1*1 maritime engineering journal - cntha · 2017-03-06 · public works and government services...

1*1

MaritimeEngineeringJournal

June 1997

- Photo Feature: MCDV Construction

Also:• Forum — Striking a Balance

• Looking Back at Project Mermaid

Canada

Greenspace

BMMBBBBBBBBBBMBI

DMSS 4 environmentalsystems engineer Mario Gingras

with Protecteur 's new waste pulper.

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 1997 1

MaritimeEngineeringJournal Established 1982

The Maritime Engineering Journal (ISSN 0713-0058) is an unofficial publication of the Maritime Engineersof the Canadian Forces, published three times a year by the Director General Maritime Equipment ProgramManagement. Views expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect official opinion or policy.Mail can be addressed to: The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMMS, NDHQ, MGen George R.Pearkes Building, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0K2. The editor reserves the right to reject or edit anyeditorial material. While every effort is made to return artwork and photos in good condition, the Journal canassume no responsibility for this. Unless otherwise stated, Journal articles may be reprinted with proper credit.

JUNE 1997

DEPARTMENTSGuest Editorial: Fleet Maintenance Facilities Ready for 21st Century

by Captain(N) Bert Blattmann .................................................................................2Letters ........................................................................................................................... 3Commodore’s Corner

by Commodore F.W. Gibson ....................................................................................4Forum: Nobody asked me, but...

by Cdr P.J. Brinkhurst .............................................................................................6On the Shock Resistance of Naval Ships

by Z.J. Czaban ....................................................................................................7

FEATURESMCDV Construction: A Walk Through Halifax Shipyard Ltd.

by CPO2 Mike Syzek ................................................................................................9

A Few Things to Consider when Acquiring Developmental Softwareby LCdr M. Tinney .................................................................................................13

A CSE’s Advice on Predeployment Preparations by Lt(N) Jim McDonald ........................................................................................16

Seminar Report: Central Region Naval Support Seminarby Cdr Don Flemming ...........................................................................................18

Test and Demonstration of a High Energy Density AluminumPower Source in Unmanned Underwater Vehiclesby J.H. Stannard and LCdr L.D. Clarkin ..............................................................19

GREENSPACE: First Solid Waste Handling Systemsat Sea with the Canadian Navyby LCdr S.K. Dewar...............................................................................................24

Update: Ozone Depleting Substancesby LCdr Tom Shirriff .........................................................................................25

LOOKING BACK: The Canadian Sea Sparrow Missile Programby Phil R. Munro ....................................................................................................26

BOOK REVIEW: “Liberation — The Canadians in Europe”Reviewed by LCdr Robert Jones ............................................................................29

NEWS BRIEFS ......................................................................................................... 30

Director GeneralMaritime Equipment ProgramManagementCommodore F.W. Gibson

EditorCaptain(N) Sherm EmbreeDirector of Maritime Management andSupport (DMMS)

Editorial AdviserCdr Don FlemmingDGMEPM Special Projects Officer

Production Editor / EnquiriesBrian McCullough

Tel.(819) 997-9355Fax (819) 994-9929

Technical EditorsLCdr Keith Dewar (Marine Systems)LCdr Marc Lapierre (Combat Systems)Simon Igici (Combat Systems)LCdr Ken Holt (Naval Architecture)

Journal RepresentativesCdr Jim Wilson (MARLANT)

(902) 427-8410CPO1 G.T. Wall (NCMs)

(819) 997-9342

Art Direction byCFSU(O) Creative Services

Translation Services byPublic Works and Government ServicesTranslation BureauMme. Josette Pelletier, Director

Our Cover:The after two thirds of HMCS Glace Bay near the HSL slipway to Halifax Harbour.The bow section will be slid out of the shed and aligned with the after section forwelding. (HSC96-0721-03)

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 19972

Guest Editorial

Having had the pleasure of servingthree eventful years at Ship Repair UnitPacific and FMF Cape Breton, I take abrief pause to gaze in my crystal ball withthe hope of better defining for you thefuture of the naval dockyards. The FMFsreadily understand the full meaning of thepopular maxim, “change is the only con-stant affecting us.” The naval dockyardsare not afraid of change. In fact, duringthese past few years they have experi-enced a transition without parallel in theannals of the ship repair units since theSecond World War. I take this opportu-nity to briefly acknowledge some of theinnovative ideas that have been imple-mented to ensure the FMFs are indeedready to tackle the 21st century as solidand efficient enterprises.

It was only one year ago that FMFCape Breton in Esquimalt and FMF CapeScott in Halifax stood up as new entities,having amalgamated three separate units— the ship repair units, naval engineeringunits and fleet maintenance groups —into a single organization. The renewalchallenges set under the Naval Engineer-ing and Maintenance System FunctionalReview in 1994 were indeed achieved by1996. The main goals were:

• to consolidate all naval engineeringfunctions under one command structure;

• to reduce costs of service delivery by20 percent;

• to integrate military personnel intothe production shops; and

• to adopt cost accounting and produc-tivity measurement comparable to thatfound in private industry.

These goals were ultimately achievedby both FMFs. However, the impetus forcontinuous improvement did not die withthe closure of the NEMS project manage-ment office in July 1996. With one fullyear of operation behind us, it has be-come evident that a great deal of workremains to be done to transform the FMFsinto a “most effective organization”(MEO). To this end, both units are work-

Fleet Maintenance Facilities areReady for the 21st Century

By Captain(N) Bert Blattmann

ing tirelessly to achieve this status wellbefore the turn of the century. Such a taskcannot be done in isolation from the navaltechnical community at large (regardlessif you are serving in an FMF, in the fleetor at NDHQ in Ottawa). It is incumbenton the naval community as a whole togive its full commitment toward ensuringthe dockyards remain under naval controland are utilized to their fullest capacity.

I am optimistic about the future of theFMFs. There are positive signs that thenaval community is finally streamliningits efforts with a single goal in mind —ensuring that maintenance, logistics andengineering support services are providedto the fleet in the most cost-effectivemanner. The FMFs have a critical role toplay in living up to this expectation, butso does the rest of the naval community.

By year 2000 maintenance and engi-neering services will be provided by asmall, but highly specialized and talentedcore of civilian tradespeople and navaltechnicians, supplemented by casual la-bour and assisted by a bank of privatefirms. The FMFs will have reached opti-mum flexibility (read efficiency) to caterto the extremely diverse workload associ-ated with naval ship repair. They will alsohave achieved a comfortable degree ofpartnering with local and regional indus-tries and will ensure through the competi-tive process the lowest cost of servicedelivery to the fleet. Under these arrange-ments, the FMFs’ primary mandate willbe limited to what could he defined as“basic fleet support,” mainly involvingrunning repair activities, with third-linerepair and overhaul brought in as requiredto level the shop workloads. Thanks tothe CPF maintenance profile consistingexclusively of short work periods anddocking work periods, the FMFs will nolonger be involved in extensive refitwork.

It is just recently that the concept of afleet support plan (FSP) has been intro-duced by DGMEPM. There are variousagencies involved in implementing theFSP — private consulting firms, privateshipyards and the FMFs, to name a few.The aim of this plan is to capture andconsolidate all fleet support requirementsinto a single document which is seen asan essential planning tool. By its nature,the workload associated with basic fleetsupport changes dramatically as the shipsdeploy. Hence, assigning work from theFSP to the FMFs as a means of level-loading the units would guarantee the bestuse and stability of the FMF workforce.In my opinion there is an urgent need forthe naval community to embrace the con-cept of the FSP and to come to grips withit, especially that portion that is to beshared between the various service deliv-ery agencies.

“There are positive signsthat the naval community isfinally streamlining itsefforts with a single goal inmind.”

What does my crystal ball reveal? Byyear 2000, which is not so far away, theFMFs will have reached their smallestcritical mass, less than half the size theywere during 1994/95. With their hi-techmanagement information system, theFMFs will have the ability to accuratelycapture, record and analyze the cost of allactivities and daily operations through theuse of continually updated performanceindices and productivity criteria. Person-nel in the Chief of Maritime Staff and onDGMEPM staff will have full access tothis information, and will regularlybenchmark this productivity against simi-lar activities being conducted in the pri-vate sector. In this way the navy willensure that FMF services remain the mostcost-effective.


There is no question that our navaldockyards are unique in the Public Serv-ice. As to whether or not they should beprivatized, the Forces responded to thisquestion by stating that, “Properly man-aged, they are best left within the PublicService and within instant reach of NavalRequirements.” Considering the FMFsare a proven strategic asset to the navy,we must ensure we treat them as such.

If you haven’t yet experienced theFMF environment, believe me when I saythat it is a rich mix of men and women,officers and enlisted personnel, managersand unions, tradespeople and apprentices— all fiercely dedicated to providing thebest possible support to the fleet. It is aculture unto itself, with a work environ-ment optimized for dealing with the tech-nical challenges of the navy well into the21st century. On that note I would inviteall naval personnel to acquaint them-selves with the FMFs’ capabilities and taxthem to their fullest extent.

Abusing the title “engineer”

Letters

Congratulations on the excellentchoice of “Canadian Technical Involve-ment in the Design and Construction ofHMCS Bonaventure” as the inauguralCNTHA Looking Back article for theMaritime Engineering Journal. I do how-ever have some observations to make onthe article.

First, the picture on page 22 purport-edly showing flight-deck operations in1969 was obviously taken several yearsbefore that as certain items of pre-refitconfiguration are clearly visible, viz. theUHF antennas which were replaced bymore modern multi-channel units, and theheight finding radar that was removed.

Second, the “Bonnie Specs” on page24 mention the Fresnel lens as replacingthe mirror landing system. Bonaventurewas originally fitted with two mirrors;only the primary system (port side fitting)was replaced during refit, the other re-maining in place. Incidentally, ondecommissioning, the Fresnel lens wassold back to the U.S. Navy from whenceit came for what was reported as the samecost as for acquisition!

Third (and last!), on the subject of theL70 Bofors, an air-defence artillery of-ficer who commanded a battery in Eu-rope, as well as being the CanadianForces Europe staff officer for air de-fence, informed me that these particularguns were never used in Europe. The Ca-nadian airfields in Europe were “de-fended” solely by the ubiquitous L60Boffins, now getting yet another lease onlife in the MCDVs. Perhaps one of yourreaders is aware of the final disposition ofthe L70s.

Yours aye,P.D.C. Barnhouse, Ottawa

Another look atHMCS Bonaventure

Captain(N) Blattmann has been the com-manding officer of Ship Repair Unit Pacific/FMF Cape Breton since 1994. He leaves theposition this summer to attend a year-longcourse at the CF Language School in Ottawaas a prelude to joining the Canadian embassyin Bonn, Germany as the military attaché.

A footnote should be included in Lt(N)Howard Morris’ insightful article, “Soft-ware Engineering - It’s More than Pro-gramming.” In Canada (via provinciallegislation) an engineer is someone whois licensed to practise engineering andpossesses the designation P.Eng. Simplyput, if you do not hold a P.Eng. you can-not call yourself an engineer. Exceptionsto this rule (unfortunately, only for finan-cial reasons) include federally employedengineers (military and civilian) who oth-erwise have a choice in seeking out pro-fessional recognition.

Private sector firms advertising forprogrammers and using the sexier title“software engineer” without specifying aP.Eng. qualification are breaking provin-cial laws and risk prosecution. In con-tracting out for software engineeringservices without ensuring the P.Eng. ac-creditation of the company or personnelauthorizing the product, the customerrisks an inferior product and a weakerlegal foothold in prosecuting the com-pany for software failings.

In taking this strong stance againstabuse of the title “engineer,” the profes-sional engineering associations in Canadaare protecting the public and ensuring thatthe profession maintains its high level ofprestige and accountability.

LCdr Christopher P. Tingle, CD,P.Eng., Nuclear Research Group,Department of Chemistry and Chemi-cal Engineering, Royal MilitaryCollege, Kingston, Ont.

Are you receiving enough copies of the Journal?If you would like to change the number of magazines we ship to your unit or institution, please fax us your up-to-daterequirements so that we can continue to provide you and your staff with the best possible service. Faxes may be sent to:Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, (819) 994-9929.

The Journal welcomes unclassifiedsubmissions, in English or French.To avoid duplication of effort and toensure suitability of subject matter,prospective contributors arestrongly advised to contact theEditor, Maritime EngineeringJournal, DMMS, NationalDefence Headquarters, Ottawa,Ontario, K1A 0K2, Tel.(819) 997-9355, before submitting material.Final selection of articles forpublication is made by the Journal’seditorial committee. Letters of anylength are always welcome, but onlysigned correspondence will beconsidered for publication.


Commodore’s Corner

What do you say when you introduceyourself to the new people next door andthey ask you what you do for a living?Give them the usual response of, “I’m inthe navy!” and you can just see a pictureforming in their minds of Second WorldWar corvettes duking it out with U-boatsin a North Atlantic gale. At this pointthere may be a pause as they rememberthat this is 1997, and you might thencatch a glimmer of a shiny new patrolfrigate coming over the horizon of theirconsciousness, only to belost from view in a fog ofmedia accounts ofproject blunders, techni-cal glitches, crossing-the-line ceremonies andother tabloid-worthynews items.

You see the questionmarks appearing, so youjump in and fill thebreach with, “I’m aMARE — you know, aMaritime Engineer,” or“I’m an NET(Tactical)— you know, a navalelectronics technicianspecializing in naviga-tion, active and passiveelectronic surveillance,and fire-control sys-tems.”

They still don’t get it.You continue, desper-ately trying to bridge thegap in understanding with, “I’m a MarineSystems Engineer and I work in the fleetmaintenance facility as the technical serv-ices officer for steamers and auxiliaryvessels.” By this time their eyes haveglazed over, they are shuffling their feet,and their heads are turning in the hopethat the cable guy will show up so thatthey can make a graceful but speedy exit.

A Perspective on What We Doin the Navy

How many times have we all beenthrough a similar experience, in the endfinding ourselves wondering afterward,Why is it so difficult to explain what it isthat we do? People understand what achartered accountant is. Likewise, theyhave a fairly good idea of what a postalworker does for a living. Why, then, is itso difficult to get people to understandexactly what it is we do?

The reason that we have difficulty isthat what we do has no parallel in the ci-

vilian sector. What we do as MARE offic-ers or Naval Technicians is actually anamalgamation of many diverse roles andresponsibilities that are unique to ourcalling. We have come to understand thelabels that stand for these groupings, like“MARE” or “Mar Eng Tech,” but to oth-ers it is only so much jargon. It doesn’thelp either that we experience such abroad range of activity in our careers.

Whatever job we are doing today, it islikely we will be doing something com-pletely different three years from now,and something totally different againthree years after that. From seagoing de-partment head or senior tech, to desk-bound career manager in Ottawa or GreenMachine recruiter in the Gaspé —we do itall.

So how do we put some perspectiveinto what we “do” in the navy?

When we are atsea we are part of thefleet and are there todo a specific job aspart of the combatteam. As VAdm Ma-son put it when hewas the maritimecommander, “Whennaval forces go tosea, all personnelfight their ship as fullmembers of the com-bat team, whetherweapons or sensoroperators, electronicsor weapons techni-cians, electrical orengineering trades-men, or in supply,finance or personnelsupport.” When wecome ashore, we sup-port the fleet. It’s assimple as that.

Service at sea prepares MAREs andNaval Technicians alike for the demandsthey will face in providing effective tech-nical support to the fleet. The knowledgeand experience we gain at sea, amongother aspects of our expertise, are notavailable in the private marketplace. Theymust be developed within the service ifthe fleet is to receive the support that itneeds. We support the fleet from ashore

By Commodore F.W. Gibson, OMM, CDDirector General Maritime Equipment Program Management


which we structure our occupations anddevelop and employ our people withinthem.

The MARE occupation analysis (OA)has been a beneficial exercise, notwith-standing the fact that the major recom-mendation to restructure has not beenaccepted. It was necessary to examine theMARE occupation in light of the transi-tion of our new ships to in-service status,and the organizational changes that wereaffecting MARE employment in coastal

“We cannot expect peopleto quickly comprehend allthe...factors that affectwhat we do as MAREofficers and Naval Tech-nicians.”

and NDHQ organizations. The MAREOA was, and still is, an important elementin this process.

Many important changes, especially intraining, are being progressed as a resultof the OA. Structural change will con-tinue to be considered part of the evolu-tionary process of monitoring the MAREoccupation and assessing the way ahead.The success of the naval and engineeringskill sets used during the development,acquisition and in-service support of theCanadian patrol frigates, TRUMP de-stroyers and maritime coastal defencevessels indicates that the current MAREoccupation structure is working well.Still, the occupation must continue toadapt if it is to be as relevant in the fu-ture.

The Naval Technician trades have alsobeen subject to close reexamination inlight of changing requirements. The MOSReview of all hard-sea occupations, theoccupation analysis of Marine SystemsTechnician trades, and the Combat Sys-tem Technician Vision Paper are all im-portant elements in determining how the

in many ways, and not only in engineer-ing or technical roles. The recruiter in theGaspé, the career manager in Ottawa andthe MOC manager in Halifax are alsothere to support the fleet, whether directlyor through a Forces-wide agency.

When we come ashore, we also findthat the nature and structure of the organi-zations within which we provide supportto the fleet are changing rapidly. Old rela-tionships and ways of doing businesshave been modified or replaced. This isespecially true for Maritime CommandHeadquarters, the fleet maintenance fa-cilities and the MEPM division. Thestanding down of MARCOM Headquar-ters and the standing up of the Chief ofMaritime Staff organization in Ottawahave provided a requirement and an op-portunity to improve the nature of thepartnership between these entities.

The personnel side of the house is noless subject to change. The MOS reviewsand occupation analyses of the MAREand Naval Technician occupations haveassisted us in reexamining the way in

navy is to develop and employ NavalTechnicians to meet new requirements.

So, when faced with the question,“What do you do for a living?” a reason-able reply would be to say, “I’m in thenavy and I’m an engineer on boardHMCS Whompity-whomp” or, “I’m in thenavy and I’m involved with fleet sup-port.” More information can be offeredrelative to the level of interest this pro-vokes, but don’t be upset if the personsays, “Oh, that’s nice,” and turns the con-versation to the Stanley Cup playoffs.

The education of the Canadian publicto the need for, and understanding of,their navy must continue. However, wecannot expect people to quickly compre-hend all the requirements, relationshipsand other factors that affect what we doas MARE officers and Naval Technicians.Sometimes we can barely understandthem ourselves.

As a general rule, article submis-sions should not exceed 12 double-spaced pages of text. The preferredformat is MS Word, or WordPerfect,on 3.5" diskette, accompanied byone copy of the typescript. The au-thor’s name, title, address and tel-ephone number should appear on thefirst page. The last page should con-tain complete figure captions for allphotographs and illustrations ac-companying the article.

Photos and other artwork shouldnot be incorporated with the type-script, but should be protected andinserted loose in the mailing enve-lope. If at all possible, electronicphotographs and drawings should bein TIFF format. A photograph of theauthor would be appreciated.

Submission Formats

Maritime Engineering Journal Objectives• To promote professionalism among

maritime engineers and technicians.

• To provide an open forum wheretopics of interest to the maritime engi-neering community can be presentedand discussed, even if they might becontroversial.

• To present practical maritime engi-neering articles.

• To present historical perspectives oncurrent programs, situations and events.

• To provide announcements of pro-grams concerning maritime engineer-ing personnel.

• To provide personnel news notcovered by official publications.


Over the past few years I have had anopportunity to watch the naval commu-nity from a variety of vantage pointswithin DGMEPM and MARCOM, look-ing both toward the waterfront and thefleet maintenance facilities, and back to-ward the “centre.” While we have suc-cessfully made changes to adapt to ourevolving environment, what is even moreevident is the ongoing conflict that pre-vents us from moving at the pace at whichwe could be proceeding to support thenavy. I have watched conflicts come andgo between units, between units and for-mations, units and MARCOM, forma-tions and MARCOM, and between all ofthe above and DGMEPM. To be fairthese conflicts often concern deeply heldbeliefs, but what is surprising is that thebeliefs seem so disparate for what is infact one navy. All too often debate doesnot end when decisions are taken. Rather,the implementation of decisions is slowedby individuals and small groups of peoplewho, through creative reasoning, are ableto mould the final decision to fit theiroriginal preferences.

Why is this? Perhaps it stems in partfrom the desirable independence ofthought and will we try to engender innaval officers. Maybe we are all so fo-cused on leading that we do not easilysubmit to being led. Maybe. I think theproblem has a great deal to do with thesegmented nature of our naval commu-nity. We are too ready to argue our ownpoint before stopping to listen and under-stand an opposing view. There is a ten-dency to address issues within theengineering or logistic or operator com-munities, without the benefit of direct in-put from the other communities. Thismeans that individuals in one group mustinterpret the needs and viewpoints of an-other group without the benefit of theirdirect voices. I believe much of the de-bate internal to our subnaval communitiescould be streamlined by an injection ofviews from all sides of the naval supportcommunity.

But what can we do? We lack suchforums, at least at a rank level where theycan be useful to the community as awhole. I think that we in the engineering

community should set an example bymaking a greater effort to regenerate ournaval focus on considering what is bestfor the navy as a whole, not just our ownunit.

For a start, we have tended to isolateourselves, focusing on ourselves as engi-neers rather than as naval officers. Aninstitution like the MARE Council, oper-ating without MARS and SEALOG par-ticipation, carries with it the danger ofhaving a somewhat parochial outlook.Considering some recent comments madeby our senior leaders on the possibility ofunions or similar associations taking rootin the Canadian Forces, I think we shouldmove to eliminate MOC-specific bodiesand replace them with a true naval sup-port council in which our three communi-ties can share problems, communicategood ideas and learn more about eachother. The membership of such a councilshould not be drawn solely from the sen-ior ranks, as this tends to isolate the groupfrom first-hand input on what is actuallyhappening in the fleet. Rather, it shouldbe a mix of selected and elected repre-sentatives drawn from across the fleet’srank and occupation structure. Such a fo-rum, akin to those of other professionalgroups, would provide a reasonably directroute for concerns to be raised and dis-cussed within the community, rather thanrelying on a divisional system that attimes seems like an obstacle to innovativeideas. As a minimum, if such a naval sup-port council were not accepted, theMARE Council could set an example byincluding representatives of the MARSand SEALOG communities, as well asdirect representation from the lowerranks.

Secondly we in the support communitystill need a unifying vision that goes be-yond the boundaries of ADM(Mat),MARCOM and specific units. While ac-countability for the naval support func-tion will remain split for the foreseeablefuture, we cannot allow it to be managedin this way. It must be a team effort. Pastefforts at producing a unifying visionhave failed perhaps because they havesought to paper over the issues that seemto divide us. Who is responsible for the

long-term viability of the fleet? Whatabout the immediate problems? What rolemust we play with respect to ensuring aneffective industrial support structure?Whatever the answers, I suggest they allrequire us to act as a team. But we mustreach this understanding jointly and try toremove the distrust that has built up be-tween the coasts and ADM(Mat) over theyears.

The vision we seek must be broadenough to allow individuals to understandit in their own context. Too specific andthe group feels it is being led by the nose;too vague and we start to wander backinto conflict. The challenge to our councilin either its current or hopefully amendedform, is to strike the balance that willboth inspire and lead at the same time. Itschances of success are much improved, Ibelieve, if it adopts a more open and in-clusive approach to its deliberations.

Last, we must all decide whether ornot we are going to dedicate ourselves toimproving our relationships both withinand outside the MARE community, and toacting in a unified manner toward a com-mon vision of what material supportmeans. This is not easy. It takes a strongact of will to listen to opposing views,and an even stronger one to support themif a decision goes against you. But that iswhat is necessary if we are to continu-ously demonstrate that we are valuablemembers of the naval team. These daysnone of us has the time to waste on fight-ing parochial battles — it is time to moveon.

Nobody asked me, but...Article by Cdr P.J. Brinkhurst

Commander Brinkhurst is the Deputy Chief ofStaff for Materiel Program Management inMARCOM.

Forum


Mr. Norminton’s concerns regardingthe need for continued shock qualificationproof testing voiced in the February issueof the Maritime Engineering Journal arewell stated. It is gratifying to know thatelements of the commercial establishmentrealize the importance and necessity ofmaintaining warship design standards inthe modern world. There is no initiativewithin the Canadian navy to degrade theshock survivability requirements of Cana-dian warships.

There are (and have been for sometime) efforts underway, however, to en-able achieving these goals usingcommercial equipment. Cana-dian design practice has encour-aged the use of resilientmountings for many years. Such“shock mounts” have demon-strated more than adequate ca-pability in protecting fragileequipment from the potentiallydevastating effects of weapons.Recent tests have shown thatsuitably mounted commercialmotors and pump sets can sur-vive full shock test levels. Inshort, to qualify for shock, anyequipment, be it commercial ormilitary, must simply just passthe shock test. There is no in-tention to forego shock qualifi-cation testing of any equipmentwhich affects the safety or com-bat capability of naval combat-ants.

Whereas equipment maymeet shock using suitablemountings, there remain otherproblems concerned with opera-tion in the naval marine envi-ronment. Once commercialequipment is further hardenedto meet requirements for EMI,submersibility, shipboard vibration, cor-rosion, power quality and other environ-mental conditions, to name but a few, itbegins to change its appearance some-what.

Canadian naval ships and their equip-ment are designed and qualified to with-stand the damaging potential arising from

underwater explosions. This requirementalone sets naval construction standardsapart from those of the commercial realm.While the capability of modern navalships has grown astronomically in thiscentury, improvements in their ability toresist damage from weapon effects have,in general, not kept pace.

There exists a perception that there islittle point in battle hardening modernships given the devastating effects ofmodern weapons. This resigned attitudewould surely raise the eyebrows of ourforefathers. That ships of the line were

battle hardened as a matter of fact is wellillustrated by the final sortie of the Britishwarship Revenge against the Spanish Ar-mada. Acting alone in somewhat of arearguard action, Revenge engaged sixgalleons which pummelled her for morethan a day, but were unable to destroy her.She sustained more than 1,500 direct hits,

repulsed repeated boarding attempts, yetretained sufficient capability to arrange anegotiated settlement. To suggest that aship could survive even a tiny fraction ofsuch devastation today is to invite disdainand disbelief.

Modern weapon effects are usuallycategorized as conventional, nuclear, orchemical, and are often accompanied bysecondary effects such as fire or radia-tion. Their destructive potential (regard-less of whether they are delivered asdirect hits or near misses) depends on anitem’s ability to withstand damage from a

combination of shock, blastoverpressure, fragmentation(shrapnel) and heat.

Fortunately, modern Cana-dian naval ships are indeed bat-tle hardened in many respectsand have the ability to fighthurt. Their capability to with-stand set blast overpressuresarising from internal and exter-nal explosions is attained bydesign standards and qualifica-tion through test and analysis ofvarious components. Similarly,resistance to fragmentationdamage is provided by means ofstructural detail (e.g. equivalentarmour) sufficient to protectvital equipment and spacesagainst a specific fragment at-tack. While these design at-tributes cannot protect a frigatefrom direct hits within such vi-tal spaces, they provide an ex-cellent means of reducing theextent of fragmentation damageand are particularly effectiveagainst near misses, externalbursts and small arms fire.

Given a frigate’s size, shapeand normal degree of watertight

subdivision, damage from an internaldetonation of an anti-ship missile willtend to be constrained to one or two wa-tertight subdivisions, assuming the shipdoes not break in half. Ship designs mustthus be able to maintain adequate longitu-dinal strength and ensure sufficientenclaving and distribution of systems to

On the Shock Resistance of Naval ShipsArticle by Z.J. Czaban

Floating shock test platform

Forum


retain capability outside of the damagedregion.

By far the most pervasive weapon ef-fect experienced in ships is the “shock”generated by the detonation of munitions.Whether induced by air blast or by under-water explosion, the effects are similar.They are characterized by a very ener-getic surface wave travelling through shipstructure with a rapid, high-magnitudeacceleration followed by a rapid decelera-tion and possible subsequent excitation ofequipment seatings and ship structureswhich generate large displacements. Ma-terials of construction which have inad-equate elongation properties (e.g. castiron) suffer brittle fracture under suchloading conditions. Equipment improp-erly mounted or supported can becomedislodged or otherwise damaged.

Naval ship structures are not, and havenever been specially designed to with-stand the shock induced by underwaterexplosions. Naval practice, following de-sign rules developed for surviving dy-namic, but not weapons-induced sealoads, essentially defines the shock hard-ness potential inherent to a class. Chang-ing the shock resistance requirement byan order of magnitude in either directionwill not significantly change the funda-mental characteristics of ship structures.However, designing a ship for shock (anylevel) does require that attention be paidto detail to avoid “cheap kill” damage asmay arise from overhangs, discontinuitiesand flimsy seatings. The design analysisefforts exerted during shipbuilding pro-grams are generally restricted to provingthat structures will not deform beyondlimits imposed for the design, rather thanoptimizing for shock in any particularmanner.

Note that it is possible to create moredamage from a relatively small sizedcharge correctly placed, than from a verylarge charge located in an arbitrary posi-tion, even though the latter may generatea far greater shock load. It is ill-advisedto overdesign for shock. It is, however,mandatory to balance the design. There islittle point in having an intact hull, oreven a damaged but floating hull, if theship is unable to fight. Whereas the blasteffects arising from underwater weaponsmay be sufficient to breach the hull orotherwise damage ship structures, thistype of damage will tend to be localized.The shock effects from such detonations

generally affect every system and eachpiece of shipboard equipment.

In order to control damage to ship’sequipment, the single-most important as-pect related to ship hardening is theShock Qualification and Control Pro-gram, imposed on all Canadian warshipbuilding programs. This program requiresthat all equipment necessary for the con-tinued combat capability of the ship, andsuch that may affect ship safety, undergoformal shock qualification by test to thefull design level required by the buildingprogram. All equipment on Canadianwarships undergoes such qualification.The tests require that the machinery con-tinue to operate without degradation dur-ing application of such shock tests.

The Canadian shock specification(CFTO D-03-003-007/SG-000) definesthe shock test criteria that need to be met.The criteria are similar to those imposedby the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy.The Canadian shock test procedure re-quires the equipment to survive shocktests on either the lightweight, medium-weight or heavyweight shock test ma-chines. The light- and medium-weightmachines comprise a test bed with a largeswinging hammer which strikes themounted equipment with sufficient forceto accurately simulate the shock environ-ment expected on board ships at hulllethality levels. The heavyweight tests areconducted on board a floating shock testplatform which can accept equipmentweighing up to 15 tonnes with a footprintof up to five metres by 10 metres.

The swinging hammer machines havebeen available in Canada for many years.The principal installation is at the NavalEngineering Test Establishment (NETE)in Montreal. In 1989 NETE was providedwith a floating shock test platform to al-low qualification of components beyondthe capacity of the smaller machines. Therequirement to proof test rather thanqualify by analysis is fundamental to as-suring that systems will continue to per-form satisfactorily when in harm’s way.While analytical procedures can demon-strate whether structural components maybecome overloaded during the applicationof a shock, they are rather limited in theirability to model equipment performance.

Contrary to popular opinion, shocktesting in accordance with the CFTO doesnot generally induce a great deal of physi-cal damage. The shock test procedure

requires the equipment to survive a seriesof blows of increasing severity. Onset offailure is thus noted at lighter shock testlevels and hence costly catastrophic fail-ures are avoided. Elementary shockanalyses conducted by equipment manu-facturers are generally adequate to ensuremajor components survive the shock test.The principal benefit of the test proce-dure is to enable finding potential detailsof the assembly and its subcomponentswhich may for some reason introduce atransient characteristic while undergoingshock loading that impairs performanceof the equipment and the systems it sup-ports. For this reason, much attentionmust be given to correct loading andsimulating the functionality of the unitundergoing test. To a certain extent it isthis operational performance requirementthat distinguishes shock tests conductedfollowing USN and Canadian proceduresfrom those conducted by other nations.

Procedures are in place to ensure thatmodifications made to ships followingconstruction conform to these stringentcriteria in order not to degrade the design.All ship changes and modifications arereviewed by the design authority to en-sure that the requirements stipulated bythe CFTO for shock qualification arefully met. Note also that of all the USNstandards and specifications which havebeen recently rescinded in their efforts toadopt simpler “commercialized” proce-dures, the MIL-S-901 specification con-cerned with shock qualification of navalequipment has been retained as an essen-tial requirement.

Jan Czaban is the DMSS 2-5 head of the ShipSurvivability Section in NDHQ.

Forum


While working with the PMO MCDVdetachment during the construction ofHMCS Glace Bay (MM-701) at HalifaxShipyard Ltd., innumerable people ap-proached me for tours of the yard and,specifically, of my ship. It was not possi-ble to give everyone a tour, however, asmost of the people asking were not evenin Halifax (they somewhere far to thewest of us in a warmer place where manyCanadian sailors seem to lurk). This pic-

Maritime Coastal Defence VesselConstruction:A Walk Through Halifax Shipyard Ltd.Article by CPO2 Mike Syzek, Chief Engineer, HMCS Glace BayCanadian Forces photos by Base Photo Halifax

torial essay gives a thumbnail tour of theMCDV production facilities at HalifaxShipyard Ltd. (HSL).

The majority of production activity inHSL takes place in two adjoining rectan-gular buildings. A 20-metre opening inthe centre of the common wall betweenthe two buildings allows for the passageof material and personnel. Since the pro-duction facilities are set up in line with

the build strategy, a quick overview of theMCDV build strategy will provide a bet-ter appreciation of the facilities.

The Build Strategy

The MCDV build strategy, as devel-oped by HSL, involves nine stages ofconstruction. In some cases these stagesoverlap and, depending on the unit beingconstructed, may not always be done inorder.

The plasma cutter uses a combination of electric arc and oxygen to produce an extremely hot and precise cut. Tolerance forthe cutter is one to two millimetres compared to a CNC acetylene torch which would typically produce a 3-mm to 6-mmtolerance. The cut produced by the plasma cutter is extremely clean and ready for welding without any additional preparation.The water bath is flooded, covering the steel plate. The bath provides cooling water to the metal which helps prevent heatwarpage and dampens harmful radiation produced by the plasma cutter, negating the need for costly shielding.(HSC95-0840-05a)


The nine stages of construction aredefined as follows:

Stage One (steel/outfit prepara-tion) — Steel plates and bars are cutand formed, pipe spools, hangers,foundations and ducting are manufac-tured, and outfitting equipment ismarshalled for later installation.

Stage Two (minor assembly) —Individual pieces are fitted andwelded to form small components.

Stage Three (flat and curvedpanel assembly) —Stiffeners arewelded to panels for bulkheads, decksand side shells.

Stage Four (subunit and unit as-sembly) — Panels are welded to-gether to form larger assembly units.

Stage Five (hot pre-outfitting ofassembly units) — Completion ofitems such as pipe hangers, cablehangers, equipment foundations, andanything that involves hot work(welding).

Stage Six (block assembly) —Assembly units are joined to formthree distinct blocks that will bejoined to produce a complete MCDV.The three sections are roughly thesame size and consist of a bow unit,midsection and stern section. Themast is installed separately once theship is on the slipway.

Stage Seven (pre-outfit two ) —Installation of equipment, bulkheadinsulation, false bulkheads anddeckheads, piping systems, electricalcables, distribution panels, etc., andpainting. With the exception of equip-ment that is mounted across the erec-tion butt of the blocks, remainingequipment is installed prior to theblock leaving the assembly building.

Stage Eight (block erection) —Blocks are transported from the as-sembly hall to the slipway and weldedat the erection butt in preparation forthe vessel’s launch. (MCDVs fourthrough twelve were constructed us-ing only two major blocks, with thebow being joined to the remainder ofthe ship on the slipway.)

Stage Nine (finishing work ) —Completion of cable terminations andfinal outfitting and finishing of ship’scompartments; set-to-work of ship’ssystems in preparation for sea trialsand final acceptance of the ship by thenavy.

Each piece is labelled by a part number and by ship and unit number. The piecesare then placed in bins or on pallets to facilitate ease of assembly. The partnumber will identify the piece within the unit and the unit number identifieswhere in the ship the part goes. ( HSC95-0840-07)

A nearly completed mast unit destined for HMCS Glace Bay . In the foreground isadditional framing for HMCS Nanaimo ’s mast. ( HSC95-0840-11)

Grinding parts forHMCS Edmonton ’scentre block hull(HSC95-0840-09/10)


HMCS Nanaimo ’s bow section. The unitsare built inverted to maximize the use ofthe easier downhand welding. The unitsare flipped into position prior to blockassembly. Due to the pace of construc-tion and the space limitation at HSL, thebow units for MCDVs 04 through 12 arebeing constructed by East Isle Shipyards(EISL) in Georgetown, P.E.I. Parts aretransported to EISL on flatbed truck andreturn as a completed bow by barge.(HSC95-0840-13)

Pre-outfitting of Nanaimo ’s engine room. Painting, cable-pulling and the installation of insulation hasalready begun. This unit has undergone significantly more outfitting than Kingston and Glace Bay atthe same stage of construction. HSL continues to evolve the construction process to minimize costand rework. ( HSC95-0840-16)

The forward and after machinery rooms (FMR and AMR) for HMCS Nanaimo arerecognizable by the two large diesel generators. Forward of the FMR is the mainswitchboard compartment. ( HSC96-0721-11)


A teflon pad that the cradle holding the ship uprightrests on. All movement of the sections is done byhydraulic jacks. ( HSC95-0840-19)

The 185-cm-tall (six-foot one) author standing beside the two Z-drives for Nanaimo . The Z-drives are designed to beremoved with the ship in the water. Removable plates on the quarterdeck allow access to lift the Z-drives out as entireunits. ( HSC95-0840-18)

The bow section of Glace Bay . Nanaimo ’s middle and after sec-tions are directly behind it inside the building. ( HSC96-0721-05)


Surviving the Tar Pit:A Few Things to Consider whenAcquiring Developmental SoftwareArticle by LCdr M. Tinney

An analogy in an article writtenseveral years ago compared softwaredevelopment teams to great beaststrapped in prehistoric tar pits. “Largesystem programming has over the pastdecade been...a tar pit, and many greatand powerful beasts have thrashed in itviolently. Most have emerged withsystems running — few have met goals,schedules, and budgets’.[1]

The analogy of the tar pit is stillpertinent today. All developmentalprojects are risky, but perhaps none moreso than those which deal with softwaredevelopment. The topic of softwareproject management is extensive andcomplex, and it would be impossible tothoroughly discuss all relevant aspects inthe confines of this paper. My intent hereis simply to share my thoughts on a fewaspects of software development, basedon what I learned while attending a DNDlife-cycle costing course. My hope is thatthis will help point beginning softwaredevelopment project teams in the rightdirection.

Defining and Validating theRequirements

As with any development project,software development begins with theuser accurately and thoroughlyidentifying the requirement. During theproject definition stage it is essential toavoid the tendency to add unnecessaryfunctions to the software. Increasedfunctionality translates into increasedcomplexity, cost, time to develop andprobability that the software developmentwill be unsuccessful. Requirementsshould be “locked in” before the formalrequest for proposals (RFP) is released.Further change should only be allowedafter its impact has been fully assessed.Failure to do so may result in the projectteam finding itself thrashing around inone of those tar pits with significant costoverruns and delays, if not a completefailure of the project.

Once the requirements have beendefined, they must be validated. The

project team should evaluate eachrequirement against the following criteria:

• Is it achievable within thecapabilities of the hardware to becontrolled by the software?

• Is it accurately defined and notsubject to interpretation?

• Does it completely specify thesoftware product to be provided?

• Is it consistent with the otherrequirements and with any interfacingsystems at the next higher and lowerlevels?

• Is it really necessary?• Is it testable?

Any requirement that does not meetthese conditions should be modified, ordeleted, as it is not achievable.

Risk AnalysisSoftware development projects tend to

be risky when a lack of good engineeringand management practices leads to anunderestimation of the complexity of theproject. Despite the fact that writing theapplication program accounts for only asmall portion of the total softwaredevelopment effort (Fig. 1), estimates ofcost, time and complexity to developsoftware are apparently typically basedon this aspect alone. Thus, understandingthe full scope of the project is essential toproperly managing the project andunderstanding all of the potential risks.

Risk analysis involves identifying therisks, assessing them, and developingcontingency plans for dealing with them.The key is to keep risk assessments andcontingency plans up to date bymonitoring progress in general and areasof risk in particular. When assessing thelevel of risk associated with anunfavourable event it is important tounderstand both the probability of thatevent occurring, as well as itsconsequences. An easy way to illustraterisk is to plot the probability and severityof various risks (based on the projectteam’s best guesses) on an “isorisk”contour map (Fig. 2).[2] Once plotted, the

level of risk associated with each event isquantified based on its proximity to thecontoured lines, and the value allocatedto the line.

The next step is to determine if thereare cost-effective ways of reducing therisk. For example, in a case where it islikely that a software program will bedelivered late, the project team mightchoose to reduce the risk by addingpeople to the development team. But thiscould make the project unwieldy (therebyintroducing delays in itself) and morecostly. Alternatively, the team could optto accept the risk that the entire projectmight be delayed and live with anyadverse affects this might have. Thus, riskassessment involves weighing the cost ofreducing or eliminating the risk, againstthe cost or impact of accepting it.

Estimating Project CostsEstimating the effort required to

develop software is not an easy task, butit must be done at the earliest stage of theproject in order to budget the necessaryfunds to finance the project. This can bedone manually, or through the use of asoftware package specifically designedfor this purpose.

One widely used tool for estimatingthe cost to develop software is theConstructive Cost Model (COCOMO).What makes the task particularly difficultis that it is necessary to have an estimateof how many lines of developmental codemust be written. One way to make thisestimate is to rely on the experience ofpreviously developed programs of similarcomplexity. Once the number of lines ofcode has been estimated it is possible toestimate both the level of effort in person-months to develop the program, and adevelopment schedule.

There are costs associated withsupporting software throughout its lifecycle. In general, about a third of thesoftware life-cycle costs will be spent inthe development phase, with theremaining two-thirds being spent on


maintenance associated with errorcorrection, enhancing existing functionsand adding new functions. It is possible tomake cost predictions for each of theseactivities so that they can be included inthe life-cycle cost estimate.[3] Of coursethere are other typical costs, such as fortraining and documentation, which mustalso be considered as well.

ErrorsErrors in software development can be

classified as requirement errors, designerrors or coding errors. Every softwaredevelopment project will have a measureof all three. The challenge for the projectteam is to ensure that requirement errorsare kept to an absolute minimum.Incorrectly or inaccurately definedrequirements can lead to a faulty designwhich in turn can lead to a program thatdoesn’t perform as required. Accuraterequirements that are not properlyconveyed to the contractor can also leadto a faulty design. So the onus is on theproject team to properly identify therequirements and ensure the contractorfully comprehends what is needed.

Assuming that the requirements havebeen accurately defined and thecontractor fully understands them and hastranslated them into a proper design, therestill remains the problem of coding errors.In general, as the size of a softwareprogram increases, so does theprobability of error. The way to minimizethe impact of coding errors is to try to

detect them as early in the project aspossible. When errors are detected late ina project, requirements have to berevalidated, designs adjusted, softwareamended and retested, and documentationrewritten.

Rapid prototyping is a process that isused to validate user interfacerequirements and to prove concepts. Theprocess allows the customer to becomeactively involved in evaluating a productas early as possible, and facilitates theearly detection of requirement errors.

In rapid prototyping the contractor istasked to deliver non-productionprototype software at various stages ofdevelopment so that the customer can tryit out, refine his requirements and suggestimprovements. From the contractor’spoint of view, the earlier the customerbecomes involved in evaluating theproduct, the greater the likelihood thecustomer will be happy with the finishedproduct and accept it. From thecustomer’s point of view, being involvedat every stage of product developmenthelps keep the contractor on the righttrack, aids in identifying problems earlyand helps to reduce risk.

Maintenance SupportIn the Request for Proposals, it is

important to ask bidders to provide anadditional quote on their cost to maintainthe software over a specified period. Thisgives the project team a good indication

of how much confidence the developershave in their own programmingcapabilities. It also commits them tosupporting the software for a reasonableperiod of time, and serves as an incentivefor the developers to aim for high-quality,reliable code since anything less will eataway at their profit margin. However, thecustomer needs to know what he wantsfor maintenance. Otherwise, there is arisk of spending a lot without achievinganything significant.

Contract PaymentsMost contractors like to be paid up

front and deliver the goods later. At thevery least, they prefer to receivemilestone payments. However, poorlymanaged software projects tend toquickly ramp up to the 90-percentcompleted stage, then stay thereseemingly forever. If a contractor saysthat the code has been completed, and theproject is therefore 90 to 95 percentfinished, the reality is that completion ofthe code only constitutes about 30 to 40percent of the total effort. The work thatremains to debug the software and test thesystem will still occupy a lot of time andresources. If the contractor is paid themajority of the funds when only the codehas been completed, there is a real dangerthe project will incur overruns.

Project payment schedules should bedesigned to place financial risk on thecontractor if all aspects of the project arenot delivered fully completed. Some

Application Programs

Host ComputersInterface Equipment

Language Translators Program Linkers Program Editors

System Simulators Environment Simulators Test Drivers

Development ToolsTest ToolsDiagnostic Software

Program Description Documentation Test PlansConfiguration Management ProceduresUsers Manuals

Personnel General Training System Peculiar Training

Tools Flow Charts Program Design AnalysisDesign Trade Off Standards Development Tools DevelopmentInterface Document

Fig. 1. The Software Iceberg


people recommend milestone paymentstied to incremental builds for complexsoftware development.

Testing, Problem Reporting andConfiguration Control

A well-organized project team will doits best to arrange for software to betested in its intended application as soonas possible after delivery, and continue tomonitor its performance throughintegration. The project team should alsoimplement a problem reportingprocedure. If problems are reported and itis evident that changes need to be made,it is essential that some form of control beplaced on how the contractor rectifiesproblems. (This is normally tied to thecontractor’s development process, whichshould be evaluated carefully during bids.Quality objectives would have to havebeen identified in advance.) Otherwise,software configuration control can bequickly lost if the contractor locates andfixes a fault without first carrying out animpact analysis, testing the change andamending the documentation properly. Itis the project team’s responsibility toestablish a configuration managementsystem to correct problems that develop.

ConclusionsThe key to getting a software project

started in the right direction is to keep therequirements under control — definethem accurately and in sufficient detail toavoid any misunderstanding with thecontractor. The time spent on this phasecan go a long way toward ensuring thesuccess of a project.

The project team must also carry out arisk analysis for each aspect of the projectand develop contingency plans fordealing with undesirable events. The RFPmust be designed to allow the user tobecome actively involved in evaluatingthe contractor’s product at every stage ofdevelopment. Ensuring the program isthoroughly tested in its intendedapplication as soon as possible afterdelivery is always recommended.

Consider also the requirement forsoftware maintenance. Estimate the levelof effort and cost, and add these to your

Fig. 2. “Isorisk Contour Map — Probability of Unfavourable Outcome

life-cycle cost estimates. Arrange thecontract payments to fit the level of effortand make the contractor responsible forthe software’s maintenance support.Finally, implement a problem reportingprocedure, enforce software configurationmanagement, and ensure that thecontractor analyzes, tests and documentsany changes.

References:[1] Brooks, F.P. Jr., The Mythical Man-

Month, Software Engineering ProjectManagement Tutorial, Computer Soci-ety Press of the IEEE Editorial Board,1988.

[2] Life Cycle Costing Course: StudentManual, Material Management Train-ing Centre, Ottawa, presented by Mr.B. Hough, Computer Sciences Canada,1996.

[3] Boehm, Barry W., Software Engineer-ing Economics, Prentice Hall, 1981.

LCdr Tinney is a DMSS 5 project engineer atNDHQ.


Ever go camping without a pivotalpiece of equipment? Like your tent? Oryour matches? Not unless you’re askingfor trouble.

All good campers know that beforeyou go on a trip you should plan yourroute and pack the essential equipment,then travel only with the best people. Thesame goes for any major naval deploy-ment, including that of HMCSFredericton (FFH-337) to the Adriatic onOperation Sharpguard in late 1995.

Tops on our trip’s “to do” list was ar-ranging to have the appropriate number ofqualified personnel on board to maintainour equipment. We then checked theequipment to ensure operability and madesure that we had all the possible spareswe could get. Before stocking up we did awalk-through with our supply techniciansto muster the stores. Going out green wasnot an option. Personnel and equipmentwere put through their paces in work-upsand trials about a month beforehand.

Like any campers heading for anextreme location we had to be self-reliantand carry with us all the necessaryequipment. After adding mission fitsduring a short-work period (an essentialpreparation, during which we alsoperformed corrective andpreventive maintenance) it wastime for a test drive, betterknown as a shakedown. Thiswas a one-day trip to sea toreacquaint personnel with searoutine and to iron out some ofthe bugs. We also grabbed thisopportunity to conduct a full-power trial which proved to bevery beneficial because, withtrials staff and fleet FSRs onboard, we were able to fine-tune and calibrate our equip-ment and systems.

There were a couple of im-portant things to consider be-fore heading out on afive-month deployment:

HMCS Fredericton: A CSE’sAdvice on PredeploymentPreparationsArticle by Lt(N) Jim McDonald

• We were facing a 5,000-nautical-milelogistic span, which meant that spareparts wouldn’t exactly be available at thenearest corner store — we had to ensureour onboard spares entitlement was up todate;

• We were deploying to an operationaltheatre where our systems would have tobe maintained at a high state of readiness— we knew we had to get ahead of ourplanned maintenance, especially the six-month routines, because we would havevirtually no time to do anything like thatwhile deployed. The only possible timefor conducting PM would be during tran-sit, while the ship was engaged in lessdemanding operations, or during one ofour foreign port stops (and we all knewwhat we’d rather be doing then). Andsomething we discovered. The IntegratedMaintenance Administration and SupplySystem (IMASS) used by ship’smaintainers to produce maintenance ac-tion forms, unsatisfactory condition re-ports (UCRs) and, to a lesser extent, togenerate equipment health monitoringreports, does not adequately spread outsix-monthly routines. So a word of cau-tion. Don’t trust IMASS to split up yourpreventive maintenance routines intomanageable chunks.

Obstacles Along the WayLike any typical outing, the problems

started early. On Dec. 9, 1995 as we weregetting ready to leave our first port of call(Gibraltar) for the Op area, a naval weap-ons technician was injured while loadinga charged torpedo flask. The end of theflask accidentally came into contact withthe lever of the securing mechanism anddischarged its high-pressure air. The flasktook the path of least resistance andstruck the man above the knee. It took 11stitches to close the wound.

With their injured mate in good hands,the naval weapons technicians turnedtheir attention to the torpedo equipment.The crux of the problem was that the se-curing mechanism did not clamp onto theexhaust port of the warshot torpedo tube.The techs sorted this out by using a rub-ber mallet to make the mechanism takeproper hold of the torpedo exhaust-portnipple. Ship’s staff then devised a testexperiment using high-pressure nitrogenfrom the hangar and a variety of hosesand couplings to ensure the securingmechanism would release at the specifiedpressure.

Following proper procedure we com-municated the problem and solution via


OPDEF and UCR to our shore authority— who promptly advised us not to use amallet on the securing mechanisms unlessoperationally necessary. (They believedthe problem was likely not with the secur-ing mechanisms, but with the warshotnipples.) As we were heading for a poten-tially hostile environment and our experi-ment was successful, we put the mallet tothe remaining securing mechanisms.

About two months later we werealongside in Valencia, Spain, tied up be-side the USS Simpson (FFG-56) whichalso carries Mk 46 torpedoes. Ship’s staffcame up with the idea of trying our secur-ing mechanisms on their torpedoes. Whenthey didn’t fit we knew it was the mecha-nisms that were at fault. A message to ourcommand/shore support brought us newsecuring mechanisms via our forward lo-gistic support unit, FLS Grottaglie, Italy.The new mechanisms fit like a charm.

Our next hurdle involved intermittentfaults with the modem chassis of ourLink-11 data terminal set (DTS). Here wewere, headed toward an operational area,and we could neither receive nor transmita tactical picture. This came as a surprisesince the DTS had worked during a recentexercise and also for its six-monthly rou-tine during the short work period. It hadeven passed a programmed operationalfunctional appraisal (POFA) on the trans-atlantic trip.

We ordered a new DTS, which wassent to the ship as an immediate opera-tional requirement (IOR). We had to or-der a complete DTS because some of thecircuit card assemblies — the ones thatappeared to have failed — are not issuedas spares. When it arrived we found it hadbeen configured for a steamer, not for aHalifax-class ship! A repair party arrivinglater in Athens with some needed testequipment told us that a correctlyconfigured DTS was on the way.

The repair team narrowed the problemdown to poor soldering throughout theback plane of the DTS chassis. In themeanwhile, they reconfigured the (IOR)steamer modem and performed the POFAtest. Successful Link-11 operations en-sued! Both repair party and ship’s staffcelebrated with tours of Rome andPompeii!Innovation and Resourcefulness

Innovation and resourcefulness werethe order of the day during this deploy-ment. When a defective gland rendered aROD plant unserviceable, the stokerslooked for a quick fix to ensure our sup-ply of fresh water. They ended up bar-gaining with the cooks for a Teflon

cutting board from which they machinedthe replacement gaskets they needed toreturn the plant to operational service.

Another smart fix resolved a poten-tially risky situation surrounding the ac-curacy of the 57-mm gun at close range.A limitation in the fire-control softwaremeant we could not accurately predict thefall of shot, which would have left us“shooting in the dark,” so to speak, if wehad to fire any warning shots duringboarding operations in the Adriatic. If wewere to fire a shot across a ship’s bow, wesimply couldn’t be sure of the results. Weworked around the problem by trackingpre-action calibration rounds with theSTIR radar until we could predict the ini-tial velocity we needed to get a hit withingiven parameters. We forwarded the re-sults to shore command for their perusal.

In-bound missiles weren’t the onlythreat out there. Rough weather condi-tions (par for the course) also played arole. On one occasion seawater ingressthreatened the effective functioning of thegun — first, the end caps for the barrelwouldn’t stay secure (the boatswains cre-ated a vinyl cover), then water showed upinside the cupola, the forward sectionbase and the 57-mm magazine (via thehoists).For Your Next Trip...

Be prepared for problems; they willoccur. Despite the problems we faced,HMCS Fredericton had a very successfuldeployment, conducting 52 boardings (34in a 12-day period while acting as flag-ship). The ship functioned exceptionallywell, especially when compared to othercountries’ naval vessels. The most impor-tant factor contributing to our success was

our talented, resourceful and willing per-sonnel. If you are planning your own de-ployment, don’t head out without pickingup Fredericton’s handy-dandy post-de-ployment report for a description of therest of the problems and challenges of ourmission.

Lt(N) McDonald is the assistant combatsystems engineering officer on board HMCSFredericton.

The Top 10 PredeploymentChecklist1. Perform inspection of naval ordnance (INO)

2. Calibrate test equipment

3. Get ahead of your planned maintenance schedule

4. Verify entitlement of onboard spares

5. Contact a former unit and read previous deployment reports

6. Take care of all personnel matters

7. Perform critical performance trials

8. Discuss deployment with other department heads

9. Start planning approximately two months in advance

10. Function as a team


The second annual Central Region Na-val Support Seminar was held at the Na-tional Archives building in Ottawa onApril 14. The seminar has evolved fromthe MARE and naval engineering semi-nars of the past to its present format toreflect a broadening of the participantbase. The seminar is now designed for alldefence team members in the NationalCapital Region who work toward satisfy-ing the navy’s engineering, maintenanceand integrated logistics requirements.

The theme of this year’s seminar was“Partnerships in Support of the Fleet,”with emphasis on the word “partner-ships.” The aim was to take a look at howMaritime Command (Chief of MaritimeStaff), DGMEPM and the fleet mainte-nance facilities work together to supportthe fleet. This relationship is still beingdeveloped and so must remain a dynamicprocess until the full impact of the stand-ing-up of the Chief of Maritime Staff(CMS) organization in Ottawa is felt laterthis year.

In his opening address, Cmdre WayneGibson (Director General MaritimeEquipment Program Management)stressed that good progress has beenmade in exploring and developing therelationship between ADM(Mat) andCMS, but there is much more to be ac-complished. We must continue to im-prove how we take resources and turnthem into the greatest possible amount ofshort-, intermediate- and long-term sup-port to the fleet. The purpose of the semi-nar was not to find solutions to theproblems. Rather, it was intended to serveas a forum through which members of thedefence team in the National Capital Re-gion could be informed of the changesthat have taken place, and of the chal-lenges that must still be addressed. It washoped the seminar would also act as acatalyst in improving partnerships.

Speakers were chosen to reflect thebroad spectrum of interests and needs thatcharacterize the defence team partnership.Capt(N) Dan Murphy (Director of Na-

Seminar Report:Central Region Naval SupportSeminarArticle by Cdr Don Flemming

val Requirements) led off by addressingthe key element of managing expectationsas they pertain to defining requirements.The definition and prioritization of fleetrequirements are the first steps in deter-mining the kind and amount of supportthat is to be provided. Since we live in aworld of budget-driven requirements andnot requirement-driven budgets, navalrequirements must be prioritized andcosted as a totality, not just within thetraditional stove-pipes of Capital, Na-tional Procurement, Operations & Main-tenance, etc. Once a way ahead isapproved, the satisfaction of a require-ment must be pursued until final imple-mentation is attained.

Next, Capt(N) Sherm Embree (Di-rector of Maritime Management and Sup-port) examined the Fleet Support Plan —the glue that holds the MARCOM/ADM(Mat) relationship together. Co-op-eration and a common focus on fleet sup-port are required by both organizations ifthe fleet is to receive the support it needs.DGMEPM must be responsive toMARCOM requirements within resourceconstraints and regulations, and it is nec-essary at all levels to fully reveal the sup-port that MARCOM and ADM(Mat)bring to the fleet, including the costs ofthat support. The framework that enablesthese requirements to be met is the FleetSupport Plan.

Presentations were also made by CdrLarry Olsen (representing FMF CapeBreton) and Capt(N) Gerry Humby(Commanding Officer FMF Cape Scott).These officers provided an overview ofthe changes their organizations have un-dergone in the recent past, the challengesthat lie ahead, and the way in which theFMFs have “moved the yardsticks” inimproving their performance as serviceproviders to the fleet. As a concrete ex-ample, Mr. Les Boudreau and Mr.Norm Kempt (FMF Cape Scott) briefedthe audience on the move to self-directedteams within that organization. On asomewhat lighter note Ms. SandraWardell (Directorate of Soldier Systems

Program Management) narrated, “AModern DND Clothing Tale,” her humor-ous look at recent changes to the procure-ment process.

The final portion of the day was de-voted to an open forum in which the audi-ence was given an opportunity to raisequestions and concerns. Cmdre Gibson,his directors and the seminar speakerstook to the stage to field questions. Thiswas perhaps the most interesting part ofthe seminar and, not surprisingly, time didnot allow all questions to be answered.Nevertheless, there was ample opportu-nity to continue discussions at a mixedreception held that evening in the NDHQcombined WOs & Sgts/CPOs & POsMess.

Cdr Flemming is the DGMEPM SpecialProjects Officer.


IntroductionA multi-year program to develop an

aluminum semi-fuel cell power source forunmanned underwater vehicles has re-cently been completed by Fuel Cell Tech-nologies Ltd. for the CanadianDepartment of National Defence (DND).In the final phase of the work a 2.3-kWpower source for the ARCS (AutonomousRemote Control Submersible) vehicle hasbeen constructed and bench tested, andsea trials in the Vancouver area were con-ducted in January and February this year.The power source operated for more than50 hours under water at a nominal outputof 2 kW, resulting in a gross energy ca-pacity of approximately 80 kWh.

The system is mounted in a dedicatedaluminum hull section 175 cm in lengthand 68.6 cm in diameter. With all reac-tants the system is neutrally buoyant. Anenergy density of 250 Wh/kg has beenachieved, and simple incremental im-provements will extend this to 330 Wh/kgin the near term. An exhaustive series ofbench tests carried out at Fuel Cell Tech-nologies included testing for the effect ofpitch and roll on performance. At theR&D level, in-house funded research atFCT is resulting in greatly increasedpower capability, with small stacks ofcells operating at the equivalent of up to6.0 kW in the same size cell stack as usedon ARCS. This is a result of improve-ments to the oxygen breathing cathode.

In this paper, an approach to improv-ing underwater endurance of a UUV isdescribed using the aluminum-oxygensemi-fuel cell. This technology has beendeveloped over a period of several yearsby Fuel Cell Technologies Ltd. on behalfof DND[1]. The result of this program is a2.0-kW system capable of powering theARCS UUV for up to 50 hours. Test re-sults from the program are described inthis paper.

BackgroundSince the 1980s, DND has completed

a series of studies of promising technolo-gies that could be employed to provide

Test and Demonstration of a HighEnergy Density Aluminum Power Sourcein Unmanned Underwater VehiclesArticle by J.H. Stannard1 and LCdr. L.D. Clarkin2

(1 Fuel Cell Technologies Ltd., Kingston, Ont.; 2 Dept. of National Defence, Ottawa, Ont.)

electrical power for both land-based andshipboard use into the next century. Theattributes that were being sought includedatmosphere independence, improved sys-tem efficiency, greater energy density, areduction in environmental emissions anda reduction in both acoustic and infra-redsignatures. The technologies consideredincluded:

• new battery concepts• closed-cycle heat engines (diesel,

Stirling)• fuel cellsThe conclusion of these studies indi-

cated that the best technology to meet thestated requirements with the least techni-cal risk and the widest application wasthe fuel cell.

Unlike a battery, which is an energystorage device, a fuel cell is an energyconversion device. The fuel cell takesexternal feeds of a fuel (hydrogen) and anoxidant (oxygen) and converts the chemi-cal energy directly into electrical energy.

The direct conversion from chemical toelectrical energy means significantlylower emissions, plus system efficienciesin excess of 50 percent, which are betterthan those possible with an equivalentgenerator set driven by heat engines. Thistechnology was considered ideal for theunderwater application; such a unit wouldhave lower acoustic and heat signatures,and the lower mechanical and heatstresses could potentially offer lowermaintenance costs.

These attributes provide an attractiveoption that could be the heart of an envi-ronmentally friendly energy source forboth fixed and mobile power units, whileoffering the possibility of a lower cost ofownership. Consequently, DND’s Chiefof Research and Development (CRAD)has been involved in the development ofa Canadian fuel-cell technology that hasshown the best potential to fulfil thesediverse requirements. That technology is

Fig. 1. Simplified Schematic of an Aluminum-oxygen Power Source


the aluminum-oxygen semi-fuel cell (Al/O² SFC)

Aluminum-oxygen Semi-fuel CellSince this is not a true fuel cell, the

technology is referred to as a semi-fuelcell. It is, in effect, part battery and partfuel cell. Like a battery, one component,the fuel, is consumed within the cell. Thefuel element is the anode made from aproprietary aluminum alloy and is im-mersed in a liquid electrolyte (potassiumhydroxide). Like a fuel cell, the oxidant isstored outside the cell and is fed to thecathode as required. Electricity is pro-duced because of two chemical reactions,the first being between the oxygen andelectrolyte that consumes electrons toproduce hydroxyl ions and the secondbetween the hydroxyl ions and thealuminum anode to release electrons. Themain by-product of this latter reaction isalumina trihydrate which is carried awayby the circulating electrolyte.

Exploiting the significantly higherpower densities possible with the Al/O²system, Fuel Cell Technology Ltd. (FCT)is developing advanced atmosphere-inde-pendent power sources aimed at underseaapplications. In the UUV application, thecompany has shown that is possible toachieve significant improvements in en-ergy densities over conventional second-ary batteries (tenfold over lead-acidbatteries and up to fivefold over silver-zinc batteries)[2,3].

Power Source System DescriptionA simplified schematic of a generic

aluminum-oxygen power source is shownin Fig. 1. Essentially there are six majorsubsystems to consider. The overall sys-tem is comprised of a stack of energy pro-ducing cells containing solid aluminumanodes, a volume of potassium hydroxideelectrolyte which is pumped throughthese cells, the means of storing and regu-lating the supply of oxygen to the cellstack, a hydrogen management system, athermal control system and an electroniccontrol system.

The cell stack consists of one or moresets of cells, generally between 12 and150, wired in series or parallel to achievethe desired combination of power andstack voltage. Each individual cell isequipped with inlet and outlet passagesfor electrolyte and oxygen.

Manifolds are formed by openings inthe cells, and the whole assembly issealed with O-rings when clamped be-tween rigid end plates. The anode area inthe monopolar configuration used is ap-proximately 500 cm2, and in all produc-

tion designs to date has not varied outsidethe range of 350 to 1,000 cm2. Operatingcurrent densities at nominal power outputare usually selected to be in the range be-tween 20 and 100 mA/cm2. The ARCSsystem has 44 cells of 590 cm2 area.

A detailed trade-off study performedunder contract to the DND ARCS pro-gram[4], led to the selection of high-pres-sure oxygen at 4,000 psig in a compositewrapped pressure vessel as the means ofoxidant storage for the ARCS system un-der construction. A high-pressure regula-tor, followed by an electronicallycontrolled proportional valve, suppliesthe stack at a constant pressure of a fewinches of water. The selected system isextremely mass-efficient, comparable involume to 50-percent hydrogen peroxideand chlorate candle systems, and muchsimpler to operate than LOX. The overalldesign is compatible with any oxygenstorage means, which may vary with theintended application.

The electrolyte management systemconsists of a stainless steel reservoir tocontain the electrolyte, and a circulationpump. This relatively simple system isgenerally designed to be conformal to thevehicle hull. In general, the electrolytereservoir forms up to 40 percent of thevolume of the total system and also pro-vides the mechanical structure integratingthe other subsystems.

A small amount of hydrogen is pro-duced at the anode by a corrosion reac-tion between the aluminum and theaqueous electrolyte. This is continuouslyremoved by a recombiner system and arecirculating atmosphere of nitrogen. Asmall amount of oxygen is added to re-

combine with the hydrogen, forming wa-ter that is returned to the electrolyte reser-voir. The nitrogen-containing enclosurearound the cell stack, recombiner compo-nents and circulating loop are generallyall designed to be conformal to the vehi-cle hull, thus increasing packing den-sity[5,6].

The thermal management systemcontrols electrolyte temperature, typicallyat 60°C, by means of an electrolyte-to-coolant heat-exchanger, a recirculatingloop of water-based coolant, andconformal aluminum heat-exchangerpanels bonded to the inside of the hull.

The electronic control system and thesoftware is generic and based on the useof industrial PCs and off-the-shelf elec-tronic components such as power suppliesand sensors. Typically, up to 48 channelsof data and control are used, but this willbe reduced as the need for engineeringdevelopment data reduces.

The complete system developed forARCS weighs 388 kg and occupies a hullvolume of approximately 425 L.

ARCS Test ProgramThis just completed R&D project

started in November 1994 with a series offour bench tests that were completed inDecember 1996. These were followed bythe West Coast sea trial program whichwas completed in February 1997. The testprogram was developed through a seriesof levels of increasing complexity as de-scribed following.

Subsystem DevelopmentA series of subsystem development

tests were carried out on all major subsys-tems. An objective of the program was to

Bench Test #4: Comparison of Measured and Modeled Voltages

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Equivalent Time [hrs]

Vol

tage

[V]

Points - modeled

Solid line - measured

Actual power profile.For measured PS voltages the time scale re-calculated to full continuous power.

Modeled assuming shunt current losses 5.3 %, overall coulombic efficiency 92 %

Modeled assuming shunt current losses 2.3 %, overall coulombic efficiency 95 %

Fig. 2. Comparison of Modeled and Actual Voltage of Bench Test No. 4


obtain increased levels of reliability andmaintainability for the aluminum-oxygensystem with an initial target of 90 percentprobability of successfully completing a50-hour mission under water. A reliabilitytest rig was built and up to twenty-onecomplete 48-hour cycles were achievedon many of the key components such aspumps and valves. Sensor developmentwas also carried out, as this had beenfound to be a major reliability problemarea in earlier sea trials.

Bench TestsThe bench test program included four

tests of increasing complexity. The firsttest was a shakedown whereby all thesubsystems were operated together for thefirst time. By the time bench test no. 4was carried out, the effects of pitch androll and a realistic mission profile wereincluded. The net result of all the im-provements was a radically improved per-formance during bench test no. 4, with along unbroken period of autonomous op-eration. The following results were ob-tained:

Total Energy (Gross) : 88.0 kWh

Total Energy (Net) : 80 kWh

Total Run Duration : 47.0 H

Time to Full Power : 50 minutes

Anodes were generally flat after thedischarge and average coulombicefficiencies were much improved at 87.2percent. A comparison of modeled andactual voltage is shown in Fig. 2. Anotherfeature of the test was the excellent per-formance of the cell stack purge systemand uniform cell voltages.

A number of improvements resultedfrom analysis of the results. The balanceof flows between the stack andrecirculation loops was changed. Thiswas based on the observation that the cellstack electrolyte had too great a concen-tration of solids, causing some cell plug-ging after 40 hours and loss of severalcells at 43 hours. The other major im-provement was implementation of a hy-drogen sensor offset correction schemewhich compensated the sensor readingsbased upon the stability of the recombinertemperature.

The tilt and roll tests were largely suc-cessful and in general all subsystems in-cluding the seed mechanism weresatisfactory. The result of the bench testprogram was a system qualified for seatrials. Figure 3 shows the fuel cell powersource (FCPS) undergoing its final benchtest (no. 4) at FCTL facilities in Kingston,Ontario prior to ARCS vessel integrationin Vancouver.

Three sea trials of the system — oneof 30-hours’ and two of 50-hours’ dura-tion — were conducted at Indian ArmInlet near Vancouver in January and Feb-ruary 1997. These trials were conductedin conjunction with I.S.E. Research Ltd.,using their test vessel, Researcher. TheDND-owned ARCS vehicle was operatedin an autonomous manner, but was moni-tored from the surface via a low-rateacoustic telemetry link.

Vehicle IntegrationAfter a series of bench tests was per-

formed with the FCPS, the entire systemwas shipped to ISER, where a joint teamof FCT and ISER personnel performed

the mechanical and electrical integrationof the system with the ARCS vehicle.This involved the following tasks:

• Setting up facilities to store and mixelectrolyte, as well as a means to trans-port the electrolyte to and from the re-search vessel;

• Final adaptation of the FCPS re-moval cradle, and trial fitting the FCPSinto its custom hull section;

• Final assembly of the FCPS, includ-ing assembly of the high-pressure oxygensystem on the FCPS tank;

• Installation and assembly of theFCPS cooling system;

• Installation of nitrogen purge plumb-ing on the ARCS vehicle to provide bothvehicle and FCPS purging with the vehi-cle either open or closed;

• Design and assembly of a liquid ni-trogen purge system on board Re-searcher;

• Weighing and ballasting of the ARCSvehicle to provide neutral buoyancy;

• Developing procedures for handlingthe vehicle, FCPS and support equipmentduring all phases of sea trials.

The work of mechanically integratingthe FCPS with the vehicle and setting upthe necessary ground support equipmentwas carried out without incident. Integra-tion of FCPS electronics and electricalequipment consisted of the following:

• Main power cable: This cable sup-plied power to the ARCS vehicle fromthe fuel cell DC mains output bus. It wasplug-compatible with the existing NiCdbattery packs;

• Shore power connection: A cablewas run from an existing ARCS hull pen-etrator to the FCPS mains bus. This al-lowed the vehicle and FCPS electronicsto be powered at any time from a shorepower supply, eliminating the danger ofdepleting the emergency batteries duringextended periods of storage or debugging;

• Reserve batteries: Five 12-V lead-acid batteries were installed within theFCPS hull section;

• Serial communication cable: Cableinterface between the ARCS vehicle com-puter and the FCPS main computer.

• FCPS Health and Safety Signal Ca-ble: Cable interface between the ARCSvehicle computer and the FCPS maincomputer.

The electrical integration of the FCPSwent smoothly with no technical prob-lems.

Sea Trial No. 3 — “Second Free Swim”The test objectives for sea trial no. 3

were to operate the FCPS within a free-swimming autonomous ARCS vehicle insolids managed mode for a minimum of

Fig. 3. Fuel Cell Power Source (FCPS) Undergoing Final Bench Test


50 hours. On February 17, 1997 theFCPS was started and the vehicle waslaunched successfully. After approxi-mately nine hours of operation the vehicleexperienced problems controlling a ma-noeuvring plane. At hour 12.7 the vehiclewas brought back on board Researcherand the plane control was fixed while theFCPS was still on-line. At hour 14.3 thevehicle was again launched and ran untilthe electrolyte pump motor failed at hour23.7. The motor was replaced and thevehicle was relaunched.

The performance of the FCPS was re-duced significantly after the motor fail-ure. The failure of the motor stopped theflow of the electrolyte through the cellstack suddenly. This flow is the onlycooling mechanism of the cell stack, andonce the flow is removed under runningconditions the stack generally overheatsand causes an adverse affect to the cath-odes. At hour 32 the weather deterioratedand a decision to recover the vehicle wasmade for safety reasons. The vehicle wasrecovered and the FCPS was kept on-linewith the vehicle ready to launch once theweather had settled. At hour 36.9 the ve-hicle was launched and the test was run

until the FCPS could not sustain the mini-mum system voltage at the minimumpractical vehicle speed.

A comparison of operation before andafter the shutdown due to the pump fail-ure shows that stack voltage at 34 ampshad been reduced from an extremelyhealthy 64 volts to only 56.5 volts (Fig.4). This indicates quite widespread dam-age to cathodes. The final result of 82.5kWh (gross) is only 75 percent of the tar-get. It is noteworthy that, of the sevenvehicle stops during this test, only twowere as a result of the FCPS. The otherfive were due to operational or vehiclerelated problems. It is FCT’s belief that,based on the proven stack performanceup to the 23.7 hour point, the target 100kWh (net) performance would have beenachieved.

Discussion of ResultsIt is an unfortunate feature of most de-

velopment programs that are constrainedby budget and schedule, that the systembeing developed is only beginning toachieve some level of maturity near theend of the program when both budget andtime are rapidly running out. In an ideal

world the FCPS would be run for twentyrepeat trials to wring out all the reliabilityand operational issues and result in anaccurate assessment of capability and per-formance. Within the limited scope of theactual sea trials program, important datawas gathered and the FCPS and ARCSbegan to operate well, with long periodsof autonomous operation.

Table 1 summarizes a comparison ofthe FCPS performance to the programgoals and identifies the major reason forany shortfall. Clearly the main problemimpacting performance measurementswas continued unreliability. Many im-provements were made during the benchtest program, and problems identifiedearly in the sea trials were addressed. It isironic that the one major failure duringthe final sea trial was the main electrolytepump. This unit had been replaced with anew one that had been run-in carefully onthe bench as recommended by the reli-ability program, but still failed in a ran-dom manner during underwateroperation. Test data and analysis showthat this would be an extremely rare oc-currence. Test data also shows that virtu-ally all the other improvements tosensors, recirculation flows, cell stacksealing, etc., worked as expected causingno problems on the final test.

The following subsystems workedflawlessly on the final sea trial:

• Electronic Control System• Thermal Management System• Hydrogen Management System• Emergency Battery System• Structural System• Oxygen Storage and Supply System• Launch and Recovery• Start-up and Shut-down

The project team is therefore con-vinced that given sufficient operationaltime the 100-kWh (250-Wh/kg) targetwould have been met.

Conclusions and RecommendationsConsiderable information and practical

experience were gained by performing thebench tests and sea trials. Overall per-formance was close to this CRAD-spon-sored R&D project goals and virtually allsubsystems performed flawlessly on thefinal sea trial, confirming that thealuminum-oxygen semi-fuel cell is a vi-able technology for use as an underwaterpower source. Time and budget con-straints at the end of the program were theonly limitations on achieving a complete100-kW-hour autonomous dischargewithin an operating ARCS vehicle.

Table 1. Comparison of Achieved Performance versus Project Goals

PARAMETER REQUIREMENT ACHIEVED COMMENT

Mass 400 kg 384 kg Several improvements madein detail design.

Volume(Length specified)

1.8 m Maximum 1.75 m Still requires ballast. Packingdensity of 75% could beimproved on.

Running Time 50 Hours 50 Hours(Sea Trial No. 2)

Longest unbrokenautonomous operation was 37hrs. (Bench Test No. 4)

Power 2.0 kW Continuous

2.3 kW Peak

2.0 kW

4.5 kW

30+ hrs. (Sea Trial No. 2);37 hrs. (Bench Test No. 4)Momentary during BenchTest No. 1. (3.0 kW routinelyachieved.)

Energy Capacity 100 kWh 75.0 kWh (SeaTrial No. 2)80.0 kWh (BenchTest No. 4)

Compromised by hot shut-downs (anticipated to beextremely rare in a maturesystem).

Energy Density 250 Wh/kg 195 Wh/kg

208 Wh/kg

Sea Trial No. 2

Bench Test No. 4

Refuel Time 2 Hours 16 Hours Removing slurry from tank isstill time-consuming.


The following summarizes the changesthat could be made to the system to makeit more user-friendly and reliable in a pro-duction version:

• Investigate and replace the electro-lyte pump with one that is more efficient.The current pump accounts for more thanhalf the total auxiliary load of the FCPS,and although the pump is rugged, the mo-tor proved unreliable in the final test;

• Make the system easier and less la-bour-intensive to refuel by means of a prepackaged electrolyte and sludge con-tainer;

• Further development in the gas sen-sor area is required to provide increasedreliability in measuring the oxygen con-centration within the bubble and refinethe thermal conductivity hydrogen sen-sors;

• A faster controller for the oxygensupply should be incorporated to improveresponse to transients; and

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Time (hrs)

Vol

tage

& C

urre

nt (

Am

ps Voltage

Current

Amp-Hours : 1381.5kW-hrs : 82.5

Fig. 4. Sea Trials “Second Free Swim” Voltage and Current Plot

Fig. 5. Improved Cathode Performance utilizing CoTMPP

Polarisation Curves of Oxygen Cathodes

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Current Density [mA/cm2]

Pot

entia

l [V

vs

Hg/

HgO

]

CoTMPP

Ag

6.5 M KOH, 60 °C, Luggin capillary

≥ 65 mV

• An improved cathode with higherperformance has been developed andtested with internal FCT R&D funds.Adoption of this cathode would improveperformance of the FCPS by a further 20to 25 percent. Any future project shouldincorporate this improvement.

All of these actions should take placein a program whose main aim is to per-form a much longer period of sea trialswith a more reliable and cost-effectivepower source that meets the end-user’srequirements. As the tasks of mechani-cally and electrically integrating theFCPS with the ARCS vehicle have beensuccessfully completed, further sea trialswith a more reliable and user-friendlyproduct could be carried out with muchless technical risk and overall cost.

Further R&D InitiativesThe Canadian ARCS test program has

demonstrated a successful progression ofadvancing air-independent semi-fuel cell

energy storagefor electric pro-pulsion. Notonly is this ahighly ener-getic energystorage device,but it is also anaffordable andenvironmen-tally friendlyand safe alter-native, and of-fers thepossibility ofgreatly reducedcost of owner-ship.

FCT internally funded research on im-proved oxygen cathodes has resulted insignificantly improved cell voltage asshown in Fig. 5. Four-cell stacks testedwith this technology have given theequivalent performance of 6.0 kW from acell stack configured the same as theARCS system. System improvements cur-rently under development will enable anenergy density of between 400 and 500Wh/kg within three years.

References[1] LCdr R. Wall, “Canadian Fuel Cell

Development — Military Applica-tion.” Sea Technology, Vol. 37, No. 7,July 1996.

[2] K. Collins, J.H. Stannard, R. Duboisand G.M. Scamans, “An Aluminum-Oxygen Fuel Cell Power System forUnderwater Vehicles.” UnderwaterIntervention, New Orleans, January1993.

[3] G.M. Scamans, D.K. Creber, J.H.Stannard and J.E. Tregenza, “Alum-inum Fuel Cell Power Sources forLong Range Unmanned UnderwaterVehicles.” International Power SourcesConference, Cherry Hill, NJ, 1994.

[4] J.H. Stannard, D.C. Stockburger andJ.E. Tregenza, “Oxygen Storage andSupply System Trade-off for UUVPropulsion by Aluminum Semi-fuelCell.” Ninth International Symposiumon Unmanned Untethered SubmersibleTechnology, University of New Hamp-shire, September 1995.

[5] G. Deuchars, J.R. Hill, J.H. Stannardand D.C. Stockburger, “Aluminum-Hydrogen Peroxide Power System foran Unmanned Underwater Vehicle.”Oceans ‘93 Conference, Victoria, BC,October 1993.

[6] J.H. Stannard, G.D. Deuchars, “AModular Approach to UUV Propul-sion Using Aluminum/Oxygen Semi-fuel Cells.” Oceans ‘95 Conference,San Diego, CA, October 1995.

[7] E.R. Levine, D.N. Connors, R. Shelland T. Gagliardi, “OceanographicMapping with Navy’s Large-DiameterUUV.” Sea Technology, Vol. 36, No. 6,June 1995.


The first installation of solid wastehandling equipment provided under theMaritime Environmental ProtectionProject (MEPP) recently sailed onWestploy aboard the fleet replenishmentship HMCS Protecteur (AOR-509). Theship received a ruggedized compactormade by Strachan and Henshaw (the U.K.torpedo tube maker), and a solid wastepulper, manufactured by Hobart. The shipwas also fitted for, but not with, a USN-designed plastics processor which willarrive in mid-1997.

The equipment is being fitted to ensurethat Canadian warships can comply withenvironmental regulations such asMARPOL 73/78 and the Canada Ship-ping Act in an environmentally andsailor-friendly manner. The equipmentwas chosen to deal with the waste streamsfound on board ship and has all beenproven through use in other navies.

The ruggedized compactor is designedto overcome the deficiencies that existingcommercial systems have experienced atsea. This machine can reduce the volumeof waste fed into it by a factor of about 15(as opposed to a factor of three for mostcommercial equivalents). During its ini-tial period of operation on board

First Solid Waste Handling Systems atSea with the Canadian NavyArticle by LCdr S.K. DewarPhotographs courtesy of Mario Gingras

Strachan and Henshaw FSRs Dave Richards (left) and Dave Sigrist set Protecteur ’sruggedized compactor to work at the end of March. The machine, seen here withits front cover removed, eats everything from 4x4s to rat guards, reducing the volumeof waste by a factor of 15.

Protecteur, it processed paint and aerosolcans, 4x4s, rat guards and wire-reinforcedsteam hose without complaint, all ofwhich would have defeated other types ofmachines. Processed waste is stored in20-litre pails which are sealable to pre-

vent leakage of liquid or odours. Numer-ous safety features have been incorpo-rated to prevent the machine from“accidentally” processing incompatibleitems (XOs come readily to mind!).

Greenspace: Maritime Environmental Protection

The question is often asked why in-cineration was not selected for use atsea, particularly given the positive ex-perience of the three Halifax-classships. It is worth briefly explaining thereasoning behind the decision to moveaway from incineration, as it illustratesthe complexity of the situation sur-rounding environmental regulations.

It has been known for some timethat the international maritime commu-nity is considering bringing in regula-tions to control air emissions.Emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfuroxides, volatile organic compounds and

particulates are all serious environmentalconcerns. Many individual nations havealready introduced regulatory legislation,as have subnational jurisdictions such asCalifornia. All these regulations are con-stantly evolving, however, and as yet nointernational consensus has emerged as tohow these concerns can be met. Underdraft regulations for MARPOL Annex VI,serious restrictions on the use of incinera-tors were proposed. These are being chal-lenged by many nations, but it is not yetclear what will result.

The Canadian navy requires equip-ment which will allow its ships access to

The Burning Question — Why not incineration?

ports and operating areas without un-due restriction. Quite simply, the long-term viability of conventionalincineration is uncertain and, for thatreason alone, technology that will meetour long-term needs was selected foruse by the MEPP. A good case can bemade that it is much more environmen-tally sound than incineration, which inthe end simply discharges waste intothe air rather than the water (and burnsgood fuel to boot). — S.K.D.


Protecteur ’s new waste pulper. This and other waste handlingequipment is being fitted throughout the Canadian fleet as partof the Maritime Environmental Protection Project.

The Montreal Protocol and the Cana-dian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)have banned the production and importa-tion of CFCs. This means that the supplyof refrigerants and halon for our ships isrestricted to what is currently available.Apart from our commitment to responsi-ble environmental stewardship, from alogistics point of view the navy has nochoice but to convert its ships to acceptenvironmentally friendly alternatives.

New federal halocarbon regulationsare in third draft and are expected to be-come law by the end of the year. Theseregulations will force all federal depart-ments and agencies to comply withCEPA. MARCORD G-19 is being updatedto reflect these new regulations. The mostsignificant change will be the requirementto report ODS releases to EnvironmentCanada. In addition, freon and halon re-leases will have to be dealt with withinseven days of detection.

FreonNew high-efficiency purge units have

been purchased for the 75-ton chillerscurrently in service. Use of these newpurge units is legally required by Jan. 1,1999. After this date the maximum allow-able discharge of R11 from a purge unitwill be 0.1 kg freon/kg air.

Update : Ozone Depleting SubstancesNew chillers are being installed in

HMCS Preserver during the current refit,and are planned to be fitted in Algonquinduring her refit. Not only will these chill-ers be environmentally friendly, but theyshould be easier to support as well.

The conversion of the domestic refrig-eration system in the Canadian patrolfrigates should start this summer. The ex-isting compressors were built to acceptR134a, the environmentally friendly re-frigerant, so most of the system will beunchanged. Development is under way toreplace the domestic refrigeration compres-sors in the Iroquois class with compressorsof the same series as those fitted in CPF.

HalonFederal regulations require that all

work on halon systems be done in accord-ance with ULC requirements. To complywith this requirement, all personnel main-taining halon systems should be trained inthe correct practices. Future trainingcourses will be ULC approved. It is in-tended that two courses will be given oneach coast during the next year.

Most halon first-aid extinguishers havebeen replaced with either CO2 or drychemical extinguishers. The only halonextinguishers being retained will be onboard aircraft and submarines.

A fire risk analysis of CPF has con-firmed that they are overprotected withhalon. In electronic spaces, a fire in acabinet will not produce enough heat toactivate the heat detector, so no automaticrelease is possible. A smoke alarm wouldhave to be investigated and first-aid ac-tion would extinguish any fire. Work isbeing done to improve the smoke detec-tion system and make it easier to get CO

2into the cabinet.

The first batch of modified halon re-lease control (HRC) cards has been re-ceived and is being installed. Thismodification eliminates the risk of an ac-cidental halon release from a doubleground fault condition.

It is planned to replace the halon pro-tecting the CPF machinery enclosureswith a fine waterspray system that usesfresh water and air to form very fine wa-ter droplets in the enclosure to extinguishfires. It is effective, environmentallyfriendly and easily recharged by ship’sstaff. This system will also be used toprotect the 1,000-kilowatt diesel genera-tor on board the Iroquois class. — LCdrTom Shirriff, DMSS 4, NDHQ.

The pulper is designed to handle wastewhich is mostly organic in nature, such asfood, paper and cardboard. It works bygrinding the waste into very small parti-cles that may be discharged overboard asa seawater slurry in most areas of navaloperation. By effectively dealing withorganic waste which can contribute up to60 percent of the total daily waste gener-

ated by a ship atsea, other types ofwaste can be dealtwith more simplyand effectively.Pulpers are in wide-spread use in cruiseships and ferries,and have been se-lected by the USNfor use in all theirmajor surface com-batants.

The plasticsprocessor is thefirst machine of itskind and is now inwidespread use inthe United States

where there is a national law that they befitted in naval ships before 1998. Theprocessor works by melting and compact-ing plastic into one-metre-diameter“bricks,” reducing it from its original vol-ume by about 30:1. Plastic waste which isheavily food-contaminated can also beprocessed, and trials have shown thatsuch waste remains sanitary and odour-

free as long as two years after processing.The USN even has a program to recyclethe processed plastic into marine dockpilings (recycling programs are beingconsidered by Canada).

Perhaps as important as the equipmentitself is the compartment housing theequipment. On board Protecteur, a dedi-cated compartment specifically designedto aid waste processing was constructedin the starboard after corner of the disper-sal area. It allows waste to be sorted,stored and handled easily. Considerationsfor ease of cleaning, ventilation anddrainage were given utmost attention inthe design.

Installation of solid waste handlingequipment in other ships of the fleet willbegin this summer. The equipment shouldgreatly ease the burden of complying withenvironmental rules, and place the Cana-dian navy at the forefront of the world’snavies in our commitment to environmen-tal stewardship.


The Canadian Sea Sparrow missileinitiative developed around the DDH-280program following the demise of the gen-eral-purpose frigate program in Novem-ber 1963. The general-purpose frigatehad been designed to accommodate themedium-range Tarter surface-to-air mis-sile system along with, in all likelihood,the close-range Sea Mauler, a USN adap-tation of the Mauler missile used by theU.S. Marine Corps. As things turned out,Sea Mauler died in infancy almost con-current with the cancellation of the gen-eral-purpose frigate.

As the DDH-280 Tribal-class de-stroyer program took shape, the Directorof Naval Requirements expressed a needfor a point-defence missile system. Un-fortunately, the DDH-280 had been au-thorized as a gunned vessel only.Essentially, its weapons fit was con-strained to off-the-shelf equipment, andthere was no close-rangemissile system available.

As far as a gunfire-control system went,consideration was beinggiven to the Mk 87 anti-aircraft system then un-der manufacture by FordInstruments (laterSperry) for the UnitedStates Navy. The Mk 87was actually a modifica-tion of the Dutch M22fire-control system beingmanufactured to U.S.standards (which led tosignificant difficultieswhen U.S.-standard re-placements for the met-ric-standard antennabearings upset the bal-ance of the combinedantenna system). Fordproduced only two devel-opment sets, both ofwhich eventually madetheir way into service.

Project Mermaid: The Canadian SeaSparrow Missile ProgramArticle by Phil R. MunroThis article was sponsored by the Canadian Naval Technical History Association.

About this time (February 1965),Hollandse Signaalapparaten was demon-strating its M22 combined anti-surface/anti-air fire-control system, using a searchantenna for both target acquisition andanti-surface tracking while scanning.Anti-air tracking was accomplished by adedicated track antenna mounted on thesame yoke, all within a radar dome. Asignificant plus for the M22 was that thesystem had a simultaneous anti-air andanti-surface capability using only two op-erators to carry the process through fromdetection to weapon firing and kill assess-ment. Other systems required more per-sonnel.

My involvement in the program beganby taking a Canadian team to visit theDutch naval base in Den Helder to seewhat the M22 was all about. The demon-stration was most impressive and we tookthe opportunity to visit the factory in

Hengelo for detailed discussions. Welearned that the parameters of the systemwere identical to those of the Mk 87 sys-tem, yet the M22 cost considerably less.We were thus confronted with the attrac-tion of a proven system at a good price,versus the advantage of North Americanlogistics (particularly, the supply of spareparts in a wartime environment). Anothertopic of interest was a moving target indi-cation (MTI) feature. MTI did not exist ineither the M22 or Mk 87, but Signaal in-formed us that it could be incorporated atextra cost.

The final decision favoured the M22.We really wanted a missile control sys-tem, but had no mandate. Naval staff hadplaced the requirement for simultaneousattack on two air targets, predicating twotracking systems per ship, and so we setabout costing and justifying the four-shiprequirement.

HMCS Athabaskan : When the four DDH-280s entered service in the 1970s, these “Sisters of theSpace Age” gave Canada its first naval missile capability. (Canadian Forces photo)

Looking Back


Meanwhile, in September 1965, thenewly promoted Cdr E.R. (Ray) Ross be-came the Assistant/Director Weapon Sys-tems (Surface and Air) [A/DWS(SA)]and spearheaded the attempt to obtainauthority for missile defence. At this timethe USN was working on a basic point-defence missile system in which an eight-cell launcher could be reloaded by hand(an estimated 30 minutes per missile).Since the Canadian staff requirement dic-tated a greater tactical payload,DWS(SA) was given $200,000 to awardstudy contracts to Sperry Canada andRaytheon Canada to determine the viabil-ity of a reloadable Sparrow missile sys-tem and to cost a subsequentdevelopment program.

Owing to a 30-month lead time, anorder for a single M22 gun-control sys-tem was placed and arrangements weremade with Signaal to cut the lead time to24 months by “borrowing” a system fromthe production line intended for Sweden.The contract was placed in mid-1966(project M22-18CA) and was immedi-ately followed by a contract for three ad-ditional systems (M22-19CA) on thebasis of the mandated gun ship. This or-der got the program under way.

The study, Project Mermaid, started inlate 1965 and lasted the better part of ayear. Signaal supplied a model of theM22 system which was used as the cen-tral theme in a marketing film made bynaval photographers. We visited theSperry and Raytheon factories, took mov-ies and compiled a ten-minute film whichwas used in briefings to higher authority.Cdr Ross developed a one-hour briefwhich was presented to Director GeneralMaritime Systems, to Chief of TechnicalServices and then to Director GeneralRequirements.

An intended prop to the briefing wassupposed to be the shell of a practice mis-sile. What Raytheon delivered was a fullpractice missile nearly two metres long,weighing well in excess of 250 kg. Wemanoeuvred this beast up two flights ofstairs and around the corners of the stair-well and then had to remove the door ofthe briefing room to get the missile intoplace for the first two briefings. (Theprop was abandoned for later briefings.)

Not surprisingly, the briefing gotshorter and shorter the farther we went upthe line to the vice-chief and the chief ofthe defence staff. By the time we finally

briefed Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, itwas down to a ten-minute presentation,including a much condensed two-minutemovie. Each briefing was introduced byCdr Ross referring to Project Mermaid asthe latest thing in bilingualism — “Mer”being French for “sea,” and “maid” stand-ing for “missile air intercept defence.” Abit corny perhaps, but it set a good tonefor the briefing.

In August 1966 the minister approveda $2.5-million missile development pro-gram, the cost to include one prototypelauncher. Approval was given concur-rently for the purchase of nine productionlaunchers, a suitable number of Sparrowmissiles and an additional six M22 fire-control systems. Distribution for the totalproduction was intended as follows:

• Eight M22-19CA production systemsfor four DDH-280 destroyers (duallaunchers);

• One M22-18CA prototype and oneM22-19CA production system to be fittedin the support ships as single-launchersystems. (These were never fitted, butwent instead to the fleet schools in Hali-fax (18CA) and Esquimalt (19CA) fortraining.)

Project Mermaid ResultsThe Sperry Solution

Sperry proposed an eight-canisterlauncher (four over four) that would befixed to the deck and could be trained andelevated. A load position was established

in the fore-and-aft line, about 30 degreesfrom the deck plane. The deck behind thelauncher would be opened up using a mo-torized sliding panel, making an openinglarge enough to thrust four missiles fromthe underdeck magazine into the launcher.

A second load of four could follow thefirst, with the loader positioned higher tomatch the upper set of canisters. Verticalpositioning was achieved by a “barberchair” hydraulic lift. The principal objec-tion to this method was the possibility ofsea water ingress in heavy weather. Theloading time was reasonable, but themaximum tactical payload was 16 mis-siles.

The Raytheon SolutionRaytheon put forward a design for an

eight-canister launcher that would be situ-ated on deck immediately forward of themagazine. The front of the magazinebulkhead would open and four missileswould be lifted from stowage by a hori-zontal arm fitted with grabbers. The mis-siles would then be thrust into thelauncher as the whole arm could bemoved forward for loading. The loadingarm could be moved in both the deckplane (athwartships) and vertical planefor missile capture, and in the deck plane(fore and aft) for delivery.

Once delivered of its load, the arm wasfree to pick up a second load and repeatthe process, this time at a higher level.Raytheon had designed the arm to pick upa designated load (up to four missiles) tomeet specific loading needs. The systemwas considered to be the better of the twooffered, but was cumbersome.

The Navy SolutionCdr Ross suggested it would be ideal

if the launcher and loader were combinedinto one vehicle, reducing weight andcomplexity. This approach reduced theready payload to four missiles, soRaytheon offered the possibility of twoloaders side by side, each situated in frontof the magazine and looking forward. CdrRoss immediately picked up on thistheme and conceived the configuration offour missiles per side, each launcher be-ing a loader, with each launcher control-led by its own M22 fire-control system.Thus, the distinctive DDH-280 Sea Spar-row arrangement was born.

The accepted configuration contained12 missiles on each side — four on thelauncher, four stowed with wings and fins

Commodore Ray Ross spearheaded theCanadian Sea Sparrow missile programas a CSE commander in the mid-sixtiesand went on to become the navy’sDGMEM engineer-in-chief (1977-80). Hedied in retirement in 1987 at age 56.(Canadian Forces photo)

Looking Back


fitted for ready pick-up, and four stowedbeneath these ready to be winged andfinned as the top layer was removed. In atactical situation the ship had the capabil-ity of firing up to 24 missiles. No othernavy had that capability until the adventof the vertical launch system a decadelater. An additional eight missiles werestowed vertically in the magazine, capa-ble of being hand-moved into position fora final engagement. It was not anticipatedthat these would be active except in unu-sual circumstances.

From approval in 1966, liaison withRaytheon Canada and Holland Signaalcomprised the heart of the program. Asproduction of the fire-control system par-alleled the development program, alter-able parameters were limited to thelaunch system and its interface with aknown fire-control system. Since theSparrow was a semiactive homing missilerequiring target continuous wave illumi-nation, it became necessary to add an illu-minating horn concentric with themonopulse tracking antenna, along with arear reference horn for missile selectionand tuning. To enhance radar acquisitionand tracking a deal was struck wherebySignaal would develop the MTI and apulse doppler tracking system (PDT) us-ing Canadian government money whichwould be repaid from world sales of theproduct.

This was somewhat unusual. Undernormal circumstances the Canadian gov-

ernment would pro-vide specificationsand technical monitor-ing, and so would re-tain the rights to anydevelopment it paidfor. But in this casethe RCN had no tech-nical input andSignaal (partially con-trolled by the Dutchgovernment) was pro-ducing the specifica-tion for the Dutchnavy. Hence the dealwas made so thatSignaal could retainthe rights to the prod-uct. By 1968 bothMTI and PDT wereoperational and wereincorporated into theM22 production sys-

tems. Signaal made sufficient world salesto meet the set target and the money wasrepaid as agreed.

Development included the magazine/handling/launcher system and certainmodifications to the fire-control system,notably inclusion of the illumination hornin the tracking antenna. This additionproved to be somewhat complex as theweight and balance of the antenna werecritical to the servo drives and somereengineering had to be undertaken. Aswell, horns for the rear reference signalrequired for missile tuning had to bemounted on each side of the superstruc-ture abaft the launchers (the missiles weretuned with the launchers in the extendedposition).

Retaining the missile umbilical cordposed another problem. In the USN sys-tem the connection was sheared on firing,and a new cord was fitted, but this proce-dure was incompatible with quick reload-ing. Raytheon solved the problem with aquick disconnect system.

The first M22/5-18CA fire-controlsystem was shipped to Raytheon Canadaat Waterloo, Ontario via Canadian mili-tary transport in the spring of 1968. Itremained there as a test bed until comple-tion of the development program.

My direct connection with the Cana-dian Sea Sparrow ended with my retire-ment on Dec. 31, 1967 as the programmoved into production, trials, fitting and

finally sea trials. The message at left indi-cated the culmination of a successful Ca-nadian development program.

Phil Munro joined the RCNVR as a wirelesstelegraphist in 1942, and served as anelectrical officer from 1949 until his retire-ment in 1968. From 1963 to 1967 he workedon the Canadian Sea Sparrow program,serving as program manager for the last twoyears.

R 131241Z Jun 74FM ATHABASKANTO NDHQ OTTAWAMARCOM HQ HALIFAX

BTUNCLASSUBJECT: CANADIAN SEA SPARROW CLOSERANGE MISSILE SYSTEM FIRING TESTS

1. CANADA’S FIRST SEA SPARROW GUIDEDFLIGHT OCCURRED AGAINST AS TARGET TOWEDBY BQM-36A DRONE ON 12 JUN ON ATLANTICFLEET WEAPONS RANGE PUERTO RICO. THEFLIGHT WAS PERFECT IN ALL RESPECTS

2. SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS MADE TOALL ADDRESSEES FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONSAND ASSISTANCE IN THIS SIGNIFICANTACCOMPLISHMENT

BT

Looking Back


Liberation — The Canadians in Europeby Bill McAndrew, Bill Rawlings andMichael Whitby.Montreal: Éditions Art Global Inc.,in co-operation with the Department ofNational Defence, 1995.Hardcover, illustrated, 170 pages.ISBN 2-920718-59-2

Over the course of my career Ihave experienced, on a number ofoccasions, immense pride (mixed,I’ll admit, with a tinge of embarrass-ment) at being singled out by gratefulBritish and Dutch citizens because ofthe “CANADA” flashes on my uni-form. But while the spontaneous out-pourings of praise and thanks for thesacrifices my father’s generationmade on their behalf during the Sec-ond World War have been heart-warming, they have been sobering aswell.

More than 100,000 Canadians inthis century paid the ultimate pricefor freedom. Throughout many Com-monwealth cemeteries in Europe,row upon row of plain white head-stones, marked by a simple mapleleaf, bear witness to the terrible costwar brought to Canadian families.

We should never forget their sac-rifice, and in keeping with that sacredtrust the Directorate of History and Herit-age of the Department of National De-fence has recently released three newbooks covering Canada’s role in the Eu-ropean Theatre of Operations in WorldWar II: the Italian campaign, the D-dayinvasion and breakout of Normandy, andthe liberation of Northwest Europe. Allthree books, based on coffee table/scrapbook format, use photographs and per-sonal anecdotes to bring to life the sweep-ing historic events of World War II.

Liberation — The Canadians in Eu-rope, written by Bill McAndrew, BillRawlings and Michael Whitby, coversCanada’s role in the period of the warfrom the decimation of the German Sev-enth Army in Normandy in late August

1944 to VE day in May 1945. The bookfocuses primarily on the Canadian army’srole in the pursuit of the German Fif-teenth Army to the Dutch-German fron-tier, the unenviable task of clearing theScheldt Estuary in the fall of 1944 (whichopened up the vital port of Antwerp), thewinter stagnation filled with chillingrains, snow and mud, and finally the lib-eration of Holland and the thrust intoGermany in the late spring of 1945.

Not forgotten are the significant rolesplayed by the Royal Canadian Navy and

Liberation—The Canadians inEurope

Royal Canadian Air Force. The personalanecdotes of the infantrymen, sappers,armoured troopers, artillerymen, nurses,service corp personnel, sailors and airmenput into context the history that was beingwritten at that time. The book provides

the reader with vivid accounts of thefull range of experiences of North-west Europe — everything from as-saults under fire, to augmentinginfantry units with untrained servicetroops, artillery duels, night actionsin MTBs, air combat against Me-262s, and rotating out of the line forsome well deserved leave in Brus-sels.

Minor irritants of the book werethe small size of the photographs andthe lack of technical drawings andperformance specifications for thevarious equipment discussed in thebook. Perhaps the editor felt theseitems would detract from the coffee-table/scrapbook look of the publica-tion.

In any event, Liberation does avery credible job of portraying theevents of the time, and I highly rec-ommend it. Above all, it reminds usof the sacrifices made by many Cana-dians in the prime of their lives andgives us pause to reflect on thelegacy they helped shape for our gen-eration to enjoy.

Reviewed by LCdr Robert Jones

LCdr Jones is a Marine Systems Engineerwith DQA in Ottawa. His article, “Titanic’sEngineers — Heroes of a Disaster,” appearedin the October 1996 issue.

Book Review


CFAV Quest mid-life refitThe biggest news in the auxiliary fleet

is the modernization of the scientific re-search vessel CFAV Quest. For over 20years this vessel has been a main playerin underwater acoustic research. To pro-mote this role, the ship was designed withmany interesting quietening features. Forexample, the main machinery is mountedon a 100-tonne raft which is itself flexiblymounted off the hull. Below thewaterline, every compartment is inter-nally clad with mass damping acoustictiles.

This project is being progressed as a“design and build” contract with industry,whereby a single contractor progressesthe design and then carries design respon-sibility forward into the actual refit phase.The contract for the work, valued atnearly $43 million, was awarded toMarystown Shipyard Ltd. of the BurinPeninsula, Newfoundland in June 1996.

Marystown elected to set up offices inBedford, Nova Scotia for the designphase. This has afforded them a primelocation for access to their major designsubcontractors. Among these are:Lockheed Martin Canada (communica-tions and navigation); Bolt, Beranek andNewman (acoustics); DoneladHydronautics (the principal designer);and Westinghouse Canada Inc. (machin-ery control system).

With the design phase drawing to aclose, the ship was scheduled to arrive inMarystown on June 16 for commence-ment of the refit implementation. The re-fit is expected to be completed in August1998. — Malcolm P. Wall, ProjectManager Quest, NDHQ.

Journal articles “write” stuffA number of Maritime Engineering

Journal articles have been selected forreprinting by other agencies.

“Requirements Influencing the Designof Canadian Naval Gearing,” written byDon Nicholson (April 1988 issue) wasscheduled for reprinting in the April1997 issue of the CSME Bulletin.

“ Incident at Sea: Oxygen System Ex-plosion in HMCS Cormorant,” written byLCdr Jim Muzzerall, Stephen Dauphineeand LCdr Kevin Woodhouse (June 1995issue) is being used as a case study bythe American Society of Test Materials

SLt Dave St. Cyr received the 1996 Mack Lynch Memorial Award for achieving ahigh scholastic average and demonstrating, in the eyes of his peers, superiorofficer-like qualities on completion of the MARE 44C theory course at Dal-Tech(ex-Technical University of N.S.). Ms. Jennifer Lynch, QC presented the award, acopy of the book Orion , Mighty Warrior , in memory of her father, Captain MackLynch, RCN, a radar officer on board HMS Orion during World War II. (Awardsnews arranged by Lt(N) R.A. Duff. CFB Halifax Photo by MCpl L. Morin.)

Mack Lynch Memorial Award

at the NASA White Sands facility inNew Mexico.

“Truth Versus Loyalty,” written byCPO1 Bob Steeb (Oct. 1996 issue) wasreprinted in the Jan. 1997 issue of theNATO Maintenance and Supply Agen-cy’s Lucana News.

“ In Defence of the Canadian Court-martial System,” written by Capt(N) DaveJacobson (Feb. 1997 issue) is slated forreprinting in the JAG Journal, as well asin the Defence Association National Net-work News.

Bravo Zulu to all concerned.

News Briefs


IMLA conference onmaritime education,Sept. 7-11, 1997

The International Maritime Lecturers’Association (IMLA) will be holding itsconference, “The New World of MaritimeEducation: Meeting Challenges, SeizingOpportunities, Managing Change,” Sept.7-11, 1997 in St. John’s, Newfoundland.

The conference is being hosted by theFisheries and Marine Institute of Memo-rial University and is one of several“Summit of the Sea” conferences markingthe 500th anniversary of John Cabot’slandfall in Newfoundland. The collo-quium will address the challenges and

The West Coast boys have made goodon their promise to host the 25th anniver-sary reunion of the Reserve Officer Uni-versity Training Plan class of ’72.

The family-oriented weekend kicks offin Esquimalt with a 7:00 p.m. meet andgreet at the Naden Wardroom on Friday,August 1. Organizers are in the process ofarranging harbour tours and visits to anMCDV and HMCS Cape Breton (“TheFred!”).

On Sunday, August 3 the venue shiftsto the mainland. The plan is to take theafternoon ferry to Vancouver (buffet din-ner on board), then enjoy a free eveningin the big city. Monday will begin withbreakfast and a Vancouver Harbour andApproaches boat cruise. After that, thereunion winds down with an afternoonbarbecue at HMCS Discovery and dinnerin town for those who can stay on.

Contact King Wan and let him knowyour plans for attending. If you can’tmake it to the reunion, consider sending avideo greeting. (Please pass the word to

ROUTP ’72 silver anniver-sary West Coast reunion,Aug. 1-4, 1997

Firmware configurationmanagement

Imagine jamming on your car brakesto avoid a collision and the horn sounds,or turning on your stereo and the micro-wave oven starts. The times when simplemechanics controlled the items in ourlives are gone forever. Computers, com-puters, computers — every aspect of lifeis touched by a computer or computerenhanced device. This makes configura-tion management of the software on thesedevices critical. This is especially truewith firmware based systems where thesoftware is stored on integrated circuitscalled electrical programmable read onlymemory (EPROM).

Since 1973, the Northrop-Grumman Canada Award has been presented to the candidate who displays a high level ofengineering excellence, academic standing and officer-like qualities on the MARE 44C applications course. The standing isbased on peer assessment. The 1996 recipients of this award were Lt(N) Alain Dupuis (serial 9601), and SLt Peter Angel(serial 9602). Mr. John Murray of Northrop-Grumman Canada presented the awards, which consisted of a plaque and a setof binoculars for each winner. (CFB Halifax Photos by MCpl L. Morin)

Northrop-Grumman Canada Awards

any of our classmates whose whereaboutsmight be known to you.)

King can be reached at (604) 222-1788 (home), (604) 432-3806 (work), orby e-mail: [email protected]. He cangive you all the details, including accom-modation arrangements. — BrianMcCullough (ROUTP Class of ’72),Production Editor, Maritime Engineer-ing Journal, DMMS, NDHQ.

opportunities facing maritime educationand training in the next rnillenium.

For more information, contact: PhilipBulman, Conference Chair, Fisheriesand Marine Institute of Memorial Uni-versity of Newfoundland, P.O. Box4920, St. John’s, Nfld., A1B 5R3. (Tel-ephone: 709-778-0648; Fax: 709-778-0659; e-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ifmt.nf.ca/~imla97)

News Briefs


The winner of the 1996 Lockheed-Martin award wasLt(N) Rob Gray. This is the ninth year that Lockheed-Martin has presented a naval sword to the topCombat Systems Engineering candidate success-fully completing the MARE/CS 44C qualification inthe previous calendar year. Four finalists appearedbefore a selection board consisting of Capt(N) YvonDe Blois (Chair) and four other senior MARE 44Cofficers. Mr Bruce Baxter made the presentation onbehalf of Lockheed-Martin Canada. (CFB Halifaxphoto by MCpl L. Morin)

Lockheed-Martin Award

With firmware it can be difficult todetermine the exact configuration of thesoftware. The configuration as seen bythe user is defined by the system opera-tion. However, configuration from themanufacturer’s perspective is complex.The executable software is installed or“burned” onto the EPROM using anEPROM burner with special software tocontrol the burn. Keeping tight control ofthe resulting product is critical. Simpleburn verification checks do nothing toensure that the right software is installedonto the right hardware.

The Department of National Defencehas been faced with some demandingchallenges with the firmware configura-tion management and logistics supportingthe integrated machinery control systems(IMCS) installed on the Iroquois- andHalifax-class ships. The IMCS is a dis-tributed control system, used to monitorand control the ship’s auxiliary, ancillaryand propulsion systems.

The IMCS application firmware ishoused on several different circuit cardtypes. It is possible to have several differ-ent types of firmware for a particular cir-cuit card. The circuit card hardware iscompatible between different IMCS sub-systems, but with the software installedthe circuit card function becomes uniqueto the subsystem. The software to be in-stalled on each circuit card is thus dic-tated by the intended location of thecircuit card. There are four different soft-ware suites on the Halifax class and fivedifferent software suites on the Iroquoisclass. The combination of these suitesmakes up the overall IMCS software ver-sion. Currently there are three differentIMCS software versions; two Halifaxclass and one Iroquois class. However,through the support life of the ships it isfeasible for many more versions toevolve. Clearly, ensuring that the rightsoftware is burned onto the right circuitcard and is placed in the right subsystemon the right ship is a logistics challenge.

DMSS 5, the DND IMCS design au-thority, has developed procedures andsystems which allow this unique logisticsupport requirement to be satisfied withina support infrastructure that is orientedtoward simple repair by replacement. Inthis new system the replacement of failedcircuit cards is accomplished usingonboard spares, and the replenishment ofthe spares is performed through shore-

based firmware support sta-tions located at each fleetmaintenance facility (FMF)on the west and east coasts.The ship requests a desiredcircuit card through theDND supply system. TheFMF firmware stations se-lect the circuit card type andfirmware suite to be loadedonto the circuit card, anddeliver the programmedcard to the ship, completewith identifier labels indi-cating its system applicabil-ity. This allows circuit cardsin the supply pipeline to betreated as blanks (just asany other hardware item)until they are programmedat the firmware stations.When a change in the IMCSdesign is required (e.g. dueto a machinery upgrade), anew version of software isdeveloped at a third-linesupport facility. When thenew software is released,each firmware station mas-ter computer is upgradedand all the circuit cards onthe affected ship are up-graded to incorporate thenew version.

As the IMCS supportfacility contractor,GasTOPS Ltd. of Glouces-ter, Ont. is supportingDMSS 5 in the developmentof firmware maintenanceplans and procedures usedto govern the software con-figuration identification andrelease process. Hopefully,with these new procedures,the so-called unexpected“computer error” will notoccur. — W.J. Rogers, re-printed from GasTOPSLtd. CaseFILE, Vol. 6, No.1, March, 1997.

MacDonald-Dettwiler Award

Lt(N) Warren Prokopiw has received the MacDonald-Dettwiler Award for 1996. The award is presented tothe best overall Combat Systems or Marine SystemsEngineer having completed head of departmenttraining in the previous calendar year. Four finalistsappeared before a selection board consisting ofCapt(N) Ian Mack (Chair) and three other seniorofficers. Mr. Logan Duffield made the presentation ofa naval sword on behalf of MacDonald-Dettwiler.(CFB Halifax photo by MCpl L. Morin)

News Briefs

1*1 maritime engineering journal - cntha · 2017-03-06 · public works and government services...

Documents