Electric Warship

8/10/2019 Electric Warship

1/14


2/14

4 Journal of Marine Design and Operations No. B2

The electric warship VII - the reality

Plan and the Smart Acquisition Initiative. Recent progress andsuccesses will be reviewed along with a look at the enabling technologies and the road map for managing the successfulintroduction of such technologies. The aim of the paper is toprovide the wider naval marine community with clarity of theMoDs programme and to invite debate for marine systems of thefuture.

Perhaps by way of an overview it is worth reviewing the trendsin power and propulsion systems in recent years, noting that thereality of electric propulsion was successfully introduced in 1920in HMS Adventure and has seen widespread use in the submarinecommunity.

In the last decade of the 20th century, the Type 23 frigatedemonstrated the benefits that an electric architecture can bring to bear with the hybrid power distribution and propulsion systemknown as Combined Diesel Electric and Gas (CODLAG).

Building on the success of the Type 23 and the step change intechnology driven by the commercial sector, electric propulsion isthe reality as we enter the 21st century, with two Auxiliary Oilers(AO) and two Landing Platform Docks (LPD) shortly to enter service. Both classes have integrated electric propulsion and bring turnkey commercial solutions to satisfy a naval application. Anartists impression of the LPD(R) is at Fig 1 together with an outlineschematic of the power generation and propulsion system at Fig 2.

Hard on the heels will be the replacement survey vessels,Type 45 destroyer and the Advanced Landing Ship Logistics, allembracing electric propulsion. The Type 45 solution is driven by the requirement for a power dense system with reduced wholelife costs and challenging signature targets. The goal has beenmet by exploiting the commercial market and incorporating theUnited States integrated power system (IPS)-derived advancedinduction motor (AIM) development and the WR21 ICR gasturbine.

WHY ELECTRIC PROPULSION AND WHAT IS IT?

Electric propulsion brings together efficiency, flexibility,survivability and, perhaps most importantly, reductions in costof ownership. Captured simply, reduced numbers of primemovers, integrated systems, flexibility in layout and provencommercial precedent make it a credible solution to the require-ment.

Electric propulsion systems fall into three broad categories,namely hybrid, integrated (IEP) and integrated full (IFEP). The

terms electric ship and electric warship are also used. They can bedefined as follows:Hybrid - similar to the T23 frigate, where mechanical driveand electric drive systems are combined.IEP - where a common power source is utilised for bothship services and propulsion system, with the propulsion

being purely electric. T45, AO and LPD(R) are examples.IFEP - takes the IEP concept further by incorporating advanced power electronics and energy storage into thearchitecture to give further cost and operational benefits.Electric ship - incorporates advanced prime movers and

widespread electrification of auxiliaries into the IFEParchitecture.

Electric warship - where novel high-power weapons andsensors are incorporated to take advantage of the highsystem powers available.

Fig 3 looks to put the various system configurations intocontext.

THE MARINE ENGINEERINGDEVELOPMENT STRATEGYThe current strategy

The first Marine Engineering Development Strategy was

endorsed in 1996. It aimed to achieve significant life cycle costreductions, whilst meeting naval requirements, by exploiting world-wide industrial and commercial developments. Only if naval requirements could not be met would development of specific equipment be funded. It envisaged achieving this throughthe development and introduction of advanced-cycle gas tur-

bines within an integrated full electric propulsion architectureand the electrification of auxiliaries. Development of industry partnering and international co-operation opportunities wasencouraged.

Much has been achieved. Since 1996 every major shipordered for the Royal Navy has had an integrated electricpropulsion system. The selection of IEP for the T45 means thatlife cycle cost benefits will now be achieved earlier than envis-aged in 1996. The electric ship technology demonstrator isexpected to start testing in spring 2002. This builds on the T45concept and introduces new power conversion systems andadvanced energy storage concepts to accrue further LCC ben-efits with high system integrity, particularly under damage or fault conditions.

The Marine Engineering Development Programme (MEDP) ismore than just electric ship, it covers all marine engineering technologies where MoD-funded work is needed to ensure thatnew technologies meet the requirements of future ships. Work either recently completed or currently on-going includes.

Integrated waste management.Fire-fighting systems.Upper deck systems.Improved roll-stabilisation.Composite pressure vessels.Non-thermal plasma for No x /particulate removal for die-sel exhausts.Fuel cross-flow micro-filtration.Electrical actuation of hydrodynamic control surfaces.

The Equipment Pillar The Marine Engineering Development Strategy does not

exist in isolation and i ts pursuit over the next two to three yearsis a key element of the Equipment Pillar of the Royal NavalStrategic Plan. The Equipment Pillar outlines the Navys con-cerns regarding reliability, manning levels and through-lifecosts of current equipment and indicates how these could beimproved by:

Exploiting the concept of smart acquisition, closely align-ing needs of through-life fighting power with specifiersand designers of equipment, focusing on ease of opera-tion, maintenance, reliability and longevity, efficient man-ning and operating costs.Seeking innovative ways of monitoring and employing

trends in technology, especially encouraging potential for non-warfighting technology to improve conduct of rou-tine business.


3/14

5No. B2 Journal of Marine Design and Operations


THE DRIVERS FOR CHANGETechnology

Technical progress over the last five years has been far morerapid than envisaged in 1996. The step change to integratedpower architectures, with all the ensuing benefits, has now beentaken. Future development will be more evolutionary rather thanrevolutionary, and the benefits will be obtained through equip-

ment, rather than system development.Development of the first ICR gas turbine (the WR21) has been completed and the engine system selected as the primary power source in the T45. Propulsion motor technology hasallowed a power-dense advanced induction motor to be selectedfor the T45. Many manufacturers around the world are now developing permanent magnet motors of various topologies,and major breakthroughs have recently been achieved in super-conducting motor technology. Semiconductor developmentcontinues unabated, as predicted, and further major advancesare expected over the next few years. In many areas, commercialshipping has embraced future technologies earlier than navies;podded drives are an excellent example of an equipment now in

widespread commercial use whilst still under assessment by themajor navies. Fuel cell development, driven by automotiverequirements, is progressing rapidly and to the extent that off-the-shelf solutions may be available within the foreseeablefuture. The choice of fuel, and its production, transportationand storage remains a major issue.

As a result, further MoD-funded development except toaddress shock or signature issues and other specific naval issues is probably unnecessary but technology assessment in order toascertain suitability is very important. This assessment is bestconducted through the medium of the proposed Ministry-ledMarine Engineering Centre of Excellence, utilising the availableexpertise to make strategic decisions that have the full backing of

both MoD and industry. These achievements and a re-assessmentof trends need to be reflected in any revised development strategy.

Smart Acquisition - The new environmentSmart Acquisition was introduced within the Ministry of

Defence in 1999 and adds clarity to the acquisition process which was not available to the original strategy in 1996. It refined theconcept of capability-led requirements and defined a new acqui-sition cycle, with clear decision points and therefore clear win-dows in which technologies needed to be sufficiently mature inorder to be selected as candidate solutions. It defined incremental

acquisition and technology insertion. More investment during the early project stages is encouraged is order to reduce risk, andclose liaison with industry is regarded as essential. Although theoriginal strategy anticipated many aspects of smart acquisition,the revised strategy needs to stress further how marine engineer-ing development fits into the smart acquisition framework.

Risk Risk management is a key tool in the acquisition process. In

the assessment phase the users requirements will be developedinto the more detailed system requirements. At each stage the risk associated with attaining the requirements will be assessed. Thetechnology development and demonstration within the MEDP isa primary means of mitigating this risk. In addition the technology specialists within the proposed Marine Engineering Centre of Excellence (primarily the Marine Equipment Integrated Projects

teams within the UKs Warship Support Agency) can advise onthe risks associated with attaining the required capability. Thus adialogue needs to be established between all the relevantstakeholders.

EnvironmentalRoyal Navy ships are required to operate world-wide and must

therefore comply with all applicable environmental legislation.Indeed, the long life-cycle of warships means that the design mustanticipate future requirements. Commercial waste treatmenttechnologies may be applicable to the naval requirement but

would need to be made significantly more compact to facilitateinstallation on a surface warship or submarine. Furthermore,

warships are required to stay at sea for far longer periods and shoresupport facilities for disposal of waste stored onboard may not beavailable. The goal of achieving a zero-emission warship, acrossthe operational profile, remains.

The environmental impact of ships throughout their life cyclemust also be assessed and minimised. This requires examinationof environmental impact during build, in-service maintenanceand on disposal. Within the automotive industry the manufactur-ers responsibilities are clear cut and increasing. Similar trends can

be expected in other fields, including marine.The future availability of fossil fuels must also be considered.

Fossil fuels are predicted to remain in significant use for 40 yearsor more. However, cost will increase through this time frame andat some point it will become more cost-effective to use analternative. The Royal Navy will be governed by commercialtrends in this respect but needs to monitor trends closely andinitiate development to ensure that warships can operate withinthe wider future fuel economy.

OperationalThe operational capabilities required from future warships

continue to develop. Specific capabilities of future power andauxiliary systems will, of course, vary but there will be a number of requirements that are generic. These include:

Increasing power density, to minimise impact on overallship design.Extended range, requiring highly efficient power systems.High availability.Low manning.Increased stealth and improved signature control.

A STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURYTaking these factors into account, the following strategy for marine engineering development in support of the Royal Navysfuture capability requirements is proposed:

Maintain awareness of technology and its capabilities by monitoring and assessing technology innovation andindustrial capabilities and trends whilst maintaining theElectric Ship Programme Office as a focal point for themonitoring of industrial and commercial technology trendsand utilising the Marine Engineering Centre of Excellencefor the dissemination and assessment of applicable tech-nologies.Identify the warship acquisition risks which can be miti-gated through marine engineering system solutions.Develop mitigation strategies that satisfy the prime con-tractor (or potential prime contractor), satisfy the DEC


4/14



and Warship IPT and are within our ability to fund andmanage to completion within required time-scales.Build on success of original MEDS and the electric shipconcept, with emphasis on facilitation of incrementalacquisition and technology insertion through the use of open systems.Maintain focus on LCC reductions through equipment

development within the IFEP architecture, technology trends, including fuel cells, podded drives and smartsystems, and integration of high-power weapons andsensors.Take into account external influences, including increas-ing environmental legislation and trends in future fuels.Gain effective pull-through into service by ensuring thatsufficient de-risking is undertaken, results of de-risking areavailable for those who need it (whilst protecting IPR) andindustrial capability to deliver solutions is maintained,particularly through competition.Maximise value-for-money through internationalco-operation.

Thus the aim of the Marine Engineering Development Strategy is:

To achieve the required capability whilst generating ongo-ing reductions in life-cycle costs, through the leveraging of technology to mitigate the associated warship acquisitionrisks.

THE ELECTRIC WARSHIP - EXPOSED As discussed previously, the all-electric ship embodies the

IFEP concept with the additional enablers of advanced-cycle gasturbines and wider electrification of auxiliaries.

It is however the IFEP architecture and possible solutions which offer the most exciting possibili ties; in terms of oper-ability, capability and reduced cost of ownership. The frame-

work that is IFEP is founded on a number of enabl ing sub-systems; high power generation, high power distribution,energy storage and conversion, low power distribution, auto-mation systems and propulsion systems. Within these base-line sub-systems a bespoke architecture can be produced, anexample of which is at Fig 4.

The overall concept for the baseline a rchitecture is oneof flexibility of design solution with a range of technologiesable to meet the demands of the system. It is these tech-

nologies which have been the focus of MEDP and themarine engineering community and will form the basis of the next section. Before reviewing the technologies it is

worth highl ighting the importance of a generic baselinesolution in the context of understanding and maximising the synergy between various platform architectures; a key theme in realising the potential of IFEP. Given a generic

basel ine allows system level design assessments to be madetogether with supporting a technology development focus.It must, however, be remembered that at the system andsub-system level a number of themes need to be understoodif the system is to be optimised effectively, these include:hullform; power system architecture; energy storage; oper-ability; user demands; and, field effects.

Hullform . The hullform solution drives the IFEP solution,primarily from a power density perspective but with support-

ing considerations of signature, survivability and shock. Thespectrum of hullforms is bounded by the larger carrier-basedhullform (steel is cheap and air is free solution - although thisis not an entirely valid statement) and the exacting require-ments of a submarine platform. The middle ground occupied

by the destroyer and frigate, whether multi- or monohull,completes the picture. This is not the entire picture as IFEP is

also relevant to smaller vessels, but the requirements that setthe main contenders apart is installed power which is signifi-cantly greater than those anticipated for minor war vessels. Thehuge benefit of the IFEP solution is that premised on thecurrently-accepted range of hullforms possible for warshipsdriven by naval architecture and weapon and sensor solutions,the IFEP concept can be designed to fit. This will not gounchallenged as the required bounds of power density from

both gravimetric and volumetric perspectives are placed under considerable pressure and the demands for increases in bothare made.

Power system architecture . At the heart of the power station is the system architecture, on which the solution

will hang; in the case of IFEP a number of opt ions are sti llpresented as viable. The traditional architecture of a ring distribution with centralised switchboards and electricaldistribution centres (EDCs) offers, in most part, a good

baseline solut ion aga inst which other more novel solu-tions can be gauged. Novel approaches to EDC architecturesprovide inherent flexibility and system redundancy withfurther enhancement possible using change-over switchesand uninterruptible power supplies (UPS). Looking at aslightly more novel approach leads us to the much courtedzonal concept, whereby the distribution system, together

with all the supporting sys tems, is zoned with a t least twomethods of supplying energy within a zone. Central to thisarchitecture is a zonal power supply unit (ZPSU) and zonalenergy storage unit (ZESU). Extremely attractive, the zonalconcept infers increased survivability and operability butnot without an element of technology and integration risk;a decision that will be informed by the MoDs energy storage philosophy.

Energy storage . A wide range of technologies exist to supporta profusion of possible requirements; indeed it is this thatsupports the need for a platform, if not pan-platform, energy storage philosophy. The requirements range from the equipment-

based UPS, commonly found in weapons and sensors, through

sub-system requirements such as steering, to the most onerousdemands of propulsive ride-through, more of which later. Again,this issue is far from concluded and cannot be viewed in isolation,as together with architecture and the ZPSU/ZESU debate, thisneeds a much broader focus. Assessment of technologies will be

based on demonstration in the ESTD and the MoDs energy storage strategy.

Operability . Often described as the panacea for the platformsystems, IFEP and its variants, provides a huge step forward inflexibility of operation and system survivability, to name but two.However, a note of caution - realising the full potential of the plantcan only be achieved if it is fully understood and not, as someprotagonists suggest, left to come out in the wash as more isunderstood and experience gained. Operability is a key strand andmust be understood at the earliest point in the design process.Central to the operability debate is the issue of single generator


5/14



operation (SGO), a subject which has attracted a huge amount of interest, notably from the operating community. The technicalcommunity has not helped themselves on this one as the termSGO conjures up all sorts of issues in the minds of the operators.However they have now been articulated clearly and it has beendemonstrated, with some clarity, that SGO does not result inreduced system availability when balanced against the ship han-

dling constraints, operational state and provision of energy stor-age. The concept of minimum generator operation (MGO) em- braces SGO fully and is perhaps a far more relevant description of the operating procedures.

User demands . As wider electrification becomes a reality thedemands on the power system increase, this is best illustrated as

we focus on the possible next generation of weapons and sensors,or indeed those of aircraft launch and recovery. The user demandsneed to be understood from the outset if the design solution is to

be flexible enough to accommodate technology insertion and,indeed, the capacity to support demands from the outset. Not justconfined to weapon systems and sensors, the implication of increased electrification of auxiliary systems needs to be under-stood and quantified.

Field effects . Subject to much recent focus for both in-service and newbuild projects, the effects of electromagneticfields have been raised as an area of concern for hybrid and IEPinstallations, from signature and safety perspectives. Whilstthe issue cannot be dismissed out of hand it equally must not

be made too much of, and a number of approaches are in handto manage this effectively. From a safety perspective, measure-ments are being taken on current classes and it is planned tocarry out similar trials onboard LPD(R) and AO as they enter service. Any potential further problems can be reduced signifi-cantly by up front design and focus on shielding and installa-tion. The issue of signatures is being assessed but cannot bediscussed in this paper.

The generic baseline and system framework allows for a moreholistic approach to system and platform design, primarily froma technology insertion perspective - an important point as theplatform visions of the future begin to move into and out of focus!Outwith these system design issues, it must be recognised that arange of enabling technologies are central to IFEP, a number of

which, together with the review of risks are outlined in the nextsection.

Framing the technology

As mentioned previously, the key thread must be under-standing and managing the risk, both from equipment andplatform perspectives. To articulate the technical risk requiresa formal risk review across the enabling technologies, theoutcome of which will provide generic and platform-specificrisk assessments across the technology, thereby framing thetechnology issues and underpinning future development. Fig 5 captures the high-level technology enablers within which theanalysis will be undertaken.

Before reviewing the technologies it is worth reiterating thecentral themes for MEDS and AES; power density, risk, whole-lifecosts, efficiency, environment and survivability. These criteriaframe the focus on technology of power generation, high power distribution, energy storage and distribution, and low power distribution.

Power generation , Gas turbines are established as the

power-dense, efficient and environmentally-sound solution tothe problem of installed power. Coupled with conventionalgenerator technologies, the high power generation capability,

vested currently in the WR21 GTA and the ACL GTA looks toprovide the surface platforms with the bulk of their power wellinto the late part of the 21st century. Technology focus for thefuture is reliant on established construction techniques with

possible trends to super-conducting and permanent magnettechnology. Before moving away from generation it is worthy of note to raise the issue of fuel cells. The jury is still out andthe MoD focus has, at best, until recently been uncoordinated.

Whils t the short term possibili ties are limited, advances in fuelstorage and cell technology will undoubtedly make fuel cells afuture attractive low power energy source. Industry is develop-ing the fuel cell as a clean and efficient source of energy. Future

work may concentrate on the use of alternative fuels (eg methanol or hydrogen) and its safe storage and handling in ashipboard environment. This work will be driven by the needto identify an alternative to conventional fossil fuels by themiddle of the 21st century.

High power distribution , The ac/dc debate is still far from resolved, indeed which way we fall will primarily bedriven by the industrial focus and the leve l of risk. The ac/dcsubject is as emotive as ever and the decision point is fastapproaching. Switchgear and cables cannot be readily di-

vorced from this debate and will play a key role in thesolution. Switchgear rated for the perceived IFEP architecturesis on the limits of its capability and a number of options suchas the hybrid switch and novel breakers are being assessed for their applicability to marine systems. Related to this are theissues of switchboard design and a possible trend away fromcentralised to, perhaps, distributed switching and thereafter,perhaps, embedded protection - one step at a time possibly,

but this is an area that we must progress as the exacting protection and switching requirements increase. The lastissue within this area is that of cables, and whilst we areconfident that the issues of EM fields, buildabi lity and shock can be managed with existing technology, we need to look athow we might embrace busbars or more novel systems for thefuture. At present all such systems are prohibitively expen-sive for the gains in ease of build and similar.

Energy storage and conversion , Noting the profusion of possible solutions to meet the varied demands on energy storage,it is difficult to progress any one technology without having

articulated the architecture and energy storage philosophy. Ingeneral terms, the industrial base is making the enabling technol-ogy available, it is how we grasp this technology for the navalmarine environment that presents the greatest challenge. Return-ing briefly to ESTD, flywheel technology and a regenerative fuelcell are being assessed for power system suitability at the zonal and

bulk levels of power.Low power distribution , Not wishing to open the ac/dc

debate or indeed repeat the high-power discussion, this section is best left looked at from a system perspective. System issues are very much architecture-dependent and we must be aware of theimportance of the transversal issue with the high-power system.Current solutions include transformed supplies but the technol-ogy is here and now for bi-directional static power converters andperhaps presents a viable solution for platform incremental acqui-sition.


6/14



SWITCHGEAR - THE DC CHALLENGE - AFOCUS

Not a focus for previous electric warship papers, switchgear ishowever worthy of mention as a key enabling technology, particu-larly for a potential dc distribution system where the interruptionof fault currents is more onerous than for comparable ac systems.The reason for this is simply that an ac circuit breaker can interrupt

at or around current zero whereas a dc breaker must create acurrent zero either by forcing the current to zero by controlling thearc voltage or, creating a current zero by commutating the currentaround an opening contact. In addition the dc circuit breaker design is driven by the arc energy that can be dissipated, mindfulthat a dc breaker will be much larger than its equivalent rated accounterpart, and the need to minimise the rise of fault current.The technology solutions to these problems are high-speed air circuit breakers and hybrid breakers.

Air circuit breakers . The mechanism during a fault is thecontrol of the arc within the arc chute whereby an increasedresistance of an established arc reduces the circuit current so thatthe arc cannot be maintained by the circuit voltage and the currentis reduced to zero. The control of the arc is achieved by naturalelectromagnetic and thermal forces assisted by a magnetic field;technology which is well established. Currently available at up to3kV, 8kA with a breaking capacity of 60kA, the move to voltagesin excess of 5.6kV for the electric warship application will needdevelopment, but the more onerous rating is containable withincurrent technology.

Hybrid circuit breakers . Combining a fast mechanical switchand power electronics, hybrid circuit breakers utilise either zerocurrent or zero voltage switching, both of which are illustrated atFig 6 and described below.

Zero current switching. The mechanical switch carries theload current until a short circuit is detected whereby the switchopens, the power electronic switch is then triggered and aresonant current is established in the L-C network with a reversecurrent flow at the mechanical switch. The voltage across thecapacitor rises and the varistor begins to conduct, which dissi-pates the inductive energy within the circuit and the current dropsto zero.

Zero voltage switching. The mechanical and power electronicswitches are triggered simultaneously but the time constants of the mechanical switch allows a parallel conducting path to beestablished within the power electronics. As the mechanicalswitch opens, the arc voltage shifts the current flow fully to the

parallel power electronics path. The commutation provided by the power electronics then extinguishes the arc and with theelectronic switch turned off with the mechanical switch open, theremaining energy is dissipated within the varistor.

Issues. The hybrid breakers provide improved current limit-ing overfast-acting air circuit breakers with a significant reduction,almost elimination, of arcing. The hybrid variants are very similar

but the trade-off is between the bulky resonant circuit required inthe zero current switch compared to the need for switchgear development. The technology has been implemented in proto-type designs but no production arrangements have been takenforward. In a marine application the constraints are the mechani-cal and power electronic switches, with current limiting only achievable at the planned ratings if the mechanical opening forceand time to open are in the order of 35kN and 1.6 milliseconds 1.

Propulsion systems . A huge subject area, broadly captured

by the propulsion motor (PM) system and the transmission/ propulsor system. Comprising a drive and motor, power density and signature direct these technologies which have seen a hugeamount of industrial and government effort in recent years. Theadvanced induction motor (AIM) is currently the preferred solu-tion, and is shown at Fig 7, but the industry pack of chasing technologies is focused on taking PM system developments to

meet the demands of pods, low displacement and novel hullformapplications. Whether it will be a derivative of the AIM, apermanent magnet machine or indeed a super-conducting ma-chine, is a long way from being resolved, indeed the MoD isactively pursuing a PM strategy to assess where best to focus itsefforts and, perhaps more importantly, its money! Again industry is actively pursuing and solving the technical issues surrounding the novel PM technologies and this looks to be an area of significant industry-led work in the near term. In support of this,power electronic devices and system developments continueapace and a number of maturing PM system combinations now feature advanced pulsed width modulated (PWM) converters.

The three technology areas - conventional, permanent magnetand superconducting - all offer high power density (volumetricand gravimetric) efficient solutions. Whilst the technologies areall at varying stages of maturity, the key is that they would all seemto have a role to play in the next generation of warships, albeit notall technologies are suited to all applications. Fig 8 looks toprovide a snapshot of motor technology to put each of thecontender technologies into perspective.

Of course Fig 8 is only half of the story, particularly the power densities, and the motor technologies cannot be compared inisolation; any longer term assessment will need to include theconverter and auxiliaries and this is the subject of the MoDspropulsion motor strategy.

Platform management systems (PMS) . These have long been the key to achieving manpower savings, and work is underway on how to specify systems, in performance requirements terms,

which support the operating and manning philosophies of thefuture navy. This work will be further enhanced by developmentsin smart systems, which will be able to identify failures anddamage, and reconfigure themselves automatically without op-erator intervention.

DELIVERING CAPABILITYReturning to the theme of strategy and how this and the

technology can be embraced and engaged as platform system

solutions, Fig 9 puts forward a roadmap for technology within theframework of capability, requirement and timescales. These boundsare extremely pertinent to the longer term focus of the electric

warship concept and system design and technology integrationfor future platforms. The key thread throughout is risk and how it is identified, owned and managed by the various stakeholders;notably the MoD, the prime contractors offices (PCOs), systemintegrators and equipment suppliers the balance of which needsto be developed if the capability is to be delivered.

Mindful of the common thread of risk, the roadmap looks tocapture the main themes and how the stakeholders need to beintegrated and relevant to ensure that the obvious synergy isexploited. Within the bounds of the roadmap, here are a few thoughts. Procurement of future platforms is now focused ondelivering capability by the most cost-effective means, with thekey themes being that of requirements engineering and risk


7/14



aversion - basically PCOs are tasked to deliver a capability to timeand cost, and they are not paid enough to embrace additional risk.It is in the management of the dichotomy of risk aversion and theintroduction of technology in which the MoD can be mosteffective with the combination of MEDP, partnerships withindustry and collaboration. It is the MoDs informed customer status and ability to identify and mitigate risk that underpins

much of the Smart Procurement Initiative - notably the balance of COTs, development of commercial solutions and bespoke navaldevelopment. How then against such a background can it beensured that the work being undertaken within the MEDPprogramme is not nugatory and that our future ships fully embrace IFEP? The answer is, in principle, easy to identify; inpractice it is much harder to implement. Fundamentally it isimperative that the risks are captured from technical, programmeand platform perspectives so that a coherent risk register ismaintained - this functionality is vested with the Electric ShipProgramme Office, thereafter the key is how to translate the risk process into design, development and technology insertion. Inmaking this transition it is essential that PCOs and the wider industrial base are onboard. The drivers here, in addition tothose of risk management, are the need to reduce cost of owner-ship with effective support packages, the emphasis towardscommercial off the shelf equipments, and the trend away fromnaval standards towards best practice, wherever that may be

vested. The AO, LPD(R) and Type 45 have been provided asalmost turnkey solutions, thereby minimising risk and thereforecost. As system and equipment trends move away from thecommercial sector, the overriding issue must be partnership andthis is the area in which the MoD can bring a huge amount of experience and knowledge to bear. A key focus for technology insertion and de-risking is the Electric Ship Technology Demon-strator (ESTD).

ELECTRIC SHIP TECHNOLOGYDEMONSTRATOR

The ESTD is a joint programme between the UK and France which looks to de-risk IFEP technology so that it becomes anattractive option for future ship propulsion system prime contrac-tors. The schematic of ESTD is at Fig 10. Broadly speaking itincludes a half ship set of equipment with representative power generation and distribution systems linked by two static power converters. The 20 MW propulsion motor drives a dynamic four-quadrant load, enabling the system to be demonstrated through-

out the complete operating envelope. The zonal distributionsystem, and inclusion of both zonal and bulk energy storagecomplete the picture. The supporting aims of ESTD are:

To identify and de-risk IFEP system integration issues,including system stability, fault identification and protec-tion and harmonic distortion levels.To validate equipment and system software models toreduce or eliminate need for shore testing of future war ship power/propulsion systems.To generate ILS data.To assess signature issues.To inform future platform baseline designs and providesupporting evidence for technology pull-through.To support the development of power and propulsionrequirements for future warships.Inclusion of some T45-specific equipment will also allow

the facility to be used for shore integration testing (SIT) for Type 45 systems once the majority of ESTD testing has

been completed.One of the key issues for ESTD is how it will be utilised beyond

the current testing programme to manage technology insertionand incremental system design; this presents a unique opportu-nity for the wider naval power system stakeholders to be engaged

in this important programme.

THE REALITY - AN INSIDE VIEWThis section will look at the all electric warship from the reality

of a practitioners perspective with the emphasis on operating challenges related in the most part to LPD(R) experiences butequally applicable to the wider concept. The single line diagramat Fig 2 should be used to support references to the LPD(R)system.

There are several key features that will make electrical propul-sion a success or a failure in warships. We must of course adopta safe system of work but with many examples available fromindustry, the merchant marine and of course the Royal Fleet

Auxiliary (RFA), this is a well-trodden path. More crucially wemust differentiate between an all electric ship and an all electric

warship in that we take these latter platforms into operationaltheatres where we can expect some damage, even if minor, and wecannot afford to take away propulsion or electrical services fromthe command. This leads to a focus on operation, fire-fighting anddamage control, equipment design, onboard organisation andtraining, all of which are discussed below:

Safe system of work and compartment access A safe system of work to include Health and Safety and other

statutory requirements is essential if the system is to be operatedsafely, noting the requirement to have established procedures for maintenance and operation by naval and civilian personnel.

Wherever possible standard RN practice has been adopted buthigh voltage requires additional precautions including hazardmarkings for compartments, hazard signage, restricted accessprocedures and CCTV monitoring of all compartments desig-nated HV. Routines are required both by contractors and visitors

with restricted access regulations controlled by either a day passor contractors pass. Contractors requiring access to HV com-partments will need to be briefed on the hazards and will requirea limitation of access prior to unescorted access/work in thesespaces. None of these issues is insurmountable but they need to

feature in the baseline design for an IFEP solution as the presenceof HV will limit access and require control procedures.

System operation and manning of HV spacesThe HV system will be operated via the platform management

system (PMS). For the LPD(R) system, the normal practice will beto run continuously in parallel, de-isolated with the minimumnumber of generators required (minimum generator operation(MGO) leading to single generator operation (SGO)) at State 3. AtState 1, all generators may be required but the system will remainde-isolated.

Because of the late change to electric propulsion during thedesign phase of the LPD contract, some HV equipment built toIP23 is located in main machinery spaces. This means that thespaces concerned need to be disconnected from the live system

before any water-based extinguishers can be used to tackle a fire


8/14


9/14



compatibility - notably EMC, physical issues and system transver-sals. Experience has shown that the transversals issue is the mostdifficult to manage as boundaries are established between systemsand sub-systems; the management of which needs system levelco-ordination. On the theme of integration, the physical integra-tion and buildability of solutions is extremely important and must

be a significant focus during the design process.

Electrical standards. Existing power system standards arenot sufficiently robust to support IFEP and IEP architectures.Fundamentally, standards reflect conventional systems and arenot sufficiently flexible to be adapted to suit novel systems. Insupport of this a review is being undertaken to propose a policy for IEP and IFEP systems covering issues as diverse as power system standards, safety, Design constraints and working prac-tices. This is even more relevant in view of the high voltageimplications. The MoDs HV Policy Document will look toprovide the framework for naval marine power system standards.

Equipment strategies. Building on the themes of risk, theoverarching MEDS and its implementation through the centre of marine engineering excellence, equipment and system strate-gies are essential to the electric warship aspirations. A number of strategies are being written which look to draw together therequirements, platform risks, timescales and industry focus toproduce the supporting justification for equipment develop-ment, the outcome of which will inform development and the

wider stakeholding community. Within DOpsE, a Directorate of the Warship Support Agency, system strategies are being pro-duced to support medium (10 year) and long (25 year) term

visions, which look to provide a coherent focus across themarine engineering community embracing the MEDP and ele-ments of both the Corporate (CRP) and Applied (ARP) ResearchProgrammes.

Innovation . Innovation will always be constrained by risk and the desire to minimise any impact on the performance,cost and acquisition timescales of a future warship. However,

without innovation, technology will stagnate and the futureRoyal Navy will face increasing support costs and degrading performance and capability compared to other, more adven-turous, navies. A balance must therefore be struck. This can beachieved through establishing a thorough appreciation of future technologies and their assessment, through the MEDPand the expert eye of the Marine Engineering Centre of Excellence. The risks associated with innovation can then befully quantified, and effective, focused risk-mitigation put inplace. As a result the likelihood of the pull- through of innova-tive technologies into service by the warship prime contractor

will be enhanced. Wider strategy. The marine engineering aspects are focused,

but the lack of coherent strategies or, in some cases, coherency between strategies in the wider naval service creates difficulties.Notably, the lack of a weapon engineering equivalent to MEDSremains a concern and it is imperative that the future require-ments of combat systems are identified as a priority to ensure that

the platform solution can meet the demands, primarily in termsof power requirements and possible requirements for pulsedenergy. Manning, support and similar strategies do, however,exist but it is essential that coherency is maintained betweenthem.

Automation . Central to the platform system solution, theplatform management system (PMS) and its derivatives providethe operability and functionality of the system - the main concernhowever is that of integration. PMS needs to be embraced at theoutset and become an integral part of the design solution. Oftenseen as the cure all for system functionality and integration, it isimportant that it is not left to pick up the design deficiencies fromthe system and equipment integration.

System analysis . As the focus moves away from platformshore test facilities, a function of cost and time, the emphasis onalternative mechanisms to assess system and equipment perform-ance has come to the fore. The spectrum of activities in supportof the analysis is bounded by full scale test and simulation

balanced with prototyping and equipment tests. The trend to-

wards simulation is worthy of note, with both MoD and industry embracing it to balance equipment and system development. Thestrength of this approach is flexibility and cost, and the ability tomodel at component, equipment, sub-system and system levels.

Already naval marine power system modelling has produced amodelling blockset to assess system and sub-system issues in afuel to thrust approach, the outline schematic for which is at Fig 13. The functionality of the models allows assessment of dynamicperformance, system transients, external impacts and bounds of operation. Validation of models remains a key theme along withthe issue of models containing proprietary information, whichmust be resolved if the goals are to be realised. The simulation

vision is to maintain a database of models for all power systemsand equipment, with all new systems and equipment being delivered with a validated model - wishful thinking, perhaps, butessential if we are to realise the full potential of simulation.

SUMMARYThe last year has seen a huge amount of activity in both the

electric ship and electric warship arenas, notably with the reality of the electric warship and the coming of age of the integratedelectric propulsion concept in the guise of LPD(R) and Type 45.In support of these vessels and within the framework of smartacquisition, the marine engineering development plan has soughtto maintain momentum and relevance with a number of notable

successes, primarily that of ESTD. The emphasis is now, as ever,on cost-effective capability for the marine engineering solutionand it is hoped that this paper has gone some way to demonstratehow the MoD is looking to take this forward in partnership withindustry with the focus very much towards incremental acquisi-tion and technology insertion.

REFERENCES1.EA Technology Report 5435, HV DC Switchgear Feasibility

Study dated 3 Jul 01.

Controller, Her Majestys Stationery Office, London 2001. British Crown Copyright 2001/MoD. Published with the permission of the Controller of Her Britannic Majestys Stationery Office.


10/14



Fig 1: The reality of the electric ship

Fig 3: The usual suspects

Fig 4: Baseline architecture or marker in the sand


11/14



Fig 2: LPD(R); the single line diagram


12/14


13/14



Fig 10: ESTD schematic

Fig 9: A technology roadmap

Fig 8: Motor development compared


14/14

Documents

Electric Warship