THE NAVAL ENGINEER

SPRING/SUMMER 2019, VOL 06, EDITION NO.2

All correspondence and contributions

should be forwarded to the Editor:

Clare Niker

Email:

NAVYSPT-ENGTNEMAILBOX@mod.gov.uk

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:

NAVYSPT-ENGTNEMAILBOX@mod.gov.uk

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