maritime engineering journal

•*•Mational DefenseDefence nationale

MaritimeEngineeringJournalCANADA'S NAVAL TECHNICAL FORUM

CMTHAIMews inside!

Summer 2002

IN THE "MODE!"

How the Maritime Open Data Environment is helping the navymanage its materiel support information

Also in this Issue:• FORUM: MARE 2020 — Models for the Future of the Maritime

Engineering Occupation

• BRANCH ADVISER: MARE Restructuring... The Road Ahead

Canada

Roughers: Warships Fight the Sea

Looking aft from the quarterdeck of HMS Campbeltownin a moderate sea state, mid-Atlantic

— Book Review on page 20

1MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SUMMER 2002

MaritimeEngineeringJournal

Director GeneralMaritime Equipment Program ManagementCommodore J.R. Sylvester, CD

EditorCaptain(N) David Hurl, CDDirector of Maritime Ship Support (DMSS)

Editorial AdviserCdr S.R. Richardson-PragerDGMEPM Chief of Staff

Production Editor / EnquiriesBrian McCulloughTel. (819) 997-9355 / Fax (819) 994-8709

Production Editing Services byBrightstar Communications, Kanata, Ontario

Technical EditorsLCdr Patrick Deschênes (Marine Systems)LCdr Bill Eggleton (Combat Systems)LCdr Chris Hargreaves (Naval Architecture)CPO1 S. Tomson (NCMs) (819) 997-9328

Photo Co-ordinatorHarvey Johnson (819) 994-8835

Print Management Services byDirector General Public Affairs – CreativeServices

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

ADM(Mat) Translation Co-ordinatorM. Clément Lachance

DEPARTMENTS

Commodore’s Corner:by Cmdre J.R. Sylvester ..................................................................................2

Branch Adviser Commentaryby Capt(N) M.K. Eldridge.............................................................................. 3

Forum:MARE 2020 — Models for the Future of the MaritimeEngineering Occupationby Cdr P. Finn, LCdr Simon Page and LCdr Randy Comeau ........................5

FEATURES

MODE: How the Maritime Open Data Environment is Helpingthe Navy Manage its Materiel Support Informationby LCdr (ret.) Brendan Nolan ......................................................................11

MASIS: Naval Rollout of the Materiel Acquisition andSupport Information Systemby LS Isabel Estan ........................................................................................15

Seminar Report:The 2002 MARLANT Technical Seminar

by LCdr Wayne Rockwell .............................................................................17

2001 MARE Awards........................................................................................... 18

Book Review:Roughers

reviewed by Lt. Cdr. P.K. Carnie ..................................................................20

CNTHA NEWS:Newsletter of the Canadian Naval TechnicalHistory Association .................................................................................Insert

SUMMER 2002

Vol. 21, No. 1 (Established 1982)

The Maritime Engineering Journal (ISSN 0713-0058) is an unofficial publication of the Mari-time Engineers of the Canadian Forces, produced three times a year by the Director General Mari-time Equipment Program Management. Views expressed are those of the writers and do notnecessarily reflect official opinion or policy. Mail can be sent to: The Editor, Maritime Engin-eering Journal, DMSS (6 LSTL), NDHQ, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, OntarioCanada K1A 0K2. The editor reserves the right to reject or edit any editorial material. Whileevery effort is made to return artwork and photos in good condition, the Journal assumes no re-sponsibility for this. Unless otherwise stated, Journal articles may be reprinted with proper credit.A courtesy copy of the reprinted article would be appreciated.

Cover: The Maritime Open Data Environment provides an organiza-tional, technological and managerial framework for storing the impor-tant information we use to manage ships throughout their life cycle.

The Journal is available on the DGMEPMwebsite located on the DND DIN intranetat http://admmat.dwan.dnd.ca/dgmepm/dgmepm/publications

2 MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SUMMER 2002

Commodore’s Corner

By Commodore J.R. Sylvester, CDDirector General Maritime Equipment Program Management

Configuration Management — asImportant as Ever

• To promote professionalismamong maritime engineers andtechnicians.

• To provide an open forumwhere topics of interest to themaritime engineering commu-nity can be presented and dis-

cussed, even if they might be con-troversial.

• To present practical maritimeengineering articles.

• To present historical perspec-tives on current programs, situationsand events.

• To provide announcementsof programs concerning maritimeengineering personnel.

• To provide personnel newsnot covered by official publica-tions.

Maritime Engineering Journal Objectives

Operation Apollo has put tothe test many of our ma-terial support processes.

One such area is configurationmanagement (CM) and its associ-ated engineering change (EC)process. As stated in the NavalMaintenance Management Sys-tem, “CM is that element of sys-tems engineering, logistic support,and life cycle management whichis applied to Naval systems andequipment including software toidentify their physical and func-tional characteristics and to controlchanges to those characteristics.”

Change control is exercisedthrough the EC policy and proce-dures. Given the numerous missionfits required for Operation Apolloand the short timelines to imple-ment these requirements, the op-erational imperative can result inthe temptation to get the work doneand worry about the paperworklater. I am also well aware thatonce a capability has been given toa ship there is a natural resistanceto give up that capability once the

mission is over. It is clear that strictadherence to CM principles hasnever been more important.

Every member of the materialsupport community depends onthere being an accurate record ofthe exact, authorized configurationof each ship. Without that, theirability to exercise due diligence insupporting the ships can be se-verely jeopardized. As the materialauthority, DGMEPM is responsiblefor ensuring that the fleet, by de-sign, is materially safe given bestpractices. And since decisions aremade based on our collectiveknowledge of a ship’s authorizedconfiguration, unauthorized changescould make some of these deci-sions invalid. Knowing the exactconfiguration of a ship also ensuresthat other requirements of materialsupport such as sparing, documen-tation, maintenance support andtraining will be in place to meetoperational commitments.

This is not to say that engineer-ing changes are not encouraged;

indeed, good EC proposals arewelcome from anyone. But givenour limited resources, the reality isthat not al l ECs can be im-plemented…even if they are goodideas. The EC process provides acritical review of all proposed en-gineering changes and ensures thatonly those that are cost-effectiveand/or essential are implemented.I must emphasize that all ECs, in-cluding temporary ECs (“missionfits”) will follow the EC processwithout exception. The EC proc-ess does allow for the streamlinedhandling of urgent temporary ECs,but every step of the EC processis still completed.

You should also be aware thatthe engineering change process isnot just about engineering, but is inpractice three separate subproc-esses or pillars, any one of whichcan stop an EC proposal. The re-quirements process ensures thatthe EC is a valid requirement, is

(Cont’d next page)


compatible with class plans and isworthy of further resource ex-penditure. The requirements au-thority, DMRS, approves the re-quirement for the EC.

The material process ensuresthat an impact analysis is com-pleted and includes an assessmentof technical feasibility/impact,safety considerations, implementa-tion and in-service cost estimates,and an assurance that the imple-mentation schedule is achievable.DGMEPM is responsible forgranting material approval.

Finally, the funding processseeks approval to fund theengineering change, and oncegranted ensures that all resourcesrequired to implement the EC areavailable. The funding authoritywill vary depending on the type andnature of the engineering change.

All three approvals, which arebased on supporting analysis, arerequired before an EC can beimplemented.

I have a responsibility to ensurethat an accurate configurationbaseline of a ship and/or system ismaintained and that ECs have beenimplemented as planned. Whileconfiguration audits are conductedperiodically, I rely more fundamen-tally on the professionalism and dis-cipline of the naval community toensure that discrepancies are re-ported and corrective action istaken. It must be remembered thatthe consequence of not maintain-ing a ship to an authorized configu-ration could be an unsafe conditionresulting in an accident, or worse,an injury.

I believe the current EC processis well suited to maintaining the in-

tegrity of the configuration man-agement of our ships, even withthe demanding requirements of Op-eration Apollo. If there are in-stances where equipment changeswere implemented prior to receiv-ing full approval, it is critical thatthey now be properly documented.In addition, temporary ECs musteither be terminated, or sent up forproper approval to become perma-nent. It is everyone’s responsibil-ity to ensure that configurationmanagement is maintained withinthe fleet.

MARE Restructuring......the road ahead

Article by Capt(N) M.K. Eldridge, MARE Branch Adviser

Branch Adviser Commentary

(Cont’d next page)

The PastAs most people are aware, the

Chief of the Maritime Staff di-rected the restructuring of theMARE Branch, based on a MARECouncil recommendation to him,and subsequent discussion at Na-val Board. A MARE restructuringworking group worked with ADMHR Mil staff to examine a range offuture structure options, and theresult was a recommendation totransition to a structure of threespecialties which would align withoperational requirements, depart-mental strategy for material acqui-sition and support, and effective

human resources management.This was formally communicatedto the branch by briefs and in anearlier communiqué.

The PresentAccordingly, three new occupa-

tional specifications have beendrafted: Marine Systems Engineer,Naval Combat Systems Engineer,and Naval Engineer (the terminalmilitary occupation – MOC – forcommanders and captains). Quali-fication Specifications Plan (QSP)boards will complete the occupa-tional specialty specifications

(OSS) for Naval Architecture andNaval Constructor, and define therequisite training adjustments forthe new military occupations. QSPboards for both the new feederMOCs, and the Naval Architectand Naval Constructor occupa-tional specialty qualifications willcommence in due course.

The previous PML has been di-vided among the three new MOCs,with MSE and NCSE roughlyequal at approximately 240 offi-


Branch Adviser Commentary

Article and Letter Submissionsto the Journal

The Journal welcomes unclassified, illustrated submissions, in English or French. To avoid duplica-tion of effort and to ensure suitability of subject matter, prospective contributors are strongly advised tocontact The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMSS, National Defence Headquarters, Ot-tawa, Ontario, K1A 0K2, Tel. (819) 997-9355, before submitting material. Final selection of articlesfor publication is made by the Journal’s editorial committee.

Letters of any length are always welcome, but only signed correspondence will be considered forpublication.

As a rule of thumb, major article submissions should not exceed about 1,800 words and should includephotos or illustrations. Shorter articles are most welcome. The preferred format is MS Word, with theauthor’s name, title, address, e-mail address if available, and telephone number on the first page.

Please submit photos and illustrations as separate pieces of artwork, or as individual high-resolution,uncompressed electronic files. Remember to include complete caption information. We encourage youto send large electronic files on 100mb Zip disks or CD-ROMs, and to contact us in advance if yourillustrations have been prepared in a less common file format.

If you would like to change the number of copies of the Journal we ship to your unit or institution,please fax us your up-to-date requirements so that we can continue to provide you and your staff withthe best possible service. Faxes may be sent to: The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMSS(819) 994-8709.

cers, and the Naval Engineer PMLshowing 54 officers. This will bethe basis for future MOC manage-ment. The 2002 Lt(N) promotionboards have already been directedto compile separate MS and NCSpromotion lists. We should see pro-motions by specialty in 2003, inparallel with the anticipated officialimplementation date of January2003.

The FutureThe navy capability planning

guidance acknowledges the re-quirement for a study of the feasi-bi l i ty, and t imeline for theimplementation, of a single (ge-neric) MARE MOC, the results ofwhich are deliverable by next Janu-ary. Having now embarked on thisstudy, I am aware of increasing

agitation within the branch overfears a decision may be made with-out due study. I emphasize that thedeliverable is a study of the feasi-bility. The basic principles underwhich I am progressing are:

• Don’t go fast if you don’t knowwhere you are going.

• Don’t make decisions withoutthe supporting facts and broad-based discussion.

In view of the many interlock-ing factors that govern the imple-mentation, it is highly unlikely anyalternative future vision will seereality before 2010.


Forum

During a MARE Town Hallmeeting held in Halifax inNovember 2000, the

Branch Adviser announced the Na-val Board’s decision to proceed withproposed modifications to theMARE 44 MOC, the occupationaldescription for the MARE officerbranch. The modifications, whichwere derived from the 1995 MAREoccupational analysis, will eventu-ally reconfigure the branch into athree-element pyramid of MarineSystems Engineers (MSEs), NavalCombat Systems Engineers(NCSEs), and all engineering branchcommanders and captains.

The rationale for this is evident inthe findings of the 1995 OA, whichreported in part that the relationshipbetween the various tasks, skills andknowledge sets required of MAREofficers

clearly depicted two majorMARE officer groupings —Marine Systems Engineeringand Combat Systems Engin-eering. The jobs performed bythe Naval Architects and NavalConstructors were not inde-pendently performed but ratherwere found to be subsets of thelarger Marine Systems Engin-eering group. This finding initself suggested a significantdisconnect between the currentoccupational structure forMARE and the job perform-ance requirements of its offi-cers. Furthermore, the analysisdid not identify a common en-

try level job for the occupationupon which recruiting, selec-tion, training, and initial em-ployment can be based. Theabsence of such a job is also aserious deficiency in the cur-rent occupational structure.1

Although the OA defined a struc-ture with two MOCs, a third occu-pation was added for all navalengineering commanders and cap-tains in recognition of their manage-ment focus in those ranks.

While the pending change to cre-ate these three MOCs does not meetwith universal approval, it is gener-ally understood and accepted by theMARE community. But there ismore to it than that. The BranchAdviser also said that the NavalBoard had concluded this was to bean interim step toward implementinga single naval engineering officeroccupation, in place of multiple oc-cupations or suboccupations. Thevision of how such an engineeringofficer would be trained and em-ployed was not articulated by theBranch Adviser and was to be thetopic of further study. Not surpris-ingly, the “single engineering” con-cept has been the subject of muchdebate among MARE officers inMARLANT, many of whom areconcerned the idea may be movingforward too quickly and withoutconsultation.

Two PerspectivesThe genesis of the model for a

single engineer classification is un-

clear. Proponents discuss the blurringof technology, simple demographics,the complexity and cost of recruitingand training engineers for variousspecialities, and crew sizes of futureships. They also state that the exist-ing structure and training are focusedalmost purely on the Head of Depart-ment position, when in fact most ofa MARE officer’s career is spent inshore jobs where there is significantoverlap in the employment of Com-bat Systems and Marine Systemsofficers.

Opponents of the model fear wemay be moving too fast, without hav-ing sufficiently studied the matter.They contend that the complexity oftechnology today makes it more dif-ficult than ever for one person tounderstand all of the necessary tech-nical detail behind a modern war-ship. Some would even argue that wehave already diluted our technicalcompetency by eliminating the re-quirement for officers to obtainqualification tickets.

Both sides of this often emotionaldiscussion have valid points; how-ever, the structure of the MARE oc-cupation of the future must not bebased on emotion. If the occupationis to function effectively in the en-vironment of the day, it must be de-signed to meet the often competingdemands of the technology, trainingand personnel of the Canadian navy.

TechnologyThere is no question that some

aspects of technology are blurring.

MARE 2020 — Models for the Futureof the Maritime Engineering OccupationArticle by:

Cdr P. Finn, P. Eng, OMM, CD, Commandant, Canadian Forces Naval Engineering School HalifaxLCdr Simon Page, CD, Officer Training Division Commander, CFNESLCdr Randy Comeau, CD, Damage Control Training Division Commander, CFNES


ForumThe control systems and man-ma-chine interfaces of various combatand marine systems are de facto oneand the same. Certainly in the con-text of the Halifax class the displaysselected for the IMCS and CCS areidentical and were selected to ensureeconomies of scale in spare parts andmaintenance. However, the similari-ties in combat and marine systemslargely end with the control compo-nents. Prime movers and other pro-pulsion-related systems remainrooted in the traditional mechanicalengineering technologies, while thecombat systems are predominantlyanchored in the electrical and elec-tronic domain. This delineation re-mains the trend in modern navalwarfare. Although there may be in-novative designs being tested, theshort to medium term will continue tosee warships with gas turbine, diesel,or steam propulsion (conventional ornuclear), and fitted with radars, so-nars, radios, missiles and guns. Inother words, all the traditional engi-neering disciplines from fluid dynam-ics to circuit analysis will remaingermane to a shipboard engineer fordecades to come. That reality cer-tainly reflects the civilian environ-ment: individual engineering functionshave not been replaced by a singlesystems engineer.

This is not to say that one indi-vidual could not develop the exper-tise required to provide the necessaryengineering officer technical over-sight for all systems on board a war-ship. It would involve extensivetraining to gain the necessary expo-sure, but one could design a modelpredicated loosely on a combinationof the current combat and marinesystems training to create such anofficer. The result would be a signifi-cant lengthening of the MARE train-ing, which is already the longestofficer training profile in the Cana-dian Forces. Alternatively, oversightof all onboard systems could beachieved by shifting more responsi-bility to the senior non-commis-

sioned members, but this would firstrequire an analysis of the technicalNCM occupations to ensure theypossess the necessary skills andknowledge.

PersonnelWhen debating the future struc-

ture of the MARE MOC, one mustconsider the availability of person-nel to fill positions. The aging ofCanada’s population will outpace thepopulation growth in the comingdecades as the baby boomers ap-proach retirement, and by 2020 therecould be a significant shortage in theCanadian labour market2. Thismeans that engineers and otherhighly skilled professionals will befree to pick and choose their placesof employment with no worriesabout job security.

The Canadian Forces generally,and the MARE occupation specifi-cally, will have to deal with that re-ality by becoming an employer ofchoice. Not only will we have to of-fer interesting and diverse employ-ment, but the transitory nature ofemployees will mean that junior of-ficers must not remain in the train-ing pipeline for extended periods.Locking junior engineers into thetraining system for several years mayonly result in their serving a rela-tively short career in the navy withno opportunity to actually do a job.

Compounding the demographicimpact on the supply of people willbe the navy’s ability to provide suit-able remuneration. Given that today’sdefence spending has a purchasingpower roughly equivalent to that ofthe mid-1970s3, it is doubtful we willbe able to increase compensationpackages significantly in the comingyears. The ongoing need to invest inequipment will certainly create pres-sure to reduce our personnel costs.The only way to remain competitivein hiring young engineers may be toreduce our overall numbers, andcompensate them as necessary. Thatreduction would create a require-

ment for more generalist officers whocould serve in a multitude of opera-tional roles across the CanadianForces.

TrainingWhat makes the Maritime Engin-

eering profession unique from mostother non-military engineering jobs inCanada is that we are trained to op-erate in a hostile environment thatrequires the ability to make snap de-cisions that can have life or deathimplications. Having to lead a depart-ment at action stations is the mostdifficult job a Maritime Engineer canbe called upon to undertake. It is alsothe job that makes us part of navaloperations and necessitates thewearing of a uniform. That aspect ofour profession can only be acquiredthrough training at sea. The complex-ity of the Head of Department posi-tion is such that we must maintainthe emphasis on training at sea. Themove to tiered readiness has im-pinged on that training by reducingsea time for engineers under training.Even though they may be posted toa ship, many officers get only mini-mal time at sea and often do not gainhands-on experience across the en-tire spectrum of engineering duties.The qualification of departmentheads should be tied to a minimumamount of actual time at sea (vicetime on board) to ensure their com-petency is not eroded. But bunkspace is already limited in the fleet,and will become even more criticalwhen the next generation of shipswith their smaller crew sizes taketheir place in the line. Insisting onmore sea time will likely reduce thenumber of officers who qualify.

The MARE occupation currentlyprovides virtually all MOC trainingearly in an officer’s career. Thistraining focuses on the Head of De-partment job, when in fact this is onlyone of many functions that all Mari-time Engineers are expected to fulfill.If the demographics are now point-ing to a need for more versatile en-


gineering officers, MARE trainingwill have to begin providing greateremphasis on resource and projectmanagement. And what is more, thistraining will have to be delivered “justin time.”

The Town Hall debate to date high-lights the difficulty planners face insetting the training requirements forour Maritime Engineers of the fu-ture. Where a study of the complex-ity of new technology seems to

conclude that MARE officers will re-quire more in-depth technical train-ing, the demographic pressures andemployment profiles appear to de-mand either less training, or trainingthat is more distributed across anofficer’s career.

MARE Occupation ModelsThe discussion shifted to design-

ing models for the MOC that couldeffectively deal with the key factorsthat will affect the MARE occupa-

tion in the years to come. Severalmodels were constructed, which af-ter further analysis were determinedto be variations of three basic struc-tures:

• Status Quo• Single MOC, dual OccupationSpecialty Specification

• Single Engineer Concept

Status Quo (Fig. 1)The status quo is the model result-

ing from the occupational analysis

Forum

Figure 1. Status Quo

Second window for PG training

Jobs as engineering leaders, seniorinstructors, project managers,

headquarters engineers, Fleet TechnicalAuthority engineers, etc.

First window for PG training

Selected on merit and qualification

Most senior engineering management positions,including NDHQ directorate

Possible promotion to Cmdre

Senior engineering management positions,including Unit CO

Possible promotion to Capt(N)

Staff CollegePromotion to Cdr

Senior engineering management positionsCombat Systems

Senior engineering management positionsMarine Systems

Ship Combat Systems EngineeringOfficer (2-3 years)

Possible promotion to LCdr

Ship Marine Systems EngineeringOfficer (2-3 years)

Possible promotion to LCdr

Combat Systems shore jobs (2-5 years) Marine Systems shore jobs (2-5 years)

Assistant MSEO at sea (1-1.5 years)Assistant CSEO at sea (1-1.5 years)

CS engineering training at sea (1 year) MS engineering training at sea (1 year)

CS Engineering Applications Course,basic admin. (1 year)

Promotion to SLt on completion

MS Engineering Applications Course,basic admin. (1 year)

Promotion to SLt on completion

Jobs as engineers, instructors,apprentice project managers, etc.

This stage could be bypasseddepending on student intake

Initial degree, summer training to include NEI and NOCPromotion to A/SLt on completion

Engineering degrees, some science degrees. Ncdtsselect sub-occupation (CS or MS) after second year

Marine Systems StreamCombat Systems Stream

Marine Systems shore jobs (~2 years)Promotion to Lt(N) 3 years

after commission

Combat Systems shore jobs (~2 years)Promotion to Lt(N) 3 years

after commission


completed in 1995 and implementedin 2002. Given that the new structurehad not been implemented at thetime of writing this paper, it is diffi-cult to speak authoritatively on allthe pros and cons of the approach.Having said that, the structure is nota dramatic departure from the his-torical MARE MOC and was under-taken primarily to deal with humanresource management issues viceemployment of personnel within theMOC.

The status quo certainly deals withthe technology spectrum by develop-ing two distinct groups of officers:one with technical expertise in thecombat systems field and anotherwith expertise in marine systems.Although this approach has served uswell on board ship, it does not nec-essarily provide the breadth of re-source management experiencerequired for subsequent employmentin projects and other staff positions.The model would be enhanced bythe addition of post-HoD (head ofdepartment) training to fill the gap.Creating a mid-grade staff coursewould provide the requisite training“just in time” to the officers whochoose to stay beyond their initialterms of service.

The status quo is certainly a modelthat simplifies the human resourcemanagement aspect of the MOC.Personnel are recruited for combatsystems employment, and surplusesand shortages can be identified wellin advance. The structure has gen-erally locked people into a given areaof technology and makes it more dif-ficult to provide a broad spectrum ofemployment opportunities. That as-pect has historically been adissatisfier for officers who aspire tosenior leadership positions in thenavy and in the Canadian Forces.

Single MOC, Dual OSS (Fig. 2)The model of one MOC with

separate occupational specialityspecifications (OSS) for CombatSystems and Marine Systems would

broadly mirror the existing MARS(Maritime Surface and Subsurface)MOC approach. MARS officers re-ceive initial training, which culminatesin their Level II Certificate of Com-petency. Subsequent employment ispredicated on “just in time” trainingprior to an officer assuming new re-sponsibilities. From navigator toabove-water warfare director, todeck officer, to combat officer,specialty training is provided only

after an officer has been selected foremployment. This approach providesflexibility and a variety of employ-ment opportunities, which allows theMARS community to tailor careersto suit the desires of individual offi-cers as much as possible.

Using the same approach, MAREofficers would complete their engi-neering or science degree, then re-ceive initial training to cover the

Forum

Figure 2. Single MOC, Dual OSS

Most senior engineering management positions,including NDHQ directorate

Possible promotion to Cmdre



Senior engineering positions at Cdr level

Senior engineering positionsStaff College

Some jobs will be sub-occupation-specific, some will not.PG training also available

Ship Engineering Officer (MSEO or CSEO) (2-3 years)Possible promotion to LCdr

Common shore jobsJobs as engineering leaders, senior instructors, project managers,headquarters engineers, fleet technical authority engineers, etc.

PG training available

Generic common technical training afloat

Common Engineering Applications Training (1 year)Promotion to Slt on completion

University degree, summer training to include NEI and NOCPromotion to A/SLt on completion

Engineering degrees, some science degrees.

Marine Systems StreamCombat Systems Stream

Generic engineering shore jobs ~2 yearsPromotion to Lt(N) 3 years after commission

Jobs as engineers, instructors, apprentice project managers, etc.This stage could be bypassed depending on student intake

OSS Training Combat Systems OSS Training Marine Systems

Afloat Phase as A/CSEO (1-1.5 years) Afloat Phase as A/MSEO (1-1.5 years)


Forum

entire spectrum of shipboard technol-ogy. They would be subsequentlyemployed in an engineering functionashore. Once selected for employ-ment as Combat Systems or MarineSystems engineers, they would re-ceive the requisite training and beemployed on board ship in that ca-pacity. An officer could later be se-

lected to go back to sea in the otherfield of engineering, and would againreceive the necessary training priorto proceeding to the new assignment.

This model would provide MAREofficers with a broad exposure toshipboard technology and would alsoprovide the detailed level of training

department headsneed to performproficiently intheir specific areaof responsibilityat sea. The modelalso provides flex-ibility for individu-als to seek a broadspectrum of em-ployment in engi-neering, but com-plicates the hu-man resourcemanagement bydelaying selectionof specialty train-ing. A post-HoDstaff course wouldstill be required toprovide trainingfor senior staffpositions ashore.

Although thismodel providesmore flexibilityfor employmentthan the statusquo, it does notoptimize employ-ment opportuni-ties and would stillsee MARE offi-cers largely lim-ited to jobs in theengineering field.

Single EngineerConcept (Fig. 3)

The single en-gineer model isthe most signifi-cant departure

from the existing occupational struc-ture and would offer the greatestvariety of employment. In fact, themodel would create a de facto navalofficer branch where individualswith the appropriate skills could movefrom executive to technical positionswith relative ease. To facilitate thatmovement, the Level II Certificate ofCompetency would be required forMARE officers to ensure they pos-

Figure 3. Single Engineer Concept

Initial degreesummer training to include NEI and NOC

Promotion to A/SLt on completion

,(engineering or selected sciences)

General naval officer training, includingC of C Level II (~1 year)

Initial engineering applications training (1 year)Training covers all marine and combat systems,

applied theory and applications

Engineering training at sea (1 year)Includes all marine and combat systems

Generic engineering officer managementtraining (0.25 year)

Includes basic project management, financialtraining, and advanced technical and staff writing

Shore jobs (~2 years)Promotion to Lt(N) 3 years after commissionJobs as engineers, instructors, apprentice project

managers…

Assistant engineering officer at sea (~1.5 years)Only one assistant per ship

Shore jobs (2-5 years)Jobs as engineering leaders, senior instructors,

project managers, headquarters engineers,Fleet Technical Authority engineers…

Ship engineering officer (2-3 years)Possible promotion to Lcdr

Selected on merit and qualification

Specialized or project management PGtraining (~ 2 years, optional)

Senior engineering management positions,Staff College

Possible promotion to Cdr



Most senior engineering management positions,including NDHQ directoratePossible promotion to Cmdre

Executive/tactical/command course

Second-in-command positions, includingship XO, Staff College

Possible promotion to Cdr

Command senior officertactical/operational positions

Command senior officertactical/operational positionsPossible promotion to Cmdre

Most senior naval officer positions

Engineering Management Stream Operational/Tactical Stream


Forumsess a basic foundation in naval op-erations. From a human resourcemanagement perspective this modelis adaptable and would permit themovement of personnel to deal withshortages.

The single engineer approachwould reduce the level of detailedtechnical knowledge acquired at thejunior officer level because of therequirement to obtain a Certificate ofCompetency. However, properly fo-cused application training and sub-sequent training at sea would ensurethat MARE officers possess theknowledge and skills they need toperform as a head of department.Since officers’ reliance on the tech-nical ability of the non-commissionedmembers (NCM) would likely in-crease, the skills and knowledge ofthe technical NCM occupationswould have to be reviewed.

The greatest strength of this con-cept is the variety of employmentopportunities it would present. IfCanada does undergo a labour short-age as described earlier, the engi-neering profession could beespecially hard hit. Therefore, wemust be able to provide the greatestvariety of employment opportunitiesto attract people to the navy. Thisstructure would allow those officerswho would choose to continue downthe path of a more technical careerto do so. On the other hand, officerswishing to join the executive pathand become more involved in theoverall running of the navy would befree to do so.

DiscussionEach of the models in some way

deals with the critical factors affect-ing the future structure of the MAREbranch. The status quo appears toprovide the greatest technical exper-tise for shipboard employment, yetdoes not provide optimum opportunityfor post-HOD employment. The sec-ond model (single MOC, dual OSS)provides more latitude, but remainsprincipally focused on the technical

employment of MARE officers. Thethird provides the greatest opportu-nity for a wide spectrum of employ-ment, but potentially reduces the timespent acquiring detailed technicalknowledge.

Any model that is eventuallyadopted must be designed to ensurethat MARE officers are trained tofulfill their assigned duties at sea. Anumber of post-command seniorMARS officers were asked what itwas they wanted in an engineeringdepartment head, and in every casethey said they wanted an officer whopossessed the leadership and man-agement skills to lead a department— in other words, a naval officerwith a technical penchant. Any of thethree models presented here couldfulfill those requirements.

ConclusionWhen we decided to write this

paper we had neither a clear pictureof the future of the MARE occupa-tion nor consensus on our views.However, the process of writing ne-cessitated a great deal of discussionwhich proved to be very useful inhighlighting several points. First,that developing a model for theMARE occupation in 2020 is farmore complex than first anticipated,given the requirement to satisfy anumber of conflicting factors. Sec-ond, that there are in fact a numberof models that could meet the navy’sneeds for engineering officers in thefuture. And third, that before anyfurther changes can be made to theoccupation, a detailed study must becompleted that should include anoccupational analysis as well as abetter understanding of what thefleet will be in 2020.

This paper focuses exclusively onthe MARE occupation; however,many of the pressures and issuesfacing the officers in the MaritimeEngineering branch also affect thenon-commissioned members. As aresult, changes made to the knowl-edge base and technical expertise of

the officers must be balanced bycommensurate changes to the NCMoccupations to ensure the branchfulfills the navy’s naval engineeringrequirements.

The discussion and debate thatsurrounded the writing of this paperwere both healthy and educational.It is the authors’ hope that this papercan be the catalyst for discussionacross the MARE occupation.

References1. Occupational Analysis Report On

MARITIME ENGINEERING -MOC 44. Director of ManpowerPlanning. January, 1995.

2. Boom Bust & Echo. David K.Foot with Danial Stoffman. Mac-farlane, Walter & Ross. Toronto.1996.

3. Making Sense of Our Dollars2001. ADM(Fin CS) Publication.2001.


Time was when the deliveryof a technical data package(such as it was) for a ship

was associated with large trucks, lotsof boxes, strong backs and longhours of work. In 2001 DGMEPMtook delivery of the first of the tech-nical data for the Victoria-class sub-marines. The delivery comprisedapproximately 3000 publications,8000 drawings and 750 structuredEquipment Record Numbers — all ofit contained on 60 CD-ROM disks.The Victoria class desk at NationalDefence Headquarters was suffi-ciently confident in the information torelease it for immediate dissemina-tion on the Defence Wide Area Net-work (DWAN).

The success of this effort had itsroots six years earlier. In 1995 thePolicy & Information Managementsection of the Directorate of Mari-time Management and Support(DMMS 6) began examining theproblem of managing materiel sup-port information in the age of desk-top computer technology. Theaccepted strategy in those early daysfocused on the use of short-livedsoftware application programs thatwould inevitably be subjected to end-

MODE:How the Maritime Open DataEnvironment is Helping the Navy Manageits Materiel Support InformationArticle by LCdr (ret.) Brendan Nolan

less updates with no offer of back-ward compatibility. Considering thecomparatively long life of a warship,this was clearly an undesirable routefor the navy. After two years of look-ing at application-centred ap-proaches, we concluded that theavailable commercial products rep-resented neither good value for ourmoney, nor adequate progressionfrom the status quo.

We shifted our attention to theraw data itself, concentrating on away to manage the essence of ourinformation assets in an application-independent form. In 1997 we builta prototype Operational Data Storewhich could hold the navy’s materielsupport information and provide anenvironment in which we could man-age it. From this work it became ap-parent that the concept of managingdata as information objects outside ofa process application was viable.

During late 1998 and early 1999the wider concept of the MaritimeOpen Data Environment (MODE)began to be formalized, and at itsheart was a growing OperationalData Store of materielsupport information in ac-cessible SQL/ODBCdata bases and StandardGeneralized Markup Lan-guage (SGML). Today,information managers inDGMEPM continue towork with the navy’smateriel managers to ex-pand and exploit the ben-efits of the MaritimeOpen Data Environment.

The Open Data EnvironmentAn open data environment is not

a new concept; neither is it peculiarto DGMEPM. Charles Goldfarb, oneof the original founders and thinkersbehind SGML is a proponent of openinformation management(1) where alldata must be manageable by any pro-gram, not just the program that cre-ated it.

It could be argued that the Internetis a good example of an (essentially)unregulated open data environment.The private sector is an ad hoc, het-erogeneous, unregulated (in the ITsense) environment. The anarchythat characterizes this environment isalso the strength that forces bettersolutions to market on an almostdaily basis, but the gymnastics re-quired to keep pace with this scopeof change are significant. IfADM(Mat) cannot keep up, theDepartment of National Defence willpay an unnecessary premium on pro-curement and support costs whichmust affect the effectiveness of theCanadian Forces. In fact, the Mari-time Open Data Environment has


been evolving in DGMEPM over thepast 17 years. It is only recently withthe build of the Operational DataStore that we have developed confi-dence in our ability to manage andsustain such an environment, recog-nizing its full benefit in managingCanada’s naval materiel support in-formation.

The Maritime Open Data Envi-ronment exists to allow managers touse their information assets in what-ever form they require to meet a par-ticular business requirement. MODEseeks to leverage the infrastructureof the DWAN and apply minimalconstraints on managers (to avoiduninformed degradation of the infor-mation asset), while meeting our col-lective responsibility as stewards ofthe public record and managers ofthe public purse.

MODE centres on the easy ma-nipulation of key data, text imagesand other “information objects” thatDND requires to manage its navalsystems throughout their life cycles.MODE provides an overall informa-tion system architecture for preserv-ing essential life-cycle materielmanagement data on naval systemsin a format that may be used and re-

used by many different applicationsfor whatever purpose a maintenancemanager, senior manager, operator ordesign agent requires.

MODE is application-independentsince the database remains accessi-ble by successive generations ofbusiness technology software.“MODE aware” application pro-grams are still necessary, however,for they are the interface by whichusers access the environment to im-port and process the raw data inMODE’s Operational Data Store.Industry will not need to know thespecifics of our work environment,nor we theirs beyond what is requiredby our duties as quality assurancerepresentatives on the contract. Allwe really need know is the interfacerequirement. With our datacentricview of the environment, we wereable to construct a simple applicationbased in Microsoft Access™ that pro-vides the interface to anyone whohas a requirement to work with us.

In short, the Maritime Open DataEnvironment provides an organiza-tional, technological and managerialframework for storing the importantinformation we use to manage ships

throughout their life cycle. By mak-ing that framework and data acces-sible through a variety of differentsoftware application programs, man-agers can choose the IT tools thatbest suit their particular requirementsfor the job at hand. MODE is neithera silver bullet nor a free lunch — itrequires some elbow grease to organ-ize yourself, but once that is done theannual membership fee is the lowestin town.

How is the Maritime Open DataEnvironment going to affect yourwork at sea and ashore? Most peo-ple will not notice any immediatechange. One of the constraintsplaced on us in 1995 by our directorgeneral RAdm Gibson was that anyIT improvements advanced byDMMS 6 were not to drive a busi-ness change. Rather, the requirementto change or enable business woulddrive the requirement to change de-ployed technology. There was no newmoney, so whatever we did had to befinanced from within. Over the pastfive or six years we have been for-tunate to work with materiel manag-ers who are experiencing IMproblems that need to be solved be-fore they can improve their work


p rac t i ces .These man-agers havefunded ourwork as partof their sup-port costs and the overall cost of do-ing business, so the infrastructure isnaturally evolving and improving.DGMEPM now has the capability toquickly and easily exchange largevolumes of electronic data with anyorganization, thus removing a consid-erable amount of the drudge workassociated with managing technicaldata packages.

Operational Data StoreAs mentioned, the heart of the

Maritime Open Data Environment isthe Operational Data Store, whichcontains the catalogue of business in-formation objects and defines the keyrelationships between these objectsas defined by the functional manag-ers. Information objects can be assmall as a paragraph or as large as aset of books, and may comprisegraphics, text, data records, videoand audio materiel in any order andquantity. The key here is considera-tion of what constitutes useful infor-mation. A topic is essentially theminimum standalone module (object)of useful information that may beused and reused in multiple docu-ments (i.e., larger information ob-jects).

For those who like metaphoricalcomparisons, the Operational DataStore is a set of information treeswhich self-prune as the business ob-ject set changes. The boughs of thetree can be adjusted to expand orreduce the core data requirement forany object, with minimal impact on in-service applications. Since the ODSdoes not manage any business proc-ess, changes can be made to thecore data efficiently and economi-cally, by leveraging the power ofcurrent desktop office automationtools while we wait for the applica-tion management processes to re-spond to the change.

The Operational Data Store willbe a key element of our migration to

MASIS, the ADM(Mat) MaterielAcquisition and Support InformationSystem designed to support allmateriel acquisition and support ac-tivities for Canadian Forces for theforeseeable future. In essence it hasnot cost anything we would not havespent on some other activity prepar-ing for MASIS, but in this case wewill end up with a utility to manageother activities. The critical architec-ture is now in place.

Because theOpera t iona lData Storedoes not exer-cise manage-ment control over the informationwithin it, the content can be easilyand inexpensively adjusted to meetchanging requirements. Just as opendata standards such as SGML andXML separate content from presen-tation, the ODS separates our base-line information requirement fromtechnology, in other words separat-ing the IT from the IM. This means:

• There is a physical representa-tion of the organization’s informationbaseline that can be monitored tomeasure growth, change, costs andother physical management func-tions. Information management be-comes a reality, not a by-product oftechnological “progress.” Input to andoutput from the ODS provides the lit-mus test of the information system’s“openness.”

• Adoption of a particular formatis not a technology decision. A man-ager can have reasonable latitude inselecting the best-value decision.

• There is a functioning back-outoption should the information systemprove unsatisfactory.

• There is reasonable assurancethat the products of the system canbe supported over the long haul in afree market economy.

• Information technology can beimplemented independently of infor-mation management.

• The producers of the informationhave information systems optimizedto their daily work requirement.

• The consumers of informationhave a “one-stop shopping” reposi-tory.

The “here today, gone tomorrow”nature of information technology en-sures that many complete IT andproduct life cycles will be completedduring the life cycle of one warship.Materiel managers in DGMEPMmust therefore make an assessmentabout accepting the current commer-cially available information, or pay-ing a premium on procurement toobtain more suitable information for-mats that will be less expensive tomaintain throughout the expected lifeof the equipment. Such decisions,which need to take into account therelative cost of the system and theassociated information package, areclearly the domain of the materielmanagers and not the IT managers.The Maritime Open Data Environ-

ment supports the materiel managerswith a flexible technological responseto dynamic market conditions.

MODE provides a durable solutionto IM asset management becauseMODE was not designed to use aweb or any other technology. By fo-cusing on the information require-ment, and not the technological bellsand whistles, we are able to separatedata from application, content frompresentation, and IM from IT. As aconsequence, we are well positionedto take advantage of any developingtechnology early and on a large scalewhen it makes sense to do so.

The technical document manage-ment process that is currently meas-ured in months will be measured in


As a rule of thumb, major article submissions should not exceed about 1,800 words and should includephotos or illustrations. Shorter articles are most welcome. The preferred format is MS Word, with theauthor’s name, title, address, e-mail address if available, and telephone number on the first page.

Please submit photos and illustrations as separate pieces of artwork, or as individual high-resolution,uncompressed electronic files. Remember to include complete caption information. We encourage youto send large electronic files on 100mb Zip disks or CD-ROMs, and to contact us in advance if yourillustrations have been prepared in a less common file format.

If you would like to change the number of copies of the Journal we ship to your unit or institution,please fax us your up-to-date requirements so that we can continue to provide you and your staff withthe best possible service. Faxes may be sent to: The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMSS(819) 994-8709.

Guidelines for Writers

LCdr Nolan is the former DMMS6 Division Chief Information Of-ficer. He is now a civilian, work-ing as Information Systems Man-ager in the Directorate of MaterielGroup Information Management.

days, meaning the fleet should startto see improvements in the accuracyand timeliness of technical informa-tion available to the technicians andengineers, something that has beenseverely criticized in recent years.With the coming deployment ofSHIPLAN, the automated update ofonboard technical data should alsobecome a reality. The MaritimeOpen Data Environment offers thepotential to accelerate this evolution;specifically:

• The material support technicaldata available to users will be moreaccurate, more timely, more consist-ent and more useful because infor-mation search and recovery will befacilitated.

• Materiel managers will be ableto generate effective electronic tech-nical manuals that provide interactivediagnostic support to the user/maintainer. Using current tech-niques, these manuals are relativelyexpensive and support-intensive tomaintain, but adopting MODE prac-tices will ensure they can be devel-oped inexpensively and without acrippling support burden.

• For our senior managers andleaders, adopting MODE practiceswill facilitate information profile man-agement and the manipulation of con-sistent, accurate information whichwill improve the consistency of an-swers to strategic questions.

• Project managers of majorCrown IT projects like the MaterielAcquisition and Support InformationSystem (MASIS) will find betterquality data and uncomplicated datamigration requirements that will en-able their applications to be more ef-fective, more capable and quicker.

• IT/IM and knowledge managerscan focus on managing the infra-structure without being the target ofcriticism for business matters that areclearly beyond their control.

• Over the next five to ten yearswe should see a safer work environ-ment, and improved system reliabil-ity and availability.

The increasing presence of toolsin the market place that will supportMODE, along with the growing adop-tion of web technology as the IT toolof choice for the commercial sectorare solid indicators that our directionis good. In addition, it should be notedthat the US Air Force seems to seesimilar benefits in such an ap-proach.(2)

In short, MODE is a child of theMother of Invention. It is a progres-sive approach to managing informa-tion system architecture thatfacilitates the business-driven evolu-tion of the integrated electronic workenvironment and communication in-frastructure. In so doing it leveragesprevious investments in IM infra-structure to the extent that it makes

sense and empowers managers toprovide timely and accurate informa-tion services as efficiently and eco-nomically as possible to their targetclient or customer community, col-leagues and business partners.

References1. Goldfarb, Charles F. and Paul

Prescod. “The Charles F. GoldfarbSeries on Open Information Man-agement,” The XML Handbook.Prentice Hall PTR, 1998.

2. Courtney, Lieutenant ColonelJohn. “AF Logistics Integration:In Plain English,” Logistic Spec-trum, Vol. 35, Issue 3, July-Sep-tember 2001.


MASIS:Naval Rollout of the MaterielAcquisition and SupportInformation System

M ASIS is under way!January 14, 2002marked the kick-off of

the design phase for the naval rolloutof MASIS, the Department of Na-tional Defence’s integrated MaterielAcquisition and Support InformationSystem. The long-anticipated systemwill track military equipment through-out the entire life cycle, from require-ment specification and procurement,through in-service management ofrepairs and maintenance, to final re-tirement.

The design phase is now in fullswing as teams configure individualbusiness processes using integratedSAP R/3 system software. Inter-faces, data conversion programs andcustomized reports are also beingdesigned, developed and tested inpreparation for integration testingduring the implementation phase ofMASIS scheduled to begin later thisyear.

Integrated MaterielManagement

MASIS derived from a 1994 ini-tiative to amalgamate an unsustain-able number of legacy “stovepipe”engineering and maintenance sys-tems across the Department of Na-tional Defence. As a capital projectMASIS will provide an integrateddepartmental life-cycle managementinformation system for DND equip-ment, phasing out such familiar sys-tems as:

• Yorvik• CMIS Mk II• OASIS• CMIS/S and• Workman

The MASIS Project organizationincludes a team of contractors fromIBM and a team of DND/CF per-sonnel charged with overseeing theirperformance. The fundamental aimof the project is to bundle varioussources of information within one in-tegrated source – which is where theSAP R/3 software comes into play.SAP R/3 is known in the industry asan enterprise resource planning tool;in other words, a system of closelylinked application modules that canreplace existing systems on a corpo-rate basis. It is this that makesMASIS feasible, using the followingapplication modules:

• Business Warehouse (strategicand performance measurement re-ports)

• Document Management (man-agement, storage and use of corpo-rate documents and technical data)

• Finance and Control (businessplanning, budget/project manage-ment)

• Materiel Management (service/materiel procurement, materiel re-ceipt, quality management and in-voice verification)

• Plant Maintenance (engineeringlife-cycle management, weaponmaintenance)

• Omega Project Systems (inven-tory/technical/fleet data manage-ment, and logistics support analysis)

• Project Systems (project man-agement)

• Quality Management (inspec-tions)

• Environment Health and Safety(life-cycle management of hazard-ous or restricted materiel)

• Workforce Management (hu-man resources)

Maritime MASIS RolloutWhile MASIS will eventually be

implemented sequentially in phasedrollouts across all three environments,the navy is first up. DGMEPM andCMS jointly determined that MASISwill fulfill vital service needs, andagreed there were significant advan-tages to having the navy undertakethe first full environmental rollout.The Maritime MASIS AcceptanceProject (MMAP) was thus formedto co-ordinate the support of the usercommunity and to ensure the navyreceives the best possible solutionfrom MASIS. The project was alsocharged with configuring MASISwith an eye toward future require-ments, permitting the navy (as wellas other environments) to take ad-vantage of evolving functionality inSAP R/3.

The active implementation ofMASIS throughout the naval com-munity is referred to as the MaritimeMASIS Environmental Rollout(MMER). The rollout, which willtouch virtually all organizations con-cerned with ship maintenance, hasbeen phased to systematicallyachieve the complete implementationof MASIS throughout the navy ac-cording to the following schedule:

Analysis Phase(Completed Sept. 10 – Dec. 17, 2001)

Work processes, business rulesand data structures that will latergovern the conduct of materiel ac-quisition and support business weredefined through a series of work-shops conducted in Ottawa. Person-nel were divided between a coreteam of full-time participants and anextended team of part-time partici-

Article by LS Isabel Estan


pants. The formations andDGMEPM each contributed up to 12core members and 20 extended teammembers, with CMS contributing anadditional four core members and 16extended team members.

Design Phase(Jan. – Sept. 2002)

The MASIS Team IBM program-mers have configured the softwareto reflect the estimated 800 businessscripts arising from the analysisphase. MARCOM participationduring this phase has been sig-nificantly lower, with a re-duced core team chargedwith co-ordinating local re-view and testing of scriptsproduced by Team IBM.

Integration Testing /Implementation Phase(Sept. 2002 – April 2003)

Following the design phase, TeamIBM will begin integrating the vari-ous individually developed compo-nents, leading to the final systemtesting of MASIS. A MASIS train-ing team will concurrently developtask specific user training. MAR-COM’s participation will remainsimilar to its design phase involve-ment, but the fleet schools will berequired to commit a small cadre ofinstructors to the training develop-ment effort to conduct the knowl-edge transfer from Team IBM.

During implementation, all users,including virtually all of the materiel

acquisition and support community inMARCOM, will be provided withtask specific training. For most peo-ple the training will be three to fivedays in length, but anyone using morecomplex functionality may have tocomplete up to 15 days of training.Initial training serials will be con-ducted entirely by Team IBM instruc-tors, with fleet school observers in

attendance. The training lead willshift progressively to the military in-structors such that the final serialswill be instructed entirely by DND.Training within each formation will beconducted during a six-week windowprior to “Go Live,” which will occurin DGMEPM and on the lead coast(FMF plus one ship) in February2003, followed by the other coast inApril 2003 (again, FMF plus oneship).

Extended Rollout PhaseFinally, during the extended rollout

phase, MASIS will be implementedon a schedule of one ship per monthper coast (subject to operational

schedules), with individual rollouts in-volving roughly three weeks of usertraining for the ship’s company. Dur-ing this period, rollouts will also bescheduled for small materiel acqui-sition and support units such as thefleet schools, Queen’s Harbour Mas-ters, fleet diving units, and naval re-serve divisions.

MASIS — A New Way of DoingBusiness

MASIS will have a direct impacton the stakeholders involved in

every aspect of materielacquisition and support.For life-cycle materielmanagers, buyers, storesstaff, technicians and oth-ers, such day-to-day ac-tivities as identifying andlocating spares, preparing

work orders, planning and executingrepairs, managing resources, or man-aging the configuration of weaponsplatforms will all be supported byMASIS. As it stands now, personnelacross DND are performing thiswork using a variety of home-grownsystems that are unable to commu-nicate with one another. Materielmanagement information thus be-comes compartmentalized within aparticular system, minimizing the abil-ity of anyone to obtain a complete andaccurate representation of the avail-ability of equipment or personnel.

MASIS will provide this informa-tion within a single, integrated system

For more information about MASIS, the Maritime MASIS Acceptance Project, or the MaritimeMASIS Environmental Rollout, please visit the following websites:

MASIS — http://admmat.dwan.dnd.ca/org/dgmcbm/masis/masis.htm

MMAP — http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/DMSCR/MMAP/index_e.htm

You may also direct your specific enquiries to:• Cdr Don Flemming, MMAP Project Manager, (819) 994-8866• LCdr Brian Corse, MMAP Deputy Project Manager, (819) 994-8383• Cdr William MacDonald, MARPAC Project Manager, (250) 363-4796• LCdr Brad Anguish, MARLANT Project Manager, (902) 427-0550 ext. 3045

For More Information


where maintainers can more readilyview maintenance schedules, see therequired tasks and parts, and ordertheir materiel. Planners will be ableto look at the maintenance history ofa piece of equipment, determine thefuture maintenance requirements,and anticipate the availability ofspares and trained personnel.MASIS will link engineering andmaintenance information from thefront line to individual units, headquar-ters, other government departmentsand industry. As a result, the materielacquisition and support communitywill have timely access to reliabledata to support current and futureoperational tasks and missions. Thevisibility of information between theenvironments will be minimal at thetactical level, but will increase toward

the operational (e.g. formation head-quarters) and strategic (NDHQ) lev-els.

The MASIS implementationwithin the Maritime environmentwill definitely bring changes to howthe navy conducts its materiel activi-ties. While it may take time for cer-tain user groups to see the fullbenefits of implementation, the over-all benefit to the navy and the depart-ment will be immediate andsignificant. MASIS will provide themeans by which we can conduct ourday-to-day materiel activities moreeffectively on a corporate basis.

A combined transition manage-ment team including personnel fromMASIS and the Maritime Accept-ance Project has been created to

communicate the details of the rolloutof MASIS to users at all levels. Thegoal of the transition managementteam is to ease the effects of thechangeover to MASIS by providingusers with a high degree of aware-ness prior to “Go Live.”

LS Estan is the former CMS Com-munications Co-ordinator for theMaritime MASIS AcceptanceProject in Ottawa.

The 2002 MARLANT Technical Seminar– What’s Going On!Article by LCdr Wayne Rockwell, FMF Cape Scott

Alot has been going on inthe technical community,and this was highlighted

during last spring’s East Coast tech-nical seminar. The seminar was con-ducted over two forenoons, the 5thand 6th of June.

The first day was dedicated toreviewing the technical challengesand accomplishments of OperationApollo. Task Group Technical Of-ficer Cdr Andy Smith facilitated aforum presentation which includedviewpoints from people serving in OpApollo-deployed ships, and individu-als serving in supporting shore agen-cies. The extraordinary effort and co-operation required of all agencies toallow the task force to sail in 11 dayswas immediately apparent. Lessonslearned were noted and concernswere raised as to the sustainability of

continuing to meet all demands.RAdm MacLean concluded the firstday by outlining his campaign planand discussing the challenges he sawfor the technical community.

Capt(N) Kevin Laing and CdrBob Edwards opened the second daywith a look to the future. They gavecomplimentary briefs on “Leadmark”and “Technology and Maritime Se-curity.” The briefs were very in-formative and allowed reflection notonly on where we are, but where wewill have to go. Lt(N) AssadBouayed followed with an excellentbrief on the challenges of employ-ment as a naval project manager inOttawa. This brief was especiallywell received by the junior officersin the crowd. The last presentationof the day was given by Lt(N) BrianMay. His brief on his experience

while conducting human intelligenceoperations in Bosnia illustrated thevaried and challenging employmentavailable to MARE officers.

All in all, the seminar met the goalof letting us all know “What is goingon,” and gave us insight to some ofthe unique and valuable contributionswe provide. For more information onsome of the briefs that were pre-sented, visit the FMF Cape Scottcorporate management website at:http://halifax.mil.ca/fmf/businessmgt/index.html

Seminar Report


The CAE Award is presented to the candidate whodisplays a high level of engineering excellence,academic standing and officer-like qualities on theMARE 44B Applications Course. Wendy Allerton,CAE Inc., presented this year’s award to SLt DenisPellichero.

CAE Award Mexican Navy Award

The Mexican Navy Award was presented to SLt DenisPellichero by Rear-Admiral J. Montero, NavalAttaché.

The MacDonald Dettwiler Award is presented to thebest overall MARE officer having completed theHead of Department qualification in the previoustraining year. The award was presented to Lt(N) KitHancock by Walter Johnson of MacDonald DettwilerCanada. Runners-up included Lt(N) Solomon, Lt(N)Work, and Lt(N) Thibault.

The Lockheed Martin Award is presented to the bestoverall CSE candidate having received the 44Cqualification during the previous training year. JohnMeehan, on behalf of Lockheed Martin Canada,presented the award to SLt Troy Kelly. Runners-upwere Lt(N) Lemoine, Lt(N) Semenuk and Lt(N) Horan.

Lockheed Martin AwardMacDonald DettwilerAward

Awards

With the completion of each training year, a MARE Awards Board is convened to identify officers who havedistinguished themselves from their peers in the pursuit of engineering excellence and leadership. The April

25, 2002 East Coast MARE mess dinner provided the occasion for the presentation of most of these prestigiousawards.

Photos by Cpl Michel Durand,CFB Halifax Formation Imaging Services

2001 MARE Award Presentations


Bravo Zulu!

The Peacock Award is presented to the best overallMSE who received the 44B qualification during theprevious training year. Al Kennedy, Peacock Inc.,presented the award to Lt(N) Jean-Francois Seguin.Runners-up were Lt(N) Coates, Lt(N) Harwood andLt(N) Semeniuk.

Peacock Award

The NOAC Award is presented to the candidatedisplaying the highest standing of professionalachievement and officer-like qualities on completionof the 44A qualification. This year’s award waspresented by Commodore (ret’d) Mike Cooper to SLtCameron MacDonald.

Naval Officer’s Association of CanadaAward

Awards

The Northrop Grumman Award is presented annuallyto the best overall Combat System Engineeringgraduate to complete the MARE 44C ApplicationsCourse. Capt(N) Eldridge presented the award toLt(N) Travis Blanchet on behalf of NorthropGrumman.

Northrop Grumman Award

The Mack Lynch Memorial Award is presentedannually to the Marine Systems or Combat Systemsengineering candidate who in the opinion of hispeers and instructors best exemplifies the qualitiesof a naval engineering officer. Jennifer Lynch,sponsor of the award, presented the award to Lt(N)Travis Blanchett.

Mack Lynch Memorial Award


RoughersCritchley & Bush (Eds.), Maritime Books, Liskeard, UK, 2001ISBN 0-90-777184-X

Lt. Cdr. Carnie, of the Royal Corps of Naval Con-structors, works in DMSS 2-2.

This book of photographs will astonish thelandlubber, or the observer who has only seennaval ships on the drawing board. Contrary to

many implicit assumptions, ships do experience largewaves at sea, and generally survive even after rolling tolarge heel angles.

The photographs for Roughers were taken in the worstof such seas, occurring from the 1930s to the present day.Canada’s own maritime coastal defence vessel evenmakes a showing, and many readers will recognize theseascapes and ships of the North Atlantic.

Images range from “R” class battleships labouring atmaintaining station, to a destroyer displaying her antifoulingin the Southern Ocean, to the Joint Maritime Course offScotland. On the last page, a photo of a submarine (ofcourse) is used to illustrate the tranquil sea.

Book Review

Roughers serves to remind us about the conditionsour ships, their crews and equipment have to face fromtime to time. I consider this book required reading forany navy staff who have not been to sea in more thanfive years!

HMS Ark Royal battles Hurricane Ivyin the Indian Ocean, March 1966.(Mike Critchley Collection)

The Maritime Engineering Journal is always on the lookout for good quality photos (with captions)to use as stand-alone items or as illustrations for articles appearing in the magazine. Photos ofpeople at work are of special interest. Please keep us in mind as an outlet for your photographicefforts. Photo Co-ordinator Harvey Johnson can be reached at (819) 994-8835.

Share Your Photos!

Review by Lt. Cdr. P.K. Carnie RCNC (DMSS 2-2)

1

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

CNTHA ChairmanRAdm (ret.) M.T. Saker

SecretaryGabrielle Nishiguchi

Directorate of History and HeritageLiaisonMichael Whitby

DGMEPM LiaisonCapt(N) D. Hurl

Maritime Engineering JournalLiaisonBrian McCullough

Newsletter Editing and ProductionServices, Layout and DesignBrightstar Communications,Kanata, Ont.

CNTHA News is the unofficial newsletter of theCanadian Naval Technical History Association.Please address all correspondence to the pub-lisher, attention Michael Whitby, Chief of theNaval Team, Directorate of History and Heritage,NDHQ Ottawa, K1A 0K2. Tel. (613) 998-7045,fax 990-8579. Views expressed are those of thewriters and do not necessarily reflect officialDND opinion or policy. The editor reserves theright to edit or reject any editorial material.

Preserving Canada’s Naval Technical Heritage

CANADIAN NAVAL TECHNICAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION

SUMMER 2002

CNTHA News Est. 1997

Technology and theTribal Class Update andModernization Project ........ 2

Canadian Naval DefenceIndustrial Base Project ....... 4

Inside this issue:

— RAdm (ret.) Mike Saker,Chairman CNTHA

CNTHA Celebrates FiveYears “in Business”

I t’s hard to believe that ourfirst newsletter was pub-

lished in March 1997. In onesense, we have been very success-ful: most people associated withthe naval community are aware ofour existence and our mandate.This clearly was one of our objec-tives in establishing the newslet-ter five years ago. Also, throughthis publicity our collection ofwritten material has grown, al-though perhaps not as much as wemight have hoped. We still coulduse more personal reminiscencesand views of those who have par-ticipated in this fascinating busi-ness. Most of us are too humbleto believe that we can contribute,but our stories may be fascinatingto others. Give it a try.

I have been greatly encouragedby some very determined organi-zation and work that flowed fromour committee meeting last No-vember, when Rolfe Monteith in-spired a small team to tackle theindustrial side of our naval herit-age. Headed by Don Jones, a keengroup consisting of DougHearnshaw, Colin Brown, JimWilliams, Gord Moyer and Rolfehimself, has been mapping out alarge-scale “seascape” of the in-dustrial story, against which infor-mation can be gathered andsorted. Not surprisingly, it looksa lot like a summary of our shipprograms and the equipment de-

velopments that accompaniedthem. The group is now lookingfor means to make people whowere on the industrial side awareof our project so that they maycontribute to it. If you or someoneyou know might be able to help,please put them in touch with Donand his group.

Our newsletter and its excel-lent companion, the MaritimeEngineering Journal, are free tothose who have an interest in ourendeavour. If you know of anyformer colleagues or industrypeople who wish to receive thenewsletter, please have them con-tact us and we’ll be glad to addthem to our distribution list.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

2

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

CNTHA News — Summer 2002


I t became apparent by the late1970s that the Canadian naval

fleet would need considerably betterarea air-defence capability to dealwith the threat of long-range Sovietcruise missiles and aircraft. It wasalso clear that the Canadian fleetwould have to operateover a much widerarea of the globe. Thismeant that better ship-board command, con-trol and communicationfacilities would be re-quired to support Cana-dian task groups onlong deployment.

To achieve thesebadly needed improve-ments the navy em-barked on the TribalClass Update andModernization Project (TRUMP).Between 1987 and 1995 the fourDDH-280s were outfitted with a ca-pable array of improved weapon andfire-control systems. In addition to themajor improvements to the combatsystems, the ships also benefitted froma new cruise engine and gearbox, hullstrengthening and a water displace-ment fuel system. Perhaps the mostobvious change was the loss of thedistinctive twin “bunny ear” funnelsas part of the superstructure modi-fications for ship signature reduc-tion. At the end of the day, theIroquois-class ships could be ex-pected to equal or surpass any simi-lar sized allied ship in terms of air-defence firepower, flexibility andsurvivability.

TRUMP was an impressive over-haul, with benefits that went far be-yond the Iroquois class. Thecombination of the technological ad-vances associated with the TRUMP

Technology and theTribal Class Update andModernization Project

modifications and the manner in whichthe prime contractor, Litton SystemsCanada Ltd., subcontracted portionsof the work served to develop a widebase of Canadian industrial expertisein modern warship engineering sup-port. Nowhere was this more ground-

Tribal ClassUpdate andModernizationProjectScope of work:

• Platform design fromconcept through detaildesign.

• Naval architecture andstructural design.

• Engineering design ofauxiliary systems andoutfit and furnishing.

• Integration into the shipof the combat system.

• Detailed design andpreparation of strip-outand production drawings.

• Procurement, set-to-work and test and trials ofthe ship.

• Implementation of thework into the ship.

Article by Cdr Tony Cond

TRUMPEngineeringDeliverables• 14,075 new and reviseddrawings.

• 2,275 SDRL reports.• 251 equipment/subsys-tems.

• 668 line item spares.• More than 1,225,000person-hours of engi-neering.

breaking than in the specialized areaof integrated naval electronics.

Leading the way were fourTRUMP fits that still warrant specialattention today — the CANEWSelectronic warfare system, and a trio ofsystems for shipboard integrated com-munications, processing & display, andmachinery control. All four of thesesystems were conceived and formu-lated by Canadian naval engineers anddeveloped by Canadian industry.

The Shipboard Integrated Com-munication System (SHINCOM) firstproduced by Leigh Instruments, thenSPAR and finally DRS Technologies,provided greater performance andflexibility to all ship’s communicationnetworks. It used advanced digitaltechnology and microprocessor con-trolled terminals to give a user-friendly, fully integrated, combatsurvivable system solution for theship’s tactical, interior, exterior andsecure communication circuits. Today,

DDH-280 Iroquois before the TRUMP refit

3

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••



the newest version of SHINCOM (notyet fitted) is based on commercial off-the-shelf technology, and will use acentral software base to provide re-dundant switching, “dual-homed” ter-minals and interoperability for jointoperations to ensure continuous com-munications into the next decade.

The Shipboard IntegratedProcessing and Display System(SHINPADS) updated the CCS-280command and control system with adistributed and fully integrated sys-tem. The software was supplied bySperry Computer Systems of Winni-

EW suites in the world, was madepossible by extensive research anddevelopment carried out by severalDND agencies. This technology hassince been transferred to industry fordevelopment and production. In fact,both CANEWS and SHINMACS be-came successful candidates for exportsales, the benefits of which continuenot only to serve Canada’s marinetechnology development, but to sat-isfy international naval design re-quirements as well.

The trend in naval technical inno-vation so prevalent during the DDH-

280 and TRUMP pro-grams continues to bea major factor in thesuccess of our navalfleet. Now, as then,behind every technicaladvance were the peo-ple who steadfastlygave their best for thenavy — the militarypersonnel serving inthe navy’s technicalbranch, the civilianmarine engineers em-ployed in the defencedepartment, and the

large body of retired naval engineersand technicians who continue to con-tribute productively to Canada’s de-fence through second careers in thepublic service and the marine and elec-tronics industries. The considerable in-vestment which the navy makes totrain and develop its engineers is thusrarely lost on retirement as people’svaluable engineering expertise be-comes part of the strength of Cana-da’s small, but capable naval defenceindustrial base.

NavalArchitecturalChallenges• trim and stability• hull girder strength• new VLS system• new IR suppression• new cruise engine• new machinery controlsystem

• new WDFS system• modified gearbox• new fire-detectionsystem

• new smoke evacuationsystem

• new CIWS• new main gun• new 1000-kW electricalpower generator

Water DisplacedFuel System• 78% of the ship’s 650tonnes of fuel convertedto a water displaced con-figuration.

• Tank boundaries ofthese fuel chains heavilyreinforced to withstandhigher operating pres-sures.

• Internal structure modi-fied to ensure optimalflow of both fuel and wa-ter throughout the tanks.

• Extensive stripping sys-tem installed to preventwater from damaging theship’s machinery, and fuelfrom polluting the watersurrounding the ship.

Cdr Cond is a project director with theDirectorate of Science and TechnologyMaritime in Ottawa. This article is ex-cerpted from his paper, “A Century ofCanadian Marine Technology Develop-ment,” prepared for his Bachelor of Mili-tary Arts and Science program at RMC.

Iroquois after her TRUMP refit

peg, while the tactical display equip-ment was supplied by ComputingDevices Company of Ottawa.SHINPADS remains the backbone ofthe CPF combat system, integratingall sensors and weapons.

The Shipboard Integrated Ma-chinery Control System (SHIN-MACS) replaced the old pneumaticand hybrid analogue/digital systemwith a distributed digital system devel-oped by CAE Limited. The systempermitted a wide variety of machin-ery to be controlled from speciallydesigned computer displays, therebyfacilitating better maintenance, equip-ment health monitoring and crewtraining.

The Canadian Electronic War-fare System (CANEWS) providedlong-range detection, classification,and tracking of electromagnetic emis-sions. The CANEWS project, whichresulted in one of the most capable

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••



About the CNTHAThe Canadian Naval

Technical History Associa-tion is a volunteer organi-zation working in supportof the Directorate of His-tory and Heritage (DHH)to preserve our country’snaval technical history. In-terested persons may be-come members of theCNTHA by contactingDHH.

A prime purpose of theCNTHA is to make its in-formation available to re-searchers and others. TheCollection may be viewedat the Directorate of His-tory and Heritage, 2429Holly Lane (near the inter-section of Heron andWalkley Roads) in Ottawa.

DHH is open to the pub-lic every Tuesday andWednesday 8:30-4:30.Staff are on hand to re-trieve the information yourequest and to help in anyway. Photocopy facilitiesare available on a self-serve basis. Copies of theindex to the Collectionmay be obtained by writingto DHH.

The Canadian Naval DefenceIndustrial Base Project

equipment firm project managers,principal naval overseer staffs, DNDsystems and desk officers, DND andcivilian R&D project teams, etc.

If you are interested in participat-ing in this information gathering proc-ess, please contact Colin Brown<[email protected]>, witha copy to Douglas Hearnshaw<[email protected]>, or bymail to C.R. Brown, 470 HillcrestAve., Ottawa, ON, K2A 2M7. Weneed to know your name and address,whether you were with the RCN,DND or a company (please includethe company’s name), your rank and/or position on retirement, projects inwhich you were involved, and whenand in what capacity. Please includenames of co-workers who might alsobe good sources of information.

This might be the last chance toobtain and record useful informationon this topic. Your participation inthis endeavour would be of signifi-cant value in presenting a view fromthe industry side. – Mike Saker,Chairman CNTHA

In November 2001 a CanadianNaval Defence Industrial Base

(CANDIB) Project, under the chair-manship of Rolfe Monteith, was setup as a subgroup of the CNTHA.Present members of the project teamare: Don Jones (vice-chairman),Colin Brown, Gord Moyer, DouglasHearnshaw (Society of Naval Archi-tects and Marine Engineers), and JimWilliams (former president of MILSystems).

The mission statement for theproject is: “to describe the develop-ment of the Canadian industrial baseas it evolved in support of warshipconstruction and naval equipmentprograms between 1930 and 2000,and to record the relationship betweenthe military requirement and the in-dustrial response during that period.”

The project team is interested incontacting people who may haveserved in any capacity associated withnaval shipbuilding and/or equipmentdesign and manufacture. This wouldinclude senior managers in DND, con-tract managers in Defence DesignProduction (Department of Supplyand Services) or DND, shipyard and

This scene is one of a series of naval theme paintingsproduced for Lamb’s. (Courtesy the Maritime CommandMuseum in Halifax.)

maritime engineering journal

Documents