiC
of the Engineering
Training Squadron
Devonport. He is
responsible for
ensuring individual and collective progression,
development and motivation of all GS ETs
in Devonport remains at the highest level
possible. A TM by trade he is proud of the
advances made in coaching while he was
in FOST (S)’s Quality Management Cell; his
introduction of civilian qualifications for RN
Staff in CNR; and the disaster relief efforts he
was part of in HMS Illustrious. In his current
role he has found the advancement and
development of the ETS and by extension the
service it provides to the ETs and the Fleet
highly fulfilling. His next challenge is with the
OPV Programme in MoD Abbey Wood from
April 2019.
92 The number of ETs
trained in embarkations by ETS in 2018
113 The number of ETs that were found employment
opportunities in Devonport and around the world by
ETS in Dec 2018
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
By Robert Rao, Level 1 Engineer, SALMO Underwater Engineering Team and Rachael Crichton, Apprentice Engineer, SALMO Underwater Engineering Team
Underwater Engineering – Deployed
The SALMO Underwater Engineering
team were tasked with supporting HMS
Albion whilst deployed in Yokosuka,
Japan. The task took place in July during
the ship’s Mid Deployment Support
Period where several remedial tasks were
undertaken to keep Albion fighting fit.
Due to a lack of contractor availability
to support the task, SALMO deployed
a well experienced dive team made up
of personnel from its units in Plymouth,
Faslane and Abbey Wood. The team
consisted of diving supervisors, divers,
logisticians and engineering support.
Albion had been experiencing issues with
several hull valves. SALMO divers were able to
fit hull blanks to allow Albion’s engineers and
Babcock to investigate the problem and swap
out the valves without the need to dry dock.
As issues persisted, SALMO were required to
stay longer than initially anticipated which
required a personnel rotation to support
the full 4 weeks. With the work almost
complete, news of a Typhoon heading for
Yokosuka meant that Albion would need to
leave port earlier than expected. The SALMO
divers worked hard to complete the propeller
clean and get Albion fit for travel before the
typhoon hit.
This task was not without its challenges,
personnel were able to deploy to Japan at
short notice however on arrival it became
apparent that there were issues getting critical
SALMO equipment in place in time. To resolve
this issue, SALMO looked to the American
Navy diving team stationed in Yokosuka, who
primarily support the American Carrier USS
Ronald Reagan and its strike force/support
vessels. The American Navy diving team were
able to provide a diving support boat with the
necessary equipment which was crucial in the
success of this task.
Diving Support Boat alongside HMS Albion
SALMO diver enters the water with second diver standing by
Robert Rao & Rachael Crichton Both Rob and Rachael joined the SALMO
Underwater Engineering Team as apprentices
on the DE&S Advanced Engineering
Managaement Scheme. Rob regraded to a
Level 1 Engineering post in the Underwater
Engineering Team on completion of the
scheme in 2017. Rachael will also be joining
SALMO on completion of the apprenticeship
this July.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
The Keyham Implementation Team (KIT) has conducted a period of due diligence on the recommendations made by the study phase, utilising numerous working groups consisting of all identified stakeholders to indicate recommendations that are complete and to assist in the prioritisation of the remaining work strands.
As a result of the due diligence process,
the remaining recommendations were
merged into 12 distinctive works
strands. This was approved by
the OF5 chaired Keyham
steering group on 1 Nov
18. Project Keyham is
illustrated in
Figure 1.
Priorities are:
• Introduction of
an Engineering
Officer Under
Graduate Entry
Scheme from
Jan 21. This
will combine
University
Cadetship Entrant
(UCE) and Degree
Apprenticeship
(DA) sub-schemes to
appeal to the full range
of A-level students, with
entrants completing BRNC
training prior to a paid BEng
route, either full time (UCE) or
as an apprenticeship (DA).
• Introduction of an Engineering Officer Competence framework
(EOCF). Using a competence framework developed for Engineering
Officers in 2016, the EOCF is a mechanism that enables through
career development and career management. An initial working
group has been held to investigate the EOCF for the first stage
career and further working groups are planned to investigate the
utility of the EOCF with career fields and into the second stage
career. The competence framework provides coherence to the
majority of the Keyham work strands and is therefore a priority
to progress.
• Review of training to support areas such as financial management,
P3M and risk. EO training currently supports the front line, but
delivers little preparation for demanding shore assignments.
• Implementation of the liability review. Working with Branch
Managers, KIT will validate the recommendations,
such as change of career field, the specialisation
required and the post requirement. KIT
will undertake the administrative
actions required to implement.
Conclusion
Implementation of
the Project Keyham
recommendations
provides an
opportunity to
ensure delivery of
an Engineering
branch that can
attract high calibre
individuals, which
will provide EOs
with a rewarding
and challenging
career, combined
with the opportunity
to undertake through
career training and
to develop individual
competencies.
By Cdr John Brennan, Project Keyham SO1
Project KEYHAM Update
Commader John Brennan
Cdr John Brennan joined the Royal Navy as
JWEM(O) in November 1987. Sea service
as a rating included HMS Ark Royal,
Campbeltown, Marlborough and Lancaster.
Commissioned via the SUY route in 2005,
Cdr Brennan’s recent assignments have
included WEO of HMS Portland, DSWEO to
FOST(S) and OCWETG at HMS Collingwood. Cdr Brennan joined the
Project Keyham Implementation team in July 2018.
Assure a sustainable
branch structure is maintained to meet Defence
outputs.In a demanding
recruitment market, ensure the RN has
offers to attract high calibre candidates.
Ensure the application
process will deliver candidates who can
meet the demands of EO training.
We must ensure our recruiting
information is fit for purpose to
attract talented STEM students.
Ensure EOs receive through career
training that supports employments across
all career fields.Ensure training relevance
for modern technologies,
enabling EO to exploit capabilities
fully.
Support EO through-life development
and career management.
Define professional command, which
will include operational roles and certain other key “support to front line” roles.
Ensure that Junior EOs are provided with meaningful responsibilities
during the early stages of their
careers.
Understand why our engineers are leaving the Service and what motivates
them to stay.
Ensure that EOs are fully aware of the offer and are
not disadvantaged when competing for senior roles.
Understand reported
perception that for some, the Charge job is
something to be avoided.
LIABILITY
RE
TAIN
DEVELOP
TRAIN
REC
RU
ITProject KEYHAM Vision
To ensure an Engineering Branch that can attract high calibre individuals, providing EOs a
rewarding and challenging career with opportunities to undertake
through career training and develop individual competencies in order to
meet Defence outputs
Figure 1
See: TNE Autumn/Winter 2018, Vol 06, Ed. No. 1 For Project Keyham – Engineering our Future
THE NAVAL ENGINEER52
Reward and Recognition
COMPANION OF THE MOST HONOURABLE ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (CB)
Rear Admiral P Methven
OFFICER OF THE MOST EXCELLENT ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (OBE)
Commodore D S G Bartlett Captain K D Whitfield Cdr Ian Harrop
Cdr Ian Harrop OBE RNR received his OBE from HRH Prince William the Duke of Cambridge at Buckingham Palace on 31st Jan 19, having been named in the June 2018 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. After 34 years’ service Cdr Harrop used the Firefly process and made a seamless transition to the RNR in February 2018, to become a member of the RNR’s Engineering Branch. Based at HMS King Alfred, Cdr Harrop is currently supporting HMS Sultan as a project manager. In April he will be taking part in Exercise Sustainable Warrior which will see the RN’s first use of Maritime Reserves personnel as members of Naval Party 1600; which will provide shore based engineering support to vessels taking part in Exercise Joint Warrior.
MEMBER OF THE MOST EXCELLENT ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (MBE)
Lt Cdr P Blight Lt Cdr C P Dix
LONG SERVICE & GOOD CONDUCT CLASP (LS&GC)
Lt Cdr M J McCrea
Lt Cdr McCrea was, until recently, the Senior
Engineer at DSMarE, HMS Sultan. Previous
roles have included DEVFLOT DDH Manager
tasked with putting every DEVFLOT ship
through an Operating Safety Statement
Review within his first 3 months, Capability
Assurance with MCTA on QEC, HEO of QNLZ,
ACLO in Eastern England, Deputy Dockmaster
in the Shiplift, HMS Neptune and AMEO/
DMEO/MEO of T23s exclusively Having
completed 16 years, Mark is leaving the RN
but is transferring to the RNR Engineering
Branch through Firefly and hopes to join
HMS Hibernia in Lisburn, Northern Ireland.
Congratulations to all those who have won the awards featured.
Every effort has been made to ensure as many
awards were included as possible, and any
errors or omissions are entirely unintentional.
We want to celebrate your achievements!
If you would like to have an award included
in the next edition, please send details to the
Editor at: NAVYSPT-ENGTNEMAILBOX@
mod.gov.uk
A revised and updated RNTM on reward
and recognition for engineers was published
in March – RNTM 09-006/19 Reward
& Recognition within the Royal Navy
Engineering Branch. It seeks to act as a ‘one
stop shop’ for information and guidance on
awards and will be revised annually.
Thank you to the all of the sponsors of the awards:
Lt Cdr McCrea is awarded his LS&GC medal by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
recreated pms
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL
WO1ET(MESM) S Boulton
WO1AET D H Nichols
CPOAET(AV) J M Nourse
WO1ET(WESM) N M Ullett
WO2 J Jarvis-Broad
Joining only two weeks after completing his GCSE’s WO2 Jarvis-Broad has now served in both A class and T class submarines completing ten deployments, six of those being east of Suez, two ‘across the pond’ and four in ‘undisclosed’ locations. He now works in the Nuclear Systems Engineering Group at HMS Sultan teaching at all levels from his broad spectrum and knowledge.
POAET(M) S J Shovel
Predominately based at RNAS Culdrose after completing Technical training at HMS Sultan, PO Shovel went on to 824 NAS, 829 NAS, 820 NAS as an AET, then to LAET(M) Technical Course at HMS Sultan. On completion, he joined 824NAS for Certificate of Competence Aircraft Maintenance Training and Consolidation until he joined 814 NAS. In 2013, he joined HMS Sultan as a Phase 2A Instructor and was subsequently promoted to POAET(M) on completion of Qualifying Course. He saw a draft back to HMS Sultan as a Phase 2A examiner in 2017, and is now at 1710 NAS as Repair Technical Co-Ordinator. He was awarded his medal for 15 years’ service.
WO1AET I D Cordner
WO1ET(MESM) C G Lennox
WO1ET(ME) J Briggs
WO1ET(WE) J T Cole
WO2 Jarvis-Broad is awarded his LS&GC medal by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
POAET(M) Shovel is awarded his LS&GC medal by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
WO1ET(MESM) Boulton is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Jonathan Woodcock
WO1AET Nichols is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
CPOAET(AV) Nourse is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
WO1ET(WESM) Ullett is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
WO1AET Cordner is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
WO1ET (MESM) Lennox is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
WO1ET (ME) Briggs is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
WO1ET (WE) Cole is awarded his MSM by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
LET(WE) C Yeats
JOINT COMMANDER’S COMMENDATIONS
POET(WE) M A Craib CPOET(WE) J G Marron
WO2ET(MESM) J Savell
FIRST SEA LORD’S GREENWICH HOSPITAL PRIZE – DECEMBER 2018
Cdr A J Coulthard
FLEET COMMANDER’S COMMENDATIONS
Lt Cdr T R Dorman RN
WO1ET(ME) S P Evans
WO1ET(ME) C E J Foreshew
CPOET(ME) L Harding
POAET(AV) S McVey
WO1ET(ME) B D Wright
Lt Cdr Dorman is presented his award by Vice Admiral Ben Key
WO1ET(ME) Evans is presented his award by Vice Admiral Ben Key
WO1ET(ME) Foreshew is presented his award by Vice Admiral Ben Key
CPOET(ME) Harding is presented his award by Vice Admiral Ben Key
POAET(AV) McVey is presented his award by Vice Admiral Ben Key
WO1ET(ME) Wright is presented his award by Vice Admiral Ben Key
LET(WE) Yeats is presented his award by Rear Admiral John Weale
CPOET(WE) Marron is presented his award by Admiral Sir Philip Jones
WO2ET (MESM) Savell is presented his award by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
SECOND SEA LORD’S COMMENDATIONS
Lt Cdr A P Allen Lt Cdr A C R Burlingham
Lt Cdr L E Cairney
Lt Cdr D J Clark
CPOAET M Colbourne
HEAD OF THE RNR ENGINEERING BRANCH COMMENDATIONS
POET(WE) Bentley CPOET(WE) Curtis POET(WESM) Douglas LET(WESM) Foley CPOET(WE) Hole CPOET(WE) Holifield POET(WE) Homer ET(ME) Makings
ET(WE) Raeburn LAPOET(WESM) SalisburyROYAL NAVY EFFECTIVENESS TROPHY – FLEET ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE AWARD (SURFACE) WINNERS
HMS Westminster ME/WE Depts
This has been a rewarding, interesting and
challenging year for HMS Westminster’s
(WSTR) engineering team. The team have
fought through a number of engineering
challenges with grit, determination and
high engineering knowledge. The absence
of shoreside support inspired the engineers to
pull together, drawing upon their experience
and good humour to diagnose and overcome
any defects. With people being the key to
her success, 16 technicians were promoted,
ranging from LET to CPO. This came alongside
the award of a clutch of MSMs, Herbert
Lotts and Flotilla awards. Within the ME
department 45 professional qualifications
from ET to Lt were gained. WSTR has gone
above and beyond to meet the Fleet’s
operational intent, showing that leadership,
determination and innovation continues in
the Royal Navy. In the ‘Year of Engineering’,
no better example of engineering efficiency
and effectiveness is demonstrated than by
the men and women of her engineering
departments.
On behalf of the team, Lt Cdr Howe (WEO) (left) and Lt Cdr Cozens (MEO) (right) were presented the award by Rear Admiral Jerry Kyd.
Cdr Steve Murphy with the winners of the Head of the RNR Eng Branch commendations
Lt Cdr Burlingham is presented his award by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
Lt Cdr Cairney is presented his award by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
Lt Cdr Clark is presented his award by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
CPOAET Colbourne is presented his award by Vice Admiral Tony Radakin
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ROYAL NAVY EFFECTIVENESS TROPHY – COMMUNICATION TROPHY
HMS Enterprise CIS Dept
HMS Enterprise was tasked as flagship to
Commander Standing NATO Mine
Counter Measures Group 2 (SNMCMG2) for
12 months, followed by her annual refit, and
(immediately after sea trials) again assigned
as MCM support ship in Exercise Trident
Juncture. Of the 28 WE OPDEFs in 2018,
17 have been on communications equipment.
Despite this HMS Enterprose managed to
achieve an impressive output within the
taskgroup, always able to provide tactical
communications to the commander, and
allowing him to push for better use of
equipment and procedures from his NATO
minehunters.
APPRENTICESHIP CHAMPION OF THE YEAR
LAET Katherine Jennings
ENGINEERING BRANCH APPRENTICE OF THE YEAR
LET(WE) Jake Lundon
ADVANCED APPRENTICESHIP AWARD
LET(WE) Gavin Maidment
APPRENTICESHIP PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT
ET(WESM) Macauley Wadsworth
AVIATION APPRENTICE OF THE YEAR
SET Jacob Travers
LET’S FIRST TO COMPLETE CIS SPECIALIST POST FARADAY COURSE
LET CIS Spec 1801’s HMS Collingwood
During the twenty-three week course the
sailors studied Communications Management,
Crypto, Message Handling Systems, Data
Message Processing, Commercial Satellite
Bearers and Networking as well as various
other modules. This course marks a step
change in its predecessor, in that the sailors
are now the first qualified CIS specialists in
their field delivering Operational Capability at
sea since Project Faraday.
TOP ACADEMIC TRAINEE ON COURSE (LET CIS SPEC)HERBERT LOTT
LET CIS Spec Reece Potter
LET (CIS) (SPEC) Reece Potter was the
recipient of the Herbert Lott award of the Top
Academic trainee on course, achieving and
overall average of over 98.4% throughout.
The course with Cdre Ian Annett. Cdre Annett, Assistant Chief of Staff Information Warfare, was the Guest of Honour at the graduation, presenting the certificates to the seven members of the course. (Keith Woodland, Crown Copyright)
Pictured with Cdre Little ACOS Future Support & Engineering are DWEO WO1 Steve Tinker, POET(WE) Fulfit (CIS Maintainer), CPO Eccles, LET(CIS) Claringbold, Cdr Ladislaus (CO), LET(WE)CIS Davison (CIS Maintainer), LET(CIS) Haddock
Cdre Ian Annett presents LET (CIS)(Spec) Potter with the Herbert Lott Award for the Top Academic Trainee on his CIS Spec course.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
ROYAL NAVY OPERATIONAL AWARD (RATINGS)INSTITUTE OF MARINE ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (IMarEST)
PO Adrian Culshaw
PO Culshaw has been awarded the RN
Operational Award (Ratings) in recognition of
his outstanding contribution to Operational
Capability through his excellent work on
Merlin Mk 2 Helicopter rotor vibration control.
By careful analysis of data he was able to
identify, propose, and have introduced,
changes to assurance and training procedures
which have resulted in a significant increase
in the effective available flying hours of
that aircraft type. He has demonstrated a
combination of outstanding logical thinking
and challenging attitude that is to be
encouraged in all engineers.
THE REAR ADMIRAL BATESON AWARDTHE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IET)
POET (WESM) SIMON CARTWRIGHT
He has become the Combat System SME
within the A Class enterprise and an integral
member of the Weapon Engineering
Department onboard. When given delegated
tasks from his Warrant Officer or Line
Manager that are often pan-departmental,
he delivers on time demonstrating a high
degree of technical knowledge with staff
work at a very high standard that is by far the
best amongst his peers. During operations,
a defect threatened Astute’s success;
Cartwright’s swift defect investigation and
repair plan enabled the platform to return to
operations quickly. His proactive nature to
maintenance and defects, combined with his
excellent staff work, singles him out as the
department’s best Engineering Technician.
Barry Brooks (IET) presenting the Rear Admiral Bateson award to PO(WESM) Cartwright
PO A Culshaw receiving his award from IMarEST’s 117th President, Dr Andrew Tyler CBE
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
The RN has appointed 1* (Commodore) Heads for each of the seven Specialisations within the Naval Engineering Branch. Their role is to be the Champion for their specialisation and through their own Advisory Panels provide leadership to improve professionalism, the lived experience and cohesion within their specialism, provide access to senior engineering leadership and influence delivery of the Naval Engineering Strategy from their perspective. The Heads of Specialisation are Members of the Naval Engineering Board, which is Chaired by CNEO.
Meet Your Heads of Specialisation
WEGS HEAD OF SPECIALISATION
Commodore Ian Annett BEng MSc CEng FIET FBCS FRGS RN
Cdre Annett has responsibility for the development, delivery,
generation and support of all RN C5ISR including cyber capabilities,
data, Artificial Intelligence and Electronic Warfare. He is the CIO for the
RN, the UK representative to the AUSCANNZUKUS maritime C4 board
and is head of profession for the CIS branch as the Chief Naval Signals
Officer as well as 1* champion for the Naval Intelligence Branch.
Married with 2 children, he is the Chairman of the RN Equestrian
Association, having represented the RN and the Combined Services
at polo but also enjoys aerobatic flying when UK weather allows and,
as a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, travel – both of the
adventurous and armchair variety.
MEGS HEAD OF SPECIALISATION
Commodore Paul Carroll MA CEng FIMarEST RN
Cdre Carroll is jointly responsible for the Type 31e Frigate procurement
within Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), where he leads the
multi-disciplinary technical team procuring an innovative, adaptable
and affordable class of warships fit for a range of roles for both the
Royal Navy and export to international partners.
A Fellow of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and
Technology, Paul has published papers in various journals. He is
Chairman of the RN Rugby League Association as well as being an
enthusiastic sailor; racing a 1720 keelboat with much vigour but, sadly,
little talent. He is DE&S Champion for Neuro-Inclusivity and, to the
annoyance of his neighbours, an aspiring accordion player.
TM HEAD OF SPECIALISATION
Commodore Andy Cree BEng MA MSc MIE Chartered FCIPD RN
Cdre Cree moved from the Defence Academy at short notice in Jun
14 to become the project lead for the RN engagement with University
Technical Colleges (UTC) and, in particular, prepare a Portsmouth
bid. He took over as ACOS (T) in Nov 16 with responsibility for Naval
Training and Education. He is also the RN lead for STEM outreach.
His interests include gardening, stunt kite flying, cycling and
recreational mathematics. In what little spare time remains he builds
model steam engines and skeleton clocks. He is Vice President of the
Fareham and District Model Engineering Society.
Commodore Ian Annett
Commodore Paul Carroll
Commodore Andy Cree
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Commodore Tom E Manson
Commodore Mike Robinson
Commodore John Macdonald
Commodore Ian Schumacker
WESM HEAD OF SPECIALISATION
Commodore John Macdonald BEng MSc MA FIET CEng RN
Cdre Macdonald heads the Dreadnought Support and Supply team
(DSST) which is responsible for the delivery of Government Furnished
Assets into the Dreadnought build programme, including responsibility
for delivery of the Common Missile Compartment and elements of
the combat system. The team is also responsible for Transition into
Service activity including the training solution, the support solution
and infrastructure changes required to meets the Dreadnought
requirements. The team is split between Bristol,
Barrow and sites in the US.
In addition to enjoying an active family life with his wife and two
teenage daughters, he continues participate in a range of sports and
outdoor activities, especially sailing and climbing.
AE HEAD OF SPECIALISATION
Commodore Tom E Manson OBE BSc (Hons) MA MBA CEng
MIET RN
Cdre Manson commenced his service career as an Air Engineer Pilot.
Currently in DE&S, he heads up the UK Military Flying Training System
Programme, which is delivering the future aircrew training service with
five new aircraft types, new infrastructure, and associated support to
deliver full training capability by 2020, whilst supporting five other
legacy training aircraft platforms.
He lives with his wife and two daughters in Cerne Abbas, Dorset
(famous for its chalk giant on the hillside).
MESM HEAD OF SPECIALISATION
Commodore Mike Robinson BSc MSc MA CEng MIMarEST RN
In April 2015 Cdre Robinson was appointed as Head of In Service
Submarines, responsible for the delivery of safe, available and capable
in service submarines to Fleet, the operation of the NATO Submarine
Rescue Service and the disposal of laid up submarines.
When time permits, he is an enthusiastic walker and gardener,
occasional runner and he enjoys reading an eclectic mix of books and
visiting to foreign cultural cities.
RFA HEAD OF SPECIALISATION
Commodore Ian Schumacker MSc CEng CMarEng FIMarEST
CMIOSH RFA
Cdre Schumacker was the Group Technical Superintendent for AOR,
AFSH and FRS Class vessels undertaking major RFA refit and SLEP
extension projects in the UK and abroad before moving into DES Ships
as CSS Deputy Head Availability responsible for RFA, Hydrographic and
Patrol Ships. He was promoted to Cdre (E) RFA in 2015.
He enjoys keeping fit, playing football and squash but would like to
move onto the more sedate game of golf.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
Letter to the Editor
Thanks to Lt Cdr Jim Briscoe for sending
such a great first ‘Letter to the Editor’.
If you would like to make a comment or
an observation about one of the articles
inside this or the previous edition,
ask a question of one of the Heads of
Specialisation or the Naval Engineering
Board, or start a conversation with the
rest of the naval engineering community
about something you feel strongly
about, I really want to hear from you.
You can email me at:
or write to
CLARE NIKER, The Editor,
The Naval Engineer,
Future Support and Engineering Division,
Navy Command HQ,
MP 4.4, Leach Building,
Whale Island,
Portsmouth,
Hampshire PO2 8BY
Ma’am,
Congratulations on the relaunch of The Naval
Engineer. I read with interest the article on
page 11 titled “It Takes 300 Years to build
a New Tradition” describing the conceptual
model for the introduction of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) in Warships. I enjoyed
Paul Strong’s brief at CNEO’s Conference
earlier this year on the same subject, which
dovetailed nicely into my brief on Programme
Nelson’s progress in the actual delivery of
AI in the RN.
Nelson has grown from an experimental
Science and Technology project involving just
two people in 2017, to a funded Programme
within ACOS Information Warfare’s sub-
portfolio with a multi-disciplined team of
36 personnel. These people are drawn from
Industry, Dstl, the Government Digital Service,
MOD Civil Servants and the RN, providing
the team with a broad set of digital skills
including Data Scientists, Network Engineers,
Developers, Cyber Specialists, Systems
Architects, User Researchers, Agile Delivery
Managers and Transformational
change experts. We recognise
that the need for a sustainable
manning model will require a
blend of experience; we are
already contributing to the
wider RN STEM outreach
programme with schools with a
view to potentially establishing
apprenticeship and graduate
schemes directly into Nelson.
At its core Nelson has, and is continuing
to develop, a Data Platform (DP) like the
software layers and operating system of
Apple’s iPhone. The DP, ingests, stores and
makes RN data accessible and coherent.
This enables intelligent applications to
be developed and delivered swiftly and
efficiently for the Digital era, where the
rate of technological change is accelerating
exponentially and where success no longer
goes to the Nation that develops a new
technology first, but rather to the one
that better integrates and adapts its way
of fighting.
Gathering the RN’s data within a DP is the
first step on a long journey towards greater
automation. Nelson is perceived to be leading
Defence in this journey which is excellently
described in the Joint Concept Note 18-1,
titled Human Machine Teaming. This alludes
to the significant value humans will continue
to play, in partnering machines and adapting
how we fight, in that journey. The ethics
involved in AI are already a critical aspect of
our thinking, yet we realise that independent
ethical assurance will be required as we scale
and accelerate.
In building a Data Platform and preparing the
RN for AI, Nelson is developing AI products,
some of which are currently deployed and
operational on front line units. These include
a Predictive Maintenance application for T45,
a Cyber Defence tool detecting Network
anomalies and an ASuW product ingesting
shipping sensor data to establish regional
patterns-of-life and alerting to what is not
normal activity. The benefits of this are
information advantage in the form of earlier
Indicators and Warnings evidenced based
decisions and an acceleration of the effects
The ethics involved in AI are already a critical aspect of our thinking
TNE Autum/Winter 2018, Vol 06, Edition No 1
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
and supply chains. These exemplar projects
aim to inspire the RN of what can be achieved
with AI, in every Warfare domain and in every
value stream. Importantly, the underlying
message of all of them, is that we must value
and govern our data better.
Whilst Nelson is guiding the production
of Intelligent Applications, we also seek to
leverage the power of industry to help solve
our problems and challenges in a much more
agile way than we could ever do on our own.
By encouraging Defence Prime Contractors
and Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
(SMEs) to orientate their business models
to the Nelson Data Platform our coding
standards, design principles and testing
environment the RN retains ownership of its
Data and becomes the hub with which all
Data and Applications need to cohere with.
In this way it is helpful to think of Apple’s
App Store as analogous to the Nelson vision,
perhaps the Navy’s App Store!
Nelson provides an internal Digital
consultancy for the RN, assisting in idea
creation, commercial processes, funding
routes and agile working. Turning ideas into
projects and, hopefuly, sovling prolems with
continuous iterative development with Users
at the centre of everything we do.
As a team we can be considered a lean
start-up, operating within the RN yet outside
of normal hierachial structures to deliver at
pace. Collaboration is fundamental with how
we work, functioning as an Agile
self-organising team, with a mandate to
challenge process and get things done.
Whilst this mandate is liberating and
empowering it also brings Nelson to the
coal-face of the significant cultural challenges
that are creating inertia, so we realise that
in making this pivot towards digitisation we
should bring the organisation with us and get
things done, in the right way.
Finally, you may be interested to know that
we are developing the 3rd floor of Semaphore
Tower in HMNB Portsmouth into the RN’s
Digital Lab, bringing us closer to Users.
This will be complete in Apr 19 and those
interested in AI and Digitising their domains
are very welcome to get in touch and visit.
The Digital Lab is a contemporary space
providing a cohesive space for Nelson to scale,
attract and retain the UK’s top tech talent,
demonstrate the RN’s commitment and
ambition to Digital Transformation and inspire
the Organisation to think Digitally, value
data and also be an exemplar of agility in the
organistion by being conceived and delivered
within 12 months.
The Digital Lab should be a fitting home for
Nelson as it aims for the RN to realise the
benefits of AI and become a Digital and
Data-led organisation, with the Agility to
recognise and respond to the opportunities
and threats of the Digital era.
J W A Briscoe
Lt Cdr RN
Programme Manager AI and Data.
Nelson’s Digital Lab
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
By Richard Trumper & Malcolm Robb, BAE Systems Naval Ships
The Final Word
Launch and Recovery of Unmanned Surface Vessels – How hard can it be?Launch and recovery of manned small
boats to our warships is an everyday
activity that with an experienced team
is usually straightforward and safe. As
the weather worsens, however, this
routine operation becomes substantially
more challenging! How will the Royal
Navy adapt to the launch and recovery
of unmanned surface vessels as such
systems become more common place?
The majority of western navies require surface
combatants which are flexible, adaptable
and increasingly modular. The ability of a
warship to deploy several off board assets, to
complete missions, at range, greatly enhances
the capability of the vessel, in a cost effective
manner. The critical component to delivering
this capability and meeting a required level of
availability is the ability to successfully launch
and recover such assets in a safe and reliable
manner, in a range of sea states, at a variety
of vessel speeds.
The unmanned surface vessel (USV), see for
example figure 1, is rapidly emerging as a
valuable multipurpose asset, with systems
supporting the remote delivery of unmanned
underwater vehicles at range for mine hunting
and hydrographic survey leading the charge.
Such systems can be remotely piloted but in
most cases are fully autonomous.
Launch and recovery to smaller platforms
often exploit stern ramp solutions, which
are fundamentally integrated into the stern
of the ship, and enable the launch of a
much larger daughter craft than could be
otherwise launched from the vessel by more
conventional means. In larger ships, such
as frigates and destroyers, the competition
for this valuable real estate typically leads to
the reliance on traditional davits to recover
small boats amidships, to coincide with boat
stowage points, or the more flexible mission
bay such as that on some of the current
modern surface combatants.
For launch, and particularly recovery of USVs,
the Naval Operators are keen to maintain way
to ensure that the ship can rapidly respond
to any change in course. The wave field
alongside such a moving platform is complex
and in high sea states can randomly deflect
the planned trajectory of a small USV and
potentially lead to capsize and loss. Towing
tank trials have been used to investigate this
interaction between the mothership and the
USV and also how small boats perform
with potential remote capture solutions,
see figure 2.
A number of potential recovery solutions are
being developed that allow the USV to be
captured at a distance where the sea surface
is less affected by the presence of the ship’s
passage. Unlike a manned small boat, the USV
lacks the coxswain’s innate seamanship skills,
not to mention the ability to manually hook
up to a recovery line and bow line. Practical
solutions must be suitable for operation in a
range of sea states, and ideally up to sea
state 6.
Figure 1: P950 Unmanned Surface Vessel.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER
ENG
INEE
RIN
G P
EOPL
E
One such solution, see figure 3, is called a
floating capture device, which, like a paravane,
is streamed out to one side and astern of
the mothership. The USV is programmed
to transit to the capture device and latch
on for recovery, while the mothership may
manoeuvre to shield the USV from the worst
of the weather during the recovery phase.
Another potential solution, see figure 4, is a
cradle capture device, which acts like a basket,
or lobster pot, that the USV navigates to and
then drives itself into. The cradle and USV
are then both recovered to the deck or
mission bay.
Such solutions seek to simplify the recovery
phase and increase both reliability and
robustness, particularly at the higher sea
states, and are congruent with the
mothership continuing to make way at a
reasonable speed.
The launch and recovery team on-board the
mothership consists of a significant number
of crew. In the longer term, the Navies may
wish to move to a fully automated launch and
recovery solution, particularly as such manual
skills are perishable if not exercised regularly,
or where rotation of crews to other platforms
may result in temporary reduction of key skills.
As more and more vessels incorporate mission
bays and USVs in the RN and the wider NATO
Navies, the ability to share assets across a
task group during operations becomes more
attractive and the need for an agreed common
interface standard important. This has
prompted the work undertaken by the LAURA
Joint Industry Project and its cooperation with
the NATO Seaway Mobility Group.
By utilising unmanned vessels, a mission
commander can have assets at sea, over
the horizon, operating in conditions and
timescales that would have meant the
withdrawal, or even rescue of the vessel,
if it had a human crew.
A robust recovery solution is essential to
maintain the mission availability of such
systems. Loss of even one USV will have a
significant impact on mission availability.
Richard Trumper
Richard Trumper, PhD,
MBA, CEng MIMMM,
joined BAE Systems in 2011
and is Head of Research
and Technology for Naval
Ships. He is responsible for
exploiting innovations and developing future
platform technologies that enhance Naval
Ships ability to design and deliver complex
warships.
Malcolm Robb
Malcolm Robb, PhD,
AIMechE, leads the Afloat
Capability team within the
Research & Technology
Group at BAE Systems Naval
Ships. He specialises in novel ship design
techniques, ship survivability and integration
of unmanned systems.
Figure 2: Towing tank trial to investigate how a USV and the capture solution interact.
Figure 3: Floating capture device undergoing full scale sea trials.
Figure 4: Cradle capture solution.
Floating capture device.
THE NAVAL ENGINEER UK Ministry of Defence © Crown copyright 2018 navygraphics 19/0127