national defense defence nationale maritime engineering ... · maritime engineering journal, dmms,...

National DefenseDefence nationale

MaritimeEngineeringJournal

February 1996

Maritime Command's NewNaval Engineering and Maintenance System

Also:• Naval Engineering and the Environment

• Looking Back at HMCS Ontario

Canada

Cruiser Routine

Looking Back at HMCS Ontario...see page 18

MaritimeEngineeringJournal Established 1982

Director GeneralMaritime Equipment ProgramManagementCommodore F.W. Gibson

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

Production EditorBrian McCulloughTel.(819) 997-9355/Fax (819) 994-9929

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

Journal RepresentativesCdr Bill Miles (MARPAC)

(604) 363-2406Cdr Jim Wilson (MARLANT)

(902) 427-8410CPO1 Craig Culvert (NCMs)

(819) 997-9610

Art Direction byDCA Creative Graphic andVisual Art ServicesIvor Pontiroli, Designer

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

FEBRUARY 1996

DEPARTMENTS

Guest Editorialby Captain(N) Gerry Humby 2

Journal Motto Contest 3

Commodore's Cornerby Commodore F.W. Gibson 4

FORUMImproving the MARS/MARE Interface

by Lt(N) Mike Meakin 5

FEATURESMaritime Command's New Naval Engineering and Maintenance

Systemby Cdr PJ. Brinkhurst 6

Electronic Warfare: Fitting a CANEWS Software Interface to theTRUMP Command and Control Systemby LCdr Peter Greenwood 10

Multirole Support Vessel (MRSV) — An Electric Propulsion OptionbyL.T. Taylor 13

GREENSPACE:Naval Engineering and the Environmentby LCdr S.K. Dewar 15

LOOKING BACK:HMCS Ontario (CLB-32)by Harvey Johnson 18

NEWS BRIEFS 21

OUR COVER•[lowing a vis ous i.wo-year review of its naval engineering and maintenance

systei : . Maritime ( • >mmand is set t< s r^Kl up two new "fleet maintenance'" §» ; : ' :

facilities" on April 1. Pre.;;•.•<:; : as for the sweeping changes about to hit theNEW : • Stem ha e teen under way throughout the naval engineering community

,:c 1994. The new system will operate on a firm business footing andpromises

The Maritime Engineering Journal (ISSN 0713-0058) is an unofficial publication of the Maritime Engineers ofthe Canadian Forces, published three times a year by the Director General Maritime Equipment ProgramManagement with the authorization of the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff. Views expressed are those of thewriters and do not necessarily reflect official opinion or policy. Correspondence can be addressed to: The Editor,Maritime Engineering Journal, DMMS, National Defence Headquarters, MGen George R. PearkesBuilding, Ottawa, Ontario Canada Kl A OK2. The editor reserves the right to reject or edit any editorialmaterial, and while every effort is made to return artwork and photos in good condition the Journal can assume noresponsibility for this. Unless otherwise stated, Journal articles may be reprinted with proper credit.

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL FEBRUARY 1996 1

Guest EditorialThe future ain't what it used to be!By Captain(N) Gerry Humby, Commanding Officer (designate),Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Scott

We are constantly hearing that we arein a period of unprecedented change.That may be true, but our navy is nostranger to change. I feel fairly qualifiedto make this observation, having beenaround for 35 years of such representa-tive changes as the phase-out of the firsttribals, the introduction and eventualphase-out of the "Cadillacs," the first he-los at sea in Canadian DDKs, the intro-duction (and demise) of the operator/maintainer trade concept, Unification,the introduction and modernization ofthe DDH-280s, and the introduction ofthe CPFs and MCDVs.

So what is it that separates the currentclimate of change from previous periodsof change? Most folks have already cor-rectly concluded that it is the scope andpace of the change. More significantchanges are being developed and imple-mented in shorter time spans than everbefore. Take those that have occurred innaval engineering and maintenance(MEM) in MARLANT in only one year.Three units are being disbanded to forma single, much leaner, maintenance andengineering unit. The new unit comeswith major reductions in infrastructureand in civilian and military personnel.Besides reductions of almost 400 person-nel, over the next year or so facility ra-tionalization projects will relocate morethan 500 people and free up 45,000square metres of space for disposal orother uses. Formation engineering andmaintenance staffs are also either beingeliminated or amalgamated with opera-tional staffs. Process reengineering andmodern information technology initia-

tives will allow the streamlined MEMsystem to gain even further efficiencies.Business planning and budget devolutionwill increase the cost awareness of engi-neering and maintenance support andhelp maintain gains in efficiency andeffectiveness.

The extent and intensive pace of thechanges are placing demands on the na-val technical community at all levels. Inmy view, the leadership and communica-tion skills that successfully carried usthrough past changes are essential to see-ing us through the turmoil and uncer-tainty of current and future changes.

In a climate of rapid change, effectiveleadership hinges on an open, two-wayexchange of information. Leadership in-volves other significant elements, but alleffort is wasted if a leader cannot com-municate effectively. During the uncer-tainty associated with rapid change,leaders must establish and maintain or-der by providing vision and direction.They must identify key basic issues anddevelop an effective attack. Success de-pends on communicating the plan effec-tively. In my experience, those who con-sistently come out on top in toughcircumstances are well versed in the ba-sics of effective communication.

I must stress that everyone in the na-val technical community has a role toplay in effective communication during.this period of unprecedented change. It isnot enough for leaders just to pass theword down the chain, or for staff to waitpassively to be informed. Communica-tion cannot be one-way. (We have all

seen the effects of someone stuck in Re-ceive mode or, even worse, in Transmit.)Every member of the team must work tokeep the lines of communication open.Effective personnel communicate.

I have observed change from manyperspectives in my career and I can as-sure you that dealing successfully withchange means communicating effectivelyat all levels. My most recent experienceswith the MEM Functional Review andthe stand-up of Fleet Maintenance Facili-ty Cape Scott have only strengthenedthis opinion. This major restructuringactivity is occurring in parallel withcountless other changes at all levels ofgovernment and presents significant po-tential for chaos. An intensive effort oncommunication during our NEM renewalprocess has been and continues to be acritical factor to our success.

I do not believe that we can expectany respite from the current pace andscope of change. The naval technicalcommunity must therefore work as ateam and adapt to the new order if it is tosustain the engineering and maintenancecapability essential to our navy. As wecontinue to shape our future, we will beconstantly challenged to improve ourefficiency and effectiveness in servingthe fleet. In my view, a commitment toleadership and communication at all lev-els will be essential in adapting tochanging missions, roles and constraints.There is no doubt in my mind that weare capable of meeting this challenge.

Surfs up!The Maritime Engineering Journal is now available on-line through the Internet.

Readers can view the Journal at the DGMEPM home page:

http ://limbo/d mcs.dnd.caThe Journal home page can be found by selecting "Additional Pages" and look-

ing under "Public Information." Letters to the Editor and article submissions can alsobe made through the Internet ([email protected]).

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL FEBRUARY 1996

Sharpen your pencils, every one I

TheMaritime Engineering Journal

needs a motto.What we are looking for

is a slogan in English or Frenchthat describes the Journal's pur-pose. Since we plan to use it as asubtitle for the magazine, itshould be simple, yet elegant,and should incorporate somesense of the magazine's objec-tives (see below).

As if you needed any encour-agement in so noble an undertak-ing, the editorial committee iseven putting up a book prize forthe winning entry.

The deadline for entries isJune 15,1996. Note that theJournal reserves the right tomodify the winning entry or createits own motto if no suitable entrycan be found.

You can send us your entry in avariety of ways:

Our e-mail address is:[email protected]

Our fax number is:(819) 994-9929

Our regular mailing address is:

Maritime Engineering Journalc/o DMMS (LSTL Bldg.)National Defence H.Q.101 Colonel By Drive,Ottawa, OntarioK1AOK2

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 presented anddiscussed, even if they might be contro-versial.

The Journal welcomes unclassifiedsubmissions, in English or French, onsubjects that meet any of the stated objec-tives. To avoid duplication of effort andto ensure suitability of subject matter,prospective contributors are strongly ad-vised to contact the Editor, MaritimeEngineering Journal, DMMS, NationalDefence Headquarters, Ottawa,Ontario, K1A OK2, Tel.(819) 997-9355,before submitting material. Final selec-tion of articles for publication is made bythe Journal's editorial committee.

• To present practical maritime engi-neering articles.

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

Writer's GuideAs a general rule, article submissions

should not exceed 12 double-spacedpages of text. The preferred format isWordPerfect on 3.5" diskette, accompa-nied by one copy of the typescript. Theauthor's name, title, address and tele-phone number should appear on the firstpage. The last page should contain com-plete figure captions for all photographsand illustrations accompanying the ar-ticle. Photos and other artwork shouldnot be incorporated with the typescript,

• To provide announcements of pro-grams concerning maritime engineeringpersonnel.

• To provide personnel news not cov-ered by official publications.

but should be protected and insertedloose in the mailing envelope. A photo-graph of the author would be appreci-ated.

Letters of any length are always wel-come, but only signed correspondencewill be considered for publication.


Commodore's Corner

The MOS Review and the MARE

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

As you are no doubt aware, theMARE MOC is one of many occupationsbeing examined under the VCDS-di-rected Military Occupational Structure(MOS) Review. The aim of the review isto determine the minimum number ofMAREs that are needed for the navy tomeet its roles and responsibilities. Thedetail of the process to be followed is:

• all ship positions will automaticallybe identified as being required;

• all shore billets will be reviewed todetermine if they must be filled by aMARE. If the billet does not need to befilled by a MARE, it will be examined todetermine if it should be filled by a pub-lic servant or if the work should be con-tracted;

• the resulting establishment will bereviewed to ensure that the occupationremains viable and that the sea/shoreratio and the guaranteeing factors forpeacetime and contingency operationscan be accommodated;

• recommendations for any changes tothe MOC structure, training and recruit-ing will be developed as the review dic-tates; and

• recommendations will be made forthe optimum approach to any transitionthat might be required.

This is the what and the how. Let meturn now to the questions that are onmost everyone's mind.

Is this review a precursor to cuts? Yesand no. It is likely a precursor to furthercuts if the recommended establishment is

less than what it currently is. Whetherthese cuts would be taken immediately ornot is unclear. No, it is not a precursor ifthe number is marginally the same.

Why are the operator trades not beingsubjected to this review? The simple an-swer to this question is that the operatortrades are seen to be the "warfighters"and hence are being protected to maxi-mize the "warfighting" capacity in thistime of reduction. What must be determ-

"The Maritime Commanderunderstands what theMAREs bring to the navalteam."

ined is whether the support tail is at itsminimum, so that if further reductions arerequired and the minimum support tradeestablishment is in place, it will be clearthat further cuts can only be taken by af-fecting operations or by cutting the opera-tor trades as well. No one wants to cutwarfighting capacity if the cuts can betaken in the support tail at no cost to oper-ations. Having said this, I believe there isgrowing evidence that the operator tradesare starting to realize that they must gothrough this kind of review if they are tobe able to quantify their establishmentsand know what the consequences will beon operations if further reductions mustbe made. I am also seeing evidence thatmore and more naval officers are recog-nizing that everyone ashore is part of thesupport tail. Put a different way, if thesupport tail is too large, then everyoneashore must be examined, not justMAREs and LOGs.

Does the Maritime Commander un-derstand the role of the MARE and thevalue added of the MARE MOC? Theanswer to this question is, unequivocally,yes. I offer two excerpts from his mostrecent message to ADM(Per) on this is-sue: "When naval forces go to sea, allpersonnel fight their ship as full mem-bers of the combat team." He specificallystated that "the MARE, SEALOG andMARS MOCs form an essential team."He concluded, "...the leadership andtechnical expertise provided by theMARE and SEALOG MOCs...must notbe undervalued." This should clearlyprovide all with a clear signal that theMaritime Commander understands whatMAREs bring to the naval team andwhat they must continue to bring if thefleet is to receive the support that itneeds.

I understand that this review is beingviewed with concern and know that thesewords will not dispel all of your worries.This review is essential if we are to un-derstand what the minimum is and to beable to defend it. I will update you as theMOS Review progresses.


Improving the MARS/MARE InterfaceArticle by Lt(N) Mike Meakin

Much of a MARE's training empha-sizes the importance of proper integra-tion of equipment. Indeed, understandingthe "system level" of naval equipment ispurported to be the most important as-pect of our job. It is also generally recog-nized that while two systems might workexcellently in isolation, they often workpoorly, if at all, together. The single mostimportant factor in allowing two systemsto work in concert is whether or notthere is good communication betweenthem.

Despite this awareness, the MAREcommunity appears to downplay the im-portance of a different kind of "system"integration — the operator/engineer in-terface. Little, if any, time is devotedduring training to conveying even a rudi-mentary understanding of exactly whatthe operational commander's job entails,and to my knowledge the same may besaid of the Maritime Surface and Subsur-face (MARS) officer's understanding ofthe MARE side of the house (February1995 issue). It seems only reasonable,then, that we should expand our defini-tion of "system integration" to includethe interaction between the two branch-es. By doing so, we might better utilizeour engineering expertise in helping ourMARS brethren accomplish the opera-tional objectives of the navy.

Happily, a partial solution to thisproblem is already available, although atthe moment it is apparently poorly ad-vertised and underutilized within theMARE community. It is the two-weekMaritime Warfare Standard course, of-fered twice a year by the CanadianForces Maritime Warfare Centre inHalifax.

I recently had the opportunity to at-tend this course, along with studentsfrom allied nations such as the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom and Den-mark. The diversity of our backgrounds(surface ships, submarines, air force, en-gineers and civilians) coupled with theencouragement of class participation al-lowed for wide-ranging and sometimesanimated discussions of each other's tac-tics, experiences and attitudes. In many

instances where a student had particularexpertise in a lecture topic, the studentwas invited to present the brief.

The presentations themselves coveredvirtually all aspects of warfare, includingASW, AAW, surface warfare, mine war-fare and amphibious assault. Briefs weregiven on the capabilities of the world'sforces, allowing for an appreciation ofthe threats being faced both worldwideand in specific regions. Maritime lawand rules of engagement (ROE) wereexplained, as were such less-obvious (toan engineer) subjects as waterspace andairspace management. Copious exampleswere used throughout these lectures, bothby the instructors and the students, toexplain and emphasize relevant points.Briefs which could have been rather drybecame lively, informative discussionswith input from different national per-spectives on how policies and tacticswere used during such experiences as theFalklands conflict, the Gulf War and theCanadian turbot dispute.

"It seems only reasonablethat we should expand ourdefinition of "system inte-gration" to include the inter-action between the twobranches."

The course was more than simply aseries of lectures. Throughout the twoweeks the students were organized intosyndicates and given a number of scen-arios to address from the point of view ofa task force commander. The scenariosrelated to the lectures and were simple atfirst (e.g. defining an ROE request), butas the course progressed they becamemore complex (e.g. maintaining a mari-time interdiction operation). In thesescenarios the syndicates were allocatedcertain resources, apprised of the threatbeing faced and assigned the mission tobe accomplished. The syndicates wereconstructed to contain as broad a varietyof student backgrounds as possible, both

in experience and nationality, to allowthe knowledge of the students themselvesto become an additional resource. Oncompletion of each of these exercises twosyndicate solutions would be chosen forpresentation to the course as a whole.Usually the two solutions were quite di-verse, leading to lively discussion of themerits of each plan and demonstratingthat there is more than one solution toany problem.

An important point for an engineer tonote is that the Maritime Warfare Stan-dard course is an integral part of the Op-erations Room Officer (ORO) coursetaken by combat officers. For a shorttime, therefore, we are learning along-side the people for whom we ultimatelywork. Unfortunately, I was the onlyMARE on this course and, in speakingwith the instructors, learned that fewMAREs ever attend. LCdr DesLauriers,a course instructor and former executiveofficer of HMCS Nipigon, suggested thatthis course would be very useful to engi-neers going back to sea as a head of de-partment. It would give them, he said, abetter understanding of the command'swarfighting concerns and the role engin-eering considerations play in the opera-tional decisions that must be made.

A two-week course can only scratchthe surface of what the ORO spends ayear learning, but as an aid to improvingcommunication between our two profes-sions, and thus the ability of the two ofus to work together to accomplish themission, I feel this course is excellent.With so much of our time spent on ma-chine/machine interfaces and even oper-ator/machine interfaces, the MaritimeWarfare Standard course would seem alogical and worthwhile step toward im-proving the MARS/MARE interface.

Lt(N) Meakin is the mine countermeasuresliaison officer with the Esquimalt DefenceResearch Detachment.


Maritime Command's NewNaval Engineering and MaintenanceSystemArticle by Cdr PJ. Brinkhurst

During the past dozen or more years,the maritime engineering community hasresponded to the challenge of moderniz-ing Canada's naval fleet by playing amajor role in the design, construction,acceptance and support of two highlysophisticated classes of warship. Overthe next 15 to 20 years it will be the na-vy's challenge to maintain the ships ofthe Halifax and modernized Iroquoisclasses as economically as possible sothat they can continue to put to sea insupport of government standing and con-tingency operations.

In terms of the naval engineering andmaintenance (MEM) effort, the task athand is to reduce support costs so thatthe savings can be reallocated to the op-erations budget. That means ensuring(and proving) that NEM resources arebeing used in the most cost-effectivemanner possible. Reduced budgets andthe demand for tighter fiscal responsibil-ity have led naturally to a situationwhere business practices must now beginto play a prominent role in the NEMsupport process. It is the integration ofthese practices that is behind a majoreffort by the navy to completely redesignits NEM system. The goal: a fully ac-countable system that has the flexibilityto take maximum advantage of in-houseand commercial industrial capabilities.

From an operational standpoint, thereis no question that the present NEM sys-tem has been extremely effective (witnessthe preparations for Op Friction). It isjust that we had no way of determiningwhether it was either efficient or cost-effective. There are a number of reasonsfor this. To begin with, the two coastshave long followed distinctly differentimplementations of the NEM system.They use different procedures and have adifferent management structure. Some ofthe differences were justified, many werenot. What's more, because the manage-ment and service delivery functions ofthe units are mixed, it has been virtuallyimpossible to clearly see how resourcesare being expended. How much time andmoney are being spent on managerial

Ship Repair Unit Atlantic - Site of the new East Coast fleet maintenance facility.

process or lost to inefficiency? No onecan say. With a general lack of data oncost and performance, there is no way tomeasure and analyze the vital aspects ofa unit's operation.

Unfortunately, there is currently nosingle point of responsibility for navalE&M below the command level. Each ofthe three main engineering facilities oneach coast — the ship repair unit, the


Contracted-out

In-house

Fig. 1. The Production and Engineering Services part of the FMF deliverproducts to the customer, while the Business Management and Support grouplooks after management functions and the introduction of best businesspractice to the FMF. The two parts work together, but are distinct and theirperformance can be assessed separately.

COMPTROLLER(Fl)

QUALITYASSURANCE

(IE)

OPERATIONSSUPPORT

(AS)

Work RegistryContractsAccounts

AdminSafety/EnvironmentalInfo TechnologyIndustrial Eng.

HullMechanical/ElectricalWeaponsCommand and ControlClass

Fig. 2. Fleet Maintenance Facility Organization

naval engineering unit and the fleetmaintenance group — has its own CO.In effect, there is no clear line of respon-sibility linking a particular requirementto a final product.

What really rounds out the challengeis that the entire support culture on thecoasts has been characterized by a con-sumer (vice customer) attitude. Thismeans, for example, that a ship could

demand NEM services irrespective ofcost. The affordability of an operational-ly based decision (such as a weekendovertime expenditure) has rarely beenquestioned. As long as the money exist-ed, cost was simply not a consideration.Now that funds are short, the navy ishaving to reestablish its operational pri-orities and spending habits. Efficiencyand cost-effectiveness — the businessconnection — are in.

A New NEM SystemThe navy's engineering and mainte-

nance problems have been subject to avigorous two-year functional review(NEMFR). Although official implemen-tation of the major review recommenda-tions is scheduled for April 1, pre-parations for the sweeping changes aboutto hit the NEM system have been takingplace throughout the naval engineeringcommunity since 1994. In this regard, itmust be widely understood that the term"naval engineering community" fullyembraces the civilian members in theNEMS and that this significant reengin-eering activity has been advanced withtheir fullest possible participation andinvolvement. What people are preparingfor is the creation of a new, single pointof responsibility for NEM support activ-ity, to be called the "fleet maintenancefacility," or FMF. This unit will providethe services of the three old units on eachcoast with much less overlap and withclear accountability. The new FMF con-cept features:

• the inclusion of NEM activities inthe business planning cycle, with theFMF producing its own yearly plan and afive-year forecast to help the engineeringcommunity stay ahead of the changingworld;

• a fully integrated military/civilianwork-force;

• a thoroughly customer-focused orga-nization, with reduced layers of manage-ment, empowered supervisors and self-directed work teams;

• a work demand regime within whichships and shore units who draw upon theFMF's services are held accountable fortheir demands, are given some responsi-bility for the management of their main-tenance requirements, and are madeaware of the costs involved;

• the elimination of the engineeringoverseer's function from higher com-mands (i.e. staffs checking staffs — theFMFs will be held accountable for theirproducts); and


• greater management flexibility forthe FMFs to adjust their work-forces inresponse to workloads, to purchase mate-rial support at the best prices indepen-dent of source, and to contract directly toindustry for those services which aremore cost-effectively delivered by indus-try.

The FMF's new concept of operationsis focused on reducing overhead and un-necessary duplication of effort, and elim-inating work that offers no added value.The tool that has been adopted to helpachieve this is the unit business plan.This document defines output and re-source requirements, while establishingthe FMF's accountability to the forma-tion commander for E&M products suchas short-work periods, docking work pe-riods and engineering changes. Whilethe unit business plan forms an integralpart of the long-range vision and successof the FMF business environment, it re-quires a strong feedback loop to be trulyeffective. This feedback will be suppliedthrough a performance measurement andanalysis system (PMAS). Although thespecific performance indices have yet tobe finalized, the PMAS will considersuch attributes as customer satisfaction,cost and the degree to which business

plan targets and strategic goals areachieved. It will also recommend chang-es to operational processes and the busi-ness plan itself, or long-term changes tounit goals. The PMAS will ensure thesystem is operating at maximum efficien-cy, while meeting customer needs.

FMF OrganizationIt is important to realize that, al-

though it is a single unit, the FMF hastwo clearly defined parts (Fig. 7). Thefirst provides engineering and produc-tion services — actual products in sup-port of the fleet. The second, a businessmanagement group, will attempt to takethe best practices of the private sectorand put them to work in the unit. Itsrole, in effect, is to ensure the FMF takesall necessary steps to become and remaincompetitive. The structure of the FMF isshown in Fig. 2.

The commanding officer will be heldaccountable to the formation commanderfor all assigned work (which we cur-rently refer to as 2nd- and 3rd-line E&Mactivities) in accordance with an agreedbusiness plan. The CO will be requiredto demonstrate that the unit is providingproducts and services at a competitiveprice.

The business manager will be re-sponsible for all FMF business opera-tions (i.e. strategic planning, businessplans, performance analysis, businesscase analyses and industrial benchmark-ing) and for the critical functions of cus-tomer liaison and ensuring that the cus-tomer gets the best price possible. Thecreation of this position should act as asignal to the engineering community thatthe emphasis on what we do has indeedshifted toward a business footing andthat our skill sets must be adjusted toinclude business-oriented methodologiesand techniques.

The production manager and engin-eering manager will be responsible forthe traditional SRU and NEU functions,respectively, but with fundamentalchanges in focus. The production man-ager will manage only those capabilitiesthat can be retained in the FMF in acompetitive manner, while the engineer-ing manager will provide direct supportto the fleet and to production staff (withengineering development activities beingpredominantly contracted-out).

The comptroller, an entirely newfunction, is responsible for the develop-ment, implementation and maintenance


of an accounting and financial manage-ment system.

Of note also is the product manager.After a work package has been agreedupon with a customer, the business man-ager will pass it on to an appointed prod-uct manager who will raise a team to runthe project through to completion. Oncethe customer is happy with the finalproduct, the team will disband. In thismanner all members of the FMF will beable to participate directly in product de-livery.

Delegation of Maintenance BudgetsWhile the creation of the FMF and

the adoption of a business planning envi-ronment will significantly reduce thecost of doing business, it will not neces-sarily reduce customer demand. A prin-ciple strategy for achieving this reduc-tion is the delegation of maintenancebudgets to customers of the new FMF.Giving the consumer of a service greatercontrol over how the available money isspent has proven to be an extremely ef-fective means of reducing demand inboth industry and the public sector. Asthe customers begin to see the money as"their own," they take a greater interest

in ensuring each dollar is spent to goodeffect. Their growing awareness of costleads them to establish priorities andfind a balance between schedule, needsand costs.

In the case of the NEM system, main-tenance budgets will be delegated to allcustomers in accordance with a require-ment specified in their business plan.The FMF will maintain an account onbehalf of the customer who will drawupon it as required through a variety oftasking interfaces that are still being de-veloped. Access to FMF services willremain at least as direct and simple as inthe past. It is possible, for example, thata price list for many services will be cre-ated so that customers can go directly tothe source of expertise for work withoutwaiting for a specific estimate.

It should be recognized that althoughthe delegation of maintenance budgetsincreases the customer's influence on theway the FMF does business, it does notgive the customer authority to seek main-tenance services directly from privatecompanies. Although theoretically pos-sible, such freedom is still some way offand carries with it a range of contract

management re-sponsibilities thecustomer may notwish to handle. In-stead, thecustomer's influ-ence will be appliedthrough the accountmanager, whose jobit is to ensure thecustomer gets thebest deal possible.The FMF will beresponsible for pro-viding the customerwith the most cost-effective service,whether this meansdoing the work in-house, or contract-ing-out.

ConclusionThis restructur-

ing of the NEM sys-tem is the first ma-jor step in anongoing effort tosatisfy the maritimecommander's needsin the most cost-effective mannerpossible. We in thenaval engineeringcommunity must be

able to respond to the current environ-ment and, at the same time, anticipateand position ourselves for furtherchange. To achieve all this the NEMfunctional review team has worked withcustomers, labour and the existing NEMunits to create a single point of responsi-bility for engineering and maintenance— the FMF. The FMF, and indeed theentire NEM system, will adopt best busi-ness practices in terms of human re-source management and performanceassessment, and is forging a partnershipwith industry where it is cost-effective todo so. Finally, the naval engineeringcommunity is putting pressure on itselfto succeed by promoting a customer fo-cus and empowering the customerthrough the delegation of NEM budgets.

The engineering community has ledthe way in adjusting to changing timesthrough projects like the NEM functionalreview. The success of the new systemrequires continued foresight, the constantand visible commitment of all seniorstakeholders, and most importantly, thededication that has always characterizedthe people who "are" the Canadian navalengineering and maintenance system.Meeting these requirements may quitepossibly represent our greatest challenge,but it is essential to the preservation ofstrong naval forces in Canada.

Cdr Brinkhurst is with the Naval Engineeringand Maintenance Functional Review team inHalifax.


Electronic Warfare:Fitting a CANEWS SoftwareInterface to the TRUMP Commandand Control SystemArticle by LCdr Peter Greenwood

The Problem

In the mid-1980s a version of the Ca-nadian Electronic Warfare System(CANEWS) software designated DDK2CO was provided to Litton Systems ofCanada Limited to be interfaced with theTRUMP command and control system.The result, version 3L1, was duly deliv-ered by Litton to PMO TRUMP in 1988as a component of the Tribal-class Up-date and Modernization Project's soft-ware suite. In the intervening years,however, the CANEWS software thatwas being used by the rest of the navyhad evolved through six baselines thatincluded more than 140 engineeringchanges to correct defects, improve per-formance and respond to changing re-quirements. As a result, a significant ca-pability gap was created between theCANEWS version supplied to TRUMPships and that being used by the rest ofthe fleet.

When the Fleet Software SupportCentre (FSSC) issued its latest version ofCANEWS (OPS-ADL 4.00) to non-TRUMP users in early 1995, the gap be-came so pronounced that some operatorsin the DDH-280s actually preferred us-ing it over their less-capable interfacedversion (even though it did nor include aTRUMP CCS interface). Furthermore,the many differences that now existedbetween the TRUMP and fleet versionsof CANEWS were posing problems foroperator training and software mainte-nance — problems that could be avoidedif only the two versions could be recon-ciled.

The Solution

Any attempt to integrate the morethan 140 software changes into theTRUMP CANEWS version would havebeen impractical. Instead, an engineeringchange first proposed in 1992 by theTRUMP Detachment in Halifax to fit the

latest fleet version of CANEWS with aTRUMP CCS interface was vigorouslypursued. In fact, the FSSC had alreadyestablished the feasibility of the proposalin an initial impact analysis in 1993, andby early 1994 had completed a detailedanalysis which included a preliminarydesign of the required modifications. Ameeting was held in November 1994 be-tween representatives of Naval Engineer-ing Unit Atlantic's FSSC and theTRUMP detachment to discuss the devel-opment of a CANEWS/TRUMP interfacemodule (based on interface code in Lit-ton's version 3L1) which could be graft-ed onto FSSC's version 4.00.

The proposal was constrained by therequirement to complete the modifiedversion with existing FSSC resourcesand deliver it in time for TRUMP opera-tional testing in May 1995. Since theFSSC CANEWS team had recently fin-

ished version 4.00, and a follow-on ver-sion had not yet been authorized, FSSCagreed to undertake the CANEWS Inter-face to TRUMP (CIT) upgrade project.

The Team

Shortly after completing version 4.00,the 12-person FSSC CANEWS program-ming section was scaled back to sevenpeople. The team now comprised a pro-gram manager, two very experiencedCANEWS programmers, and four pro-grammers with less than two years' ex-perience each. Fortunately, the less expe-rienced programmers had completed aCANEWS software on-the-job trainingpackage, so they had a good understand-ing of the entire program. The team wassupplemented by a CANEWS softwaretest engineer from the FSSC testing sec-tion. Organizing the team as illustratedin Fig. 1 allowed three branches of con-

PROGRAM MANAGER/TEAM LEADER

DESIGNERS/LEAD PROGRAMMERS

(2)

NTDS TOOLDEVELOPERS

(2)

SYSTEM TESTENGINEER

PROGRAMMERS(2)

Fig. 1. CANEWS Interface-to-TRUMP Project Team Organization

10 MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL FEBRUARY 1996

current activity: software changes by theprogrammers, modification of testingtools, and revision of the system test pro-cedure.

The ToolsThe FSSC facility at CFB Halifax in-

cludes a VAX-based computer environ-ment, with networked terminals andworkstations for the programmers. Thisallowed the CANEWS programmingteam to work concurrently to review andmodify existing source code, developnew code, compile and build theCANEWS program, and generate media.Although the team did not have unre-stricted use of a CANEWS target system,they were able to share the CANEWSequipment held by the Canadian Forcesnaval engineering school.

The greatest challenge in designingand implementing the CIT was the pro-gramming team's limited access to aTRUMP command and control system.At the outset of the project PMOTRUMP had been unable to guaranteeaccess to a TRUMP CCS, but as thework progressed some testing did takeplace on board HMCS Iroquois (DDH-280). To help overcome the testing short-fall, an existing naval tactical data sys-tem (NTDS) simulator was modified toact as the CCS side of the interface. TheNTDS tool required modification by theCANEWS team to accurately simulatethe data flow fronrthe CCS, and to vali-date the data flow from CANEWS to theCCS to ensure it was in accordance withthe interface specifications.

The MethodologyThe first weeks of the CIT effort in-

volved project management activities toestimate resources, devise a schedule andorganize the team. These activities werecompleted before the Christmas break, sothe team was ready to begin work in ear-nest with the start of the new year 1995.

The first step in the process of addinga TRUMP CCS functionality to theCANEWS software involved reverse en-gineering, a phase often described insoftware maintenance literature as the"undesign" phase. The structure andfunctionality of the existing systems hadto be fully understood before modifica-tion could be undertaken. The team col-lected as much of the relevant documen-tation as possible. CANEWS design doc-umentation was readily available, sinceFSSC has been maintaining CANEWSsoftware for more than 10 years. On theTRUMP side, the team required copies ofthe TRUMP software requirements spec-

ification, the TRUMP/CANEWS inter-face requirements, the TRUMP Opera-tions and Users Manual, a wide range ofTRUMP software design documents,CANEWS/CCS test plans and proce-dures, and copies of reports on the test-ing conducted to date.

An extensive review of the TRUMPdocumentation was then required to en-sure the team had a thorough under-standing of the behaviour they might ex-pect from the TRUMP side of theinterface. It was during this time thatinformal testing to ensure the TRUMPsoftware performed as described in thedesign documentation took place in Iro-quois. Once the interface requirementswere fully understood, the lead program-mers identified the changes that wererequired to make CANEWS version 4.00software compatible with the modifiedinterface code.

A "mini-engineering-change" processwas employed within the team, in whichproposed changes were identified, docu-mented and reviewed for accuracy andapplicability. Once a change requirementwas validated, one or more possible solu-tions would be proposed, the best solu-tion would be selected and the appro-priate software changes would be de-signed and implemented. This processensured that only code changes necessaryto support the interface were implement-ed and that all changes were fully docu-mented. As with any software mainte-nance project, other potential codechanges and improvements were identi-fied along the way, but the team strictly

avoided any changes not specificallymandated by interface requirements.This was necessary to maintain the in-tegrity of the software's configurationmanagement, to minimize the operator/machine interface changes, and to easeoperator transition to the new software.In all, 24 specific changes were made tothe CANEWS software to make it com-patible with the interface module.

Once validated, programming taskswere assigned to individual program-mers. Changes were executed in logicalorder: database modifications were im-plemented first, followed by operator/machine interface changes and, finally,by interface function changes. Sincemany of the changes were interrelated,weekly meetings were instituted to keepall team members aware of each others'activities and to review work that hadbeen completed. The TRUMP detach-ment in Halifax was briefed every sixweeks on progress, including any prob-lems encountered which required PMOdecision to resolve. The CANEWS life-cycle material manager (LCMM) fromheadquarters attended the first of thesebriefings and was kept fully informedthroughout the project. Notes were pre-pared to capture the content of each ofthese briefings and detailed minutes ofensuing discussion were also kept. Theseefforts all served to ensure that no keyobservations or decisions "fell throughthe cracks" or went unrecorded.

Specific sets of deliverables were alsonegotiated as the project evolved. PMOTRUMP required program tapes, user

CANEWS Programming Team: (Standing) Mr. Grant MacLeod, P01 GuyLeBlancq, CPO2 Wayne King and Lt(USN) Mike Holland; (Seated) Lt(N) ChrisLarivee, Lt(N) Craig Wicks and author Lt(N) [now LCdr] Peter Greenwood.

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL FEBRUARY I996 1 1

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

DESIGN & IMPLEMENTPLAN CQDE

AMILES'

LTONES

ACODE C(

IV

TEST & REWORKSYSTEM

TEST1 I

DMPILES TEST TE!VERSION REP<

MODIFY SYSTEMTEST

ODIFY NTDS 1

SYSTEM TESTMODIFIED

1 Jl

VIONITOR

ANTDSM

COMP

DELIVEPMOT

kONITORLETED

Fig. 2. TRUMP CANEWS Software Interface Production Schedule

documentation, a system test procedureand a system test report. In addition, theLCMM also required the source codeand design documentation for follow-onmaintenance support.

The ResultModifications to the CANEWS soft-

ware were completed in early May 1995.A full system test which had been exten-sively revised to reflect the additionalinterface functionality was then conduct-ed. It was recognized from the outset thatthe system test would be restricted by theuse of the NTDS tool, rather than an ac-tual TRUMP CCS, but operational shipscheduling and the lack of a fully com-pliant test bed made this unavoidable. Asmuch testing as possible was conductedalongside in Iroquois and Athabaskan(DDH-282). One example of the need fortesting was a CCS/CANEWS timingproblem that was identified during on-board testing and corrected before thefinal software version was released. Themodified CANEWS software, designatedCANEWS OPS-TRP 1.00, was deliveredto the TRUMP detachment on June 1,1995, as scheduled (Fig. 2). The soft-ware has been employed in TRUMPships since that time, and has been re-ported to be a useful and reliable adjunctto the TRUMP command and controlsystem.

Lessons LearnedDetailed project planning and

progress monitoring kept the team on orahead of an ambitious production sched-ule. For example, the original plan calledfor only one programmer to modify theNTDS tool, but when it became apparentthat the effort required for this task wasgreater than anticipated, a second pro-grammer was assigned. This early inter-vention kept the modification on sched-ule and ensured the tool's availability forthe integration testing phase. As well,the review and approval process devel-oped by the team ensured that onlychanges necessary to support the task athand were undertaken. The problem of"capability creep" (i.e. making "just onemore little change"), which is a well-known problem in software projects, wastherefore successfully avoided.

The use of a small programming teamwith a good blend of experience and en-thusiasm also contributed to the successof the project. Each programmer wasable to maintain familiarity with the con-current activities of the rest of the team.The same people were involved through-out the entire project, from inception toimplementation and testing. Addingmore programmers to the team, especial-ly once the project got under way, proba-

bly would not have accelerated progress.A high rate of personnel turnover wouldundoubtedly have hampered the process.The excellent rapport between the soft-ware team and its customer, the PMOTRUMP detachment in Halifax, was vi-tal to the success of the project. PMOresponded promptly to documentationrequests and action items from progressbriefings. Timely decisions concerningimplementation alternatives also helpedkeep the project on schedule.

Tom Clancy's bestseller Debt ofHonor included among its themes theconcept that "if it is not written down, itdid not happen." Throughout thisproject, the content of each briefing andmeeting was captured and circulated foraccuracy and concurrence. In this way,all participants shared the same vision ofthe CIT's goals and progress throughoutthe life of the project.

LCdr Greenwood is the former projectmanager for CANEWS at the Fleet SoftwareSupport Centre in Halifax. He is currentlythe MARS career manager at NationalDefence Headquarters in Ottawa.

12 MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL FEBRUARY 19%

MRSV:Multirole Support Vessel —An Electric Propulsion OptionArticle by L.T. Taylor

In the article, "Afloat Logistic Sup-port — The future is now for multirolesupport vessels" (Maritime EngineeringJournal June 1994), the propulsion op-tion specified for the proposed MRSV istwin diesels, providing 15,400 kilowattsof power to a single controllable-pitchpropeller. Later in the same issue of theJournal is an article entitled, "An ACElectric Propulsion Concept for a DDH-280-class Replacement." On the heels ofthese two articles, it seemed that an elec-tric propulsion option for the MRSVmight have some merit, particularlysince an electric propulsion retrofit hasbeen studied for the AORs.

Why electric versus geared dieselThe MRSV will have a very high con-

nected electrical load with its containercrane, bow thruster, bow and stern rampsand doors, pontoon handling system, air-conditioning, services and power for thecontainer village, RAS gear and the ser-vices for the joint-force support group.Many of these services are not requiredconcurrently with full propulsion power,so that the central electrical generatingstation which can feed propulsion orother loads may be able to reduce theship's total installed prime-mover horse-power (as was the case in the design ofthe maritime coastal defence vessel). Thegeared-diesel MRSV will have at leastsix diesel engines: two for propulsion,three one-megawatt generators and one500-kilowatt generator. It might alsohave a diesel for the bow thruster andeven another for the crane.

A geared diesel propulsion systemwould require the vehicle decks to bereduced in width above the machineryspace to allow for intake and exhaustducting. With electric propulsion, par-ticularly gas-turbine (GT) electric, thegenerator sets can be located above thevehicle decks with only cableways andminor space ventilation trunking leadingdown to the motor-room. There exists atleast one commercial GT electric RO/ROship and it is assumed that the vehicledeck space advantage was sufficient to

overcome the increased fuel costs associ-ated with a less efficient propulsion sys-tem.

The MRSV is designed to carry a verysmall crew, particularly in comparisonwith an AOR. The size of the engineer-ing department and the requirement formaintenance of the six or more dieselengines on board may be incompatible.Operating experience in the Canadianpatrol frigates (CPF) suggests that die-sels are much more maintenance-inten-sive than gas turbines.

The candidate main engine and gen-erator diesels for the MRSV were notmentioned in the Journal article. ThePielstick PA6 fitted in the CPF is nowoffered in a version of sufficient power tomeet the requirement of the MRSV. Us-ing the arguments of commonality oftraining and support, the PA6 is a con-tender. There are a variety of medium-speed engines which can meet the powerrequirement with fewer cylinders thanthe PA6 and be more in line with com-mercial practice. The physically largersize of these alternatives, combined withan additional maintenance height re-quirement, might affect the height of thevehicle deck. The navy already has in itsinventory one-megawatt and 500-kilo-watt diesel generators driven by a com-mon engine, the Detroit Diesel 149.These could be the choice to utilize train-ing and support already available withinDND. Commercial practice would useslower speed diesels with fewer cylin-ders.

The proposed MRSV propulsion in-cludes a controllable-pitch propeller(CPP). The electric propulsion optionwould use a fixed-pitch propeller whichis more efficient and less complex thanthe CPP. DND experience has been thatthere is an increased docking require-ment for CPP ships versus those withfixed-pitch propellers. The geared me-dium-speed diesel CPP propulsion is rea-sonably common commercially, but soalso is electric propulsion in specializedservice such as cruise ships and icebreak-

ers. One negative factor in the applica-tion of commercial technology to a DNDvessel is that DND does not operate ves-sels in the same manner as a commercialoperator. The current AORs, with theircommercial propulsion plant, are a casein point. A commercial tanker wouldmanoeuvre out of harbour, increasepower to 80 percent or 90 percent ofmaximum continuous, and steady steamto the next port. AORs, on the otherhand, conduct officer-of-the-watchmanoeuvres, man overboard drills andother naval operational requirements in-volving considerable power changes andmanoeuvring.

The Electric Propulsion PlantCanada has an industrial base capable

of providing the electric propulsion, butdoes not have the gearing productioncapability. We can produce fixed-pitchpropellers, but not CPPs in the requiredpower range. Electric propulsion wouldhave more Canadian content than thegeared diesel alternative.

To meet the power range requirement,an AC-AC system would be used withvariable frequency from power electron-ics for motor-speed control and withphase-switching for reversing. High-power electronics for frequency variationand phase reversal have been proven inmarine use in cruise ships and icebreak-ers. The advantage of the icebreaker ex-perience is that these systems have beenproven in crash reversals and rapidmanoeuvring, necessary features in a na-val vessel even if commercial standardsare specified. If redundancy were de-sired, it would be possible to put two mo-tors in tandem on the single shaft.

Generator Prime MoversFirst, a review of gas-turbine prime

movers already in Canadian naval ser-vice for which training and support arein place:

LM 2500 (and FT4) — a single en-gine meets the power requirement, butpoor low-power fuel consumption makes


Multirole Support Vessel

jniiDiiiDiiinniinDmnnniinniiiiiiiini

it unsuitable (FT4 has even worse fuelconsumption);

Allison 570 — four engines wouldmeet the installed power requirements,but the ship would require additionalgenerators for the hotel load to avoid thefuel penalty of operating the gas turbineat below 50 percent power when propul-sion is not required.

Some gas turbines which are currentlynot in the inventory, but for which DNDhas similar units supported and trainingin place are:

Allison 571 — essentially a 570 witha three-stage power turbine and poweroutput of 5.7 MW versus 4.7 MW; a fitof three would meet the power require-ment with additional generators for thehotel load;

Allison 501 — used in the USN todrive two- to three-MW generators, thisindustrial and marine derivative of anaero engine used by DND could be fittedin a mix with 571s and an emergencygenerator, and would have improved fuelconsumption at hotel loads compared tousing a 570 or 571.

A combination of gas turbines anddiesels could meet the requirement withthe equivalent efficiency of diesels when

auxiliary steaming, while meeting part-load requirements combined with thehigh power-to-weight ratio of gas tur-bines. Two Allison 571 engines with twoeight-cylinder rail traction diesels at 2.25MW each would satisfy the installedpower requirement. Adding an emer-gency/alongside service diesel-generatorbrings it to only five engines with threediesels and not too many cylinders.

Machinery ArrangementThe gas-turbine generator sets are

relatively light and could be installedhigh in the ship at the sides of the han-gar. This would maximize the below-deck width available for RO/RO lanes.The gas turbine/diesel combination ofgenerator sets does involve more weight,and the location in the hangar sides pre-sents some stability concerns, but it ispossible. DMSS 2 is currently modifyingthe MRSV design such that stability re-quirements will be met, although posi-tioning large diesel-generator sets highin the ship would pose an added chal-lenge. The emergency/alongside servicegenerator would be located forward. Thestructure where the vehicle ramp opensto the upper deck could be made to housethis generator.

ConclusionThe electric propulsion option has

some benefits for the MRSV and shouldbe taken through comparative prelimi-

nary design analysis. Canadian navalexperience with gas turbines vis-a-visdiesels supports gas turbines as propul-sion engines if fuel economy is close.With the small crew proposed for theMRSV, gas-turbine maintenance will bemore easily handled. The electric optioncan be created with fewer engines, butwith more redundancy/capability afterthe loss of an engine.

The department has studied electricpropulsion for several retrofits and forpropulsion comparisons. An electric pro-pulsion option study should be carriedout for the MRSV early in the designprocess to ensure that the possible ben-efits of the option are adequately ex-plored and quantified.

L.T. Taylor is the Marine & ElectricalEngineering Officer at Naval EngineeringUnit Atlantic.


Naval Engineering and the EnvironmentArticle by LCdr S.K. Dewar

One of the major trends of the lastquarter century has been the growth ofenvironmental concerns in the publicagenda. That it has affected the navy isbeyond question; within the span of adecade we have seen our concept forwaste management at sea change from asimple belief that "the dark of night willhide all our sins" to become a highly reg-ulated and restricted practice. The navy'scommitment to environmental concernsis such that it is willing to spend signifi-cant money to comply with environmen-tal regulations, the current $65-millionMaritime Environmental ProtectionProject being only one example.

DND policy does commit us to com-plying with national and provincial envi-ronmental legislation, and to adopting a"code of stewardship" for the environ-ment. Although these policies arecaveated to ensure that the operationalrequirement remains paramount, theyare binding on all of us in DND, includ-ing those of us who make naval engi-neering our profession. The aim of thisarticle is to discuss how this thing called"environmental protection" affects thepractice of naval engineering and whatprofessional obligations it implies.

The Current SituationWithout question, environmental is-

sues are here to stay as a public concern.The growth of populations and competi-tion for resources will ensure that this isso. Furthermore, it should also be obvi-ous in the post-cold war era that militar-ies can only claim exemption fromcompliance with environmental regula-tions at great risk to public trust.

In general, there are two routes tocompliance: through procedural meansand through technological means. Proce-dural methods are often very simple —don't go to ports where regulations arestrict, or leave the scene as soon as yourholding tanks are full. However, the per-vasiveness of environmental regulationsand the potential disruption to our opera-tions implied by procedural solutionsreally push us toward adopting techno-logical solutions to compliance. This is

where the link to engineering is mostapparent.

Unfortunately, finding practical solu-tions is far from straightforward. Thesituation is complicated by the followingfactors:

• There is often contradiction betweenenvironmental legislation at interna-tional, national, and local levels. Ofcourse, the most stringent requirementsare the most costly to meet;

• Most legislation was not specificallydesigned with warships in mind, andwarships may in fact be exempt. Despitethis, there is nonetheless strong pressureto comply; and

• Environmental legislation is fre-quently ahead of the ability of technologyto comply.

Beyond the obvious desire to reduceevery harmful environmental impactpossible, there is rarely consensus (evenamong fundamentalists) on the relativeimportance of various environmentalconcerns. Without agreement on the pri-ority of problems it is difficult to makethe trade-off decisions that are so neces-sary to the practice of engineering. Forexample, decreases in engine air emis-sions (principally nitrogen oxides) areoften achieved at the expense of in-creased fuel consumption (and, hence,more CO2). Which is the greater priority— smog from NOX or global warming?Caution should therefore be exercisedbefore jumping onto the latest environ-mental bandwagon as there is an elementof "flavour of the week" to environmen-tal issues. The term "environmentalfriendliness" can sometimes be a move-able feast defined by whoever's agenda isdriving at the time.

The FutureCrystal balls are just as cloudy with

respect to new environmental protectionrequirements as they are with anythingelse, but two things seem fairly certain.First, the amount of environmental legis-lation will no doubt increase (unless gov-ernments become preoccupied with othermatters), and second, technology and

regulation will likely never converge. Aneffect I call "creeping limit-itis" isemerging, where as soon as technologyallows one set of regulatory limits to bemet, the limits are tightened.

While this certainly means that we asengineers will never get to rest on ourlaurels, the situation clearly poses anumber of risks. In this day and age weall know the real cost of spending moneyunwisely, and as naval engineers we alsoare acutely aware of the result of misus-ing critical weight and space allocationson board ship. Sorting the essential fromthe desirable will not be easy.

We can take some comfort from thefact that we are not alone in this prob-lem. Worldwide naval experience sug-gests that there are several common pit-falls which have resulted in non-optimalapplication of environmental technology:

• There is a tendency to assume thatcompliance is necessary with each andevery piece of legislation, even when ex-emptions apply;

• Less-than-informed knowledge hasresulted in false or sweeping assump-tions about the scope of regulation,which in effect means trying to complywith rules that don't exist; and

• In an effort to demonstrate environ-mental leadership, navies adopt "feelgood" agendas with good optics. Theseinvariably go beyond the requirement,but have unquantifiable or questionableenvironmental benefit (and generallyhigh cost).

The pressures that create these pitfallsare understandable, and sometimes deci-sions based on optics are necessary. Wejust have to remember that space allocat-ed to today's environmentally friendlytechnology may be needed for tomor-row's messdecks or weapons.

Naval Engineering PracticeWhat is very clear is that the practice

of naval engineering has definitely beenaltered by environmental concerns, al-though the effect is not widely under-stood. There have really been two major


Some thoughts on "due diligence'jJ||eycK-l itccnt legal cas-esian interesting pcrspccri.vc.;oa how the|burtsyeW;|ie requirements tor 'due; ;•;|UHge;iib& A, lane tare decision is the

|QntarJt>;irovincial Couit convict<xl ' •:3at;i IttdiiHlnes and two of its;for offtakes under Die rkmromuehtalProtection Act and the Ontario' Water :

Resources Act." IBS' 'court set fortli -very;::::;:efe;«; guiddkie^ibr what It consideredliii! m dus: rized;as: -- : / • ; - . . • . • • - i :;: :::;:i

:;'; • Was ii'p: j'iinikai preVefitioii' " '

|fp>Was thereitton? . . B

• Did; directors exjsst tbosc fiiey :•;;|||i||fo!led or oifitieiieed to exercise .icliic diligence?',; <:l>v'"". P

'"Were:'per:btik reports submitted on;

| ' « Were ai'boKlinates tastructed toport any. noxi- compliance, to senior :ma$f||agi-mem hi a. timely manner and waspersonal aotkai. tatoi jssniediateiv wbctirequired? . • ; ; ; , ; , p.. "; : . . ; ; . : • '

flllNcrte -tliat the court iiko ioatndtfaai titc-::::"t)'!.!rslte";airectc>r is persoaaliy respoa- | .,,'sibk. to inspect on a regular terns (i:e;p;;;;;sperforiti a walkabout), ''Ife perhaps ;; :':~^

-Increased

warnings as' well. 'for tl"o>c ofn s:"satling..:: desks. "Ditfxiact I'iiaQfae plaDtiiia'iiage.r:-B*¥^.oIf a p;fi|>)e!ii :iw:;;several ||

; 'yewrs :is:kf .teta- even set'asiifc Hk;nSy'''t||||):ectli;y"il

s; Other cases have found employees :

liable for offences121, so it is not onlysenior iiMaagement that is at risk.Employees" liability extends to not^.t;^

:only;tryiri|||| prevent the ;}(fence, bu||iloing evcryilmsir withi.ii il!i;irScope..of:;:authority tu irrJHg die problem to the:

attention of superiors, requesting con-- tiutial Hpdates:-1k).r« persons reporting!o::the:m, aaa subnutmjg perioaic re-

'. ports to superiors outlining tlte natureof or soiuiions to a piftbtein. :;::~: : : •/

•;"" Wliat:ix i;j«ar Ihtti!,. b llsii, there are;|many:;l'aciits to showing yuii are duly.y: ..... ;^diligent; but tl-e keysfeature of sill of::-:;":

:;;;:j|||m"is akin 2 iitjitn preventing offences , lieware toir/i^--Fthose who believe due fliligence can'te.satisfied by issuing iruanos from adc,sk. .; : . ; ;i;

' : - " ' ' - i - ; . - - . . 8.K.D,

requirements placed on all engineers,whether afloat or ashore, by the growingbody of environmental law:

• we are all required to assess, andmitigate if necessary, the impact of ouractions; and

• we must exercise "due diligence" toensure the environment is not unneces-sarily damaged. This is generally ouronly defence if charged under environ-mental law.

Environmental Assessment (EA)This term undoubtedly conjures up

horrible visions of formal, complicatedstudies or boisterous public hearings pit-ting hapless naval officers against hordesof tree-huggers. In fact, it is a graduatedprocess that ranges from simple screen-ing to very detailed ecological impactanalyses and public panels.

Many of our common shipboard ac-tivities will be exempt from continualenvironmental screening and assessment.For those activities exempt from assess-ment, training and procedures to assistship's staff in conducting an environ-mental screening are being developed.The tricky part is determining when theline between an exempted activity and ascreening requirement may be crossed.For example, if it were deemed that in-ternal fuel transfer operations were nor-

mally excluded from screening, but if atone point the ship were moored in anarea of extreme environmental sensitiv-ity, would a screening then be required?Human judgment will always be neededto make such decisions.

For those of us ashore, the situation isa tad more complicated. Many of us maynot be aware that we are now required toconduct an environmental assessment onall DND projects regardless of size. Thedefinition of "project" is of key impor-tance. While it is not difficult to connecta major crown project like the CanadianPatrol Frigate project to a requirementfor assessment, any headquarters-direct-ed change in preventive maintenanceprocedures that might affect the environ-ment is also a "project." Moreover, theenvironmental assessment is the respon-sibility of the project OPI — not somespecialist environmental agency — andthere is also a requirement to register theassessment formally. For most projects asimple environmental screening is suffi-cient, but more complicated projects mayrequire (and be forced to conduct) a fullimpact study including public involve-ment mechanisms.

What must be made clear is that thisrequirement cannot be bypassed. Engi-neering more than most other profes-sions involves shaping the natural

environment for technological ends. It istherefore now an integral part of our pro-fession to understand the impact of ouractivities on the environment in both adetailed and broad sense. In short, if youaren't familiar with "EA," become so —fast!

Due DiligenceMore sleep has been lost over the con-

cept of due diligence than is perhapswarranted. Simply put, exercising duediligence means taking reasonable careto anticipate and prevent environmentaldamage. Reasonableness is judged interms of the knowledge and skill ex-pected of you, the availability of alterna-tives and the standard of care required bythe value and importance of that whichis at risk. It does not mean having to tryto be "greener than green." Despite awidespread belief that there is some mys-terious code of practice to ensure you areduly diligent, it is difficult to think ofspecific requirements which do not sim-ply come under the heading of good en-gineering practice. In other words,positive steps are necessary to informpeople of the risks and relevant policies,and to ensure that practices are moni-tored. Above all, it must be clear that laxpractices will not be tolerated.

Much of the discussion on due dili-gence in the engineering community has


been focused on those of us afloat, butfor those of us ashore there are also diffi-cult issues. What represents a reasonablestandard of care for the deskbound? Giv-en the diffuse nature of bureaucracy,what is our individual liability? Therehave been surprising arguments madethat our liability extends to the conductof contractors or industries performingwork on our behalf. We have only begunto scratch the surface of how this affectsour profession. We may yet see the re-quirement to add "environmentallyfriendly" procurement clauses to con-tracts.

TechnologySome general comments on the effect

of technological change on the profes-sion in this area are in order. Despitewhat was stated earlier about the legalrequirements for environmental assess-ment, understanding environmental im-pact is essential as part of our profession-al obligation to anticipate and preparefor future naval requirements. We muststand ready to advise operational com-manders as to how their needs can bemet by technology; and what penaltiesensue from application of technology.This applies no less to technology whichmay lessen environmental impact andimprove the ability of the navy to complywith environmental law.

It would be unwise to assume, howev-er, that this is a specialist area whereonly a few people need be knowledgeableabout the environment and engineering.The fact that most of the current ship-board environmental protection technol-ogy has been the province of the MARE/MS does not indemnify others from con-

cern. For example, when the sensor/com-ms suite of a visiting U.S. warship alleg-edly affected the City of Vancouver'semergency medical communication sys-tem, there were public cries for assess-ment and regulation of electromagneticemissions on environmental and safetygrounds. Combat system engineers andtechnicians take note.

Engineers of all stripes are clearlygoing to have to come to terms with theenvironmental fallout of their work.While design and introduction of equip-ment may be one area where environ-mental impact is felt, so too aremaintenance and operation proceduresseverely affected by environmental con-siderations. Environmental assessmentand due diligence will therefore demandmore than casual interest from each oneof us involved in the naval engineeringeffort. It makes no sense to neglect theenvironmental concerns, especially sincewe might one day be held accountablefor them.

ConclusionEnvironmental protection is now, and

will always be, an integral and growingpart of the practice of naval engineering.As a result, I believe that there are anumber of commandments we should allfollow:

• The old adage of what you don'tknow can't hurt you was never less truethan in this area. We must all becomeknowledgeable about environmental is-sues to ensure that we can proactivelymanage new concerns and position our-selves to take advantage of new technolo-gies;

• There will be times when we need torely on our credibility and past perfor-mance with regulators and the public.We must be careful that, in trying to setan image of leadership, we do not unwit-tingly promise more than we can deliver;and

• Above all, we must remember thatwarships must be effective fighting unitsfirst and foremost. Environmental con-cerns are important, but we must havethe discipline and courage, if necessary,to subordinate them to operational need.

Perhaps what we should take to heartmost is found in the words of one writer:"The bottom line is that naval engineersare the ultimate stewards of the navy'sability to comply with environmentalrequirements aboard ship in a respon-sible and cost effective way."3

References

[1] L. Huestis, "The Bata Case: Lessonson Corporate Director Liability," Ca-nadian Environmental Protection,Vol. 7, No. 2, March 1995.

[2] L. Huestis, "Employee Liability forEnvironmental Harm," CanadianEnvironmental Protection, Vol. 7,No. 3., April 1995.

[3] R. Guida, "Environmental Compli-ance in the Navy," Naval EngineersJournal, September 1994.

LCdr Dewar is the DMSS 4 project managerfor the Maritime Environmental ProtectionProject.

Vermicomposting — Goin' green with a blue boxfull of red wigglers

Not content to limit his participationin environmentally friendly activities tofiling spurious memoranda in the "bluefile," LCdr Doug Brown, a Combat Sys-tems Engineer with DMSS 8, has beenoperating a vermicomposting facility forthe office coffee boat. The "facility" isessentially a covered recycling blue boxfull of small earthworms called red wig-glers (eisenia foetida to the biologists).The worms and box were provided by theDirector of Environment at NDHQ and

have been operating for the past year anda half, with the worms thriving on asteady diet of coffee grounds, applecores, orange peels and neglect. Theeight-centimetre-long wigglers easilyhandle all of the section's used coffeegrounds and lunchtime fruit remnants,and in return produce exceptionally goodsoil for the office plants, which in turnimproves the indoor air quality. While asingle facility of this type does not makea significant reduction in the office waste

stream, the potential for numerous smallfacilities to make a noticeable differenceis significant. So far, Brown has had noproblems maintaining his vermicompost-ing operation — except for keeping theworms during fishing season.


Looking Back

HMCS Ontario (CLB-32)When this cruiser decommissioned in 1958,it marked the end of big guns at sea for theCanadian navy.Article by Harvey Johnson

HMCS Ontario was laid down for theRoyal Navy on Nov. 20,1941 by Harlandand Wolff Ltd. of Belfast and christenedMinotaur at her launching. She was tohave become part of the British fleet un-der that name, joining other cruisers ofher class such as Swiftsure, Ceylon andNewfoundland, but was commissionedinstead by the RCN on April 26, 1945.Ontario joined her sister ship Uganda(later renamed Quebec) which had beenacquired from the U.K. on Oct. 21, 1944.

Ontario (CLB-32) was the third shipto bear that name. A British sloopbrought into service in 1756 and lost inLake Ontario during Seven Years Warwith the French was the first. The secondwas a brig-sloop completed in 1814 forthe Royal Navy and sold in 1832. HMCSOntario joined the Canadian fleet underthe command of Captain H.T.W. GrantDSO RCN. The ship was manned on

commissioning at Belfast, Ireland by aCanadian crew of 62 officers, 836 ratingsand two sergeants of the Canadian Den-tal Corps, for a total complement of 900.Representing Canada was the HighCommissioner, The Right HonourableVincent Massey KC, and representingthe Province of Ontario was Major J.S.RArmstrong, Agent General for Ontario.Presentations to the ship from the peopleof Ontario included an engraved silvertray and rose bowl, and a cheque for$5,000. The ship was sponsored by theOntario Chapter of The Imperial Orderof the Daughters of the Empire who pre-sented the ship $1,500. In addition, theRoyal Canadian Legion presented theship with pianos, other musical instru-ments and sports equipment.

The ship was a development of sev-eral cruisers of her type built in the U.K.,

being exceptionally rugged with manyover-built components. Ontario's specifi-cations were impressive. The ship's fourAdmiralty three-drum type boilers andfour Parsons geared turbines developed75,000 s.h.p. to drive four screws withenough force to give the ship a speed of31.5 knots. She also boasted three triple-mount six-inch guns, five twin-mountfour-inch guns, a bristling array of 40-mm Bofors and 20-mm Oerlikons, andsix 21-inch torpedo tubes. Cordite andshells for the radar-controlled six-inchguns were brought up from the magazineon separate conveyors. Tracking of air-craft was accomplished by a plottingsystem that worked automatically in con-junction with the ship's type 281 radarout to a range of 225 km. Only Ontarioand her sister ships Superb and Swiftsurewere fitted with this system, which madethem the most modern of their type.

HMCS Ontario with a new paint scheme in the South Pacific in 1955. (DND archive photo EKS-103)


The ship's Electrical Department in 1952. (DND archive photo OT-2432)

Living conditions were quite differentfrom those experienced today. The accentwas on speed and firepower, with crea-ture comforts a secondary consideration.For instance, air-conditioning was fittedto cool critical electronic equipment andnot the crew. Officers lived in cabins fit-ted with bunks and with fittings andamenities in keeping with the rank of theoccupant. Officers were fed from thewardroom galley, while the main galleyprovided for the ratings. As crew mess-ing was in vogue at the time, mealswould be drawn from the galley in pansby the "cook of the mess," which some-times resulted in a first-at-the-trough-best-fed situation. This was especiallytrue at breakfast, when the eggs weresometimes mixed in with the "red lead"(heated canned tomatoes) and the bacon.Since the crew's hammocks were slungover the mess tables, the conflicts be-tween the sailors climbing out of theirhammocks and the sailors attempting todine were predictable and need no expla-nation. Dishes were washed by the watchcoming off and stored in the messdeck"fanny" (cupboard). The degree of clean-liness of the cutlery and dishes and theamount of grease left thereon werewholly dependant upon the enthusiasmof the washer. Yet it seemed that illnesswas a rarity! The food was nourishingand substantial, although perhaps notalways a culinary delight. It must be re-


membered that the variety of food andcooking facilities were not what they aretoday. The non-air-conditioned galleysresembled blast furnaces when the shipwas in warm weather.

Off-duty watchkeepers slept wherethey could during the day. It was some-times possible to find a spot on one ofthe long narrow benches that served asseating for the mess tables. In warmweather "slinging spots" would be cho-sen on the upper deck to get away fromthe internal heat of the ship which couldbe oppressive. Salt tablet dispensers werewell used in such conditions. In light seastates, wind scoops would be fitted in thescuttles to draw in fresh air, but althoughthese helped, there was always the inevi-table freak wave that came along to cre-ate an unscheduled messdeck washing.Watches at sea were either one-in-threeor one-in-four rotation, depending on thedepartment involved.

Back in the '40s and '50s the engi-neering and electrical departments wereseparate entities, each having a sectionhead with the rank of commander. Theelectrical department had a much widerscope of responsibilities than it does nowas it had to maintain the operations,communication and weapon systems, inaddition to the power-generation sys-tems. The propulsion system consisted oftwo engine-rooms and boiler-rooms

which were reliable, but required a largenumber of personnel for operation andmaintenance. One of the main difficul-ties in southern latitudes was in makingsufficient fresh water. When the situationbecame critical, the showers and (in ex-treme conditions) even the water coolerswould be shut off.

Electrical department watches at seawere occasionally punctuated by a fanmotor going up in flames, or by similarproblems for which DC-powered shipsare famous. The main switchboard wasmodern in appearance even by today'sstandards with its maze of lights and as-sociated switches which remotely oper-ated the ship's main breakers andcross-connect switches. The ship wasfitted with a ring main system which al-lowed great flexibility in connecting gen-erators to the distribution system in theevent some part became damaged.

The maintenance of the ship with itsvast array of equipment was carried outalmost entirely by the crew, with dock-yard assistance as a last resort. Themaintenance philosophy was that theship was an independent unit, and forthe most part, self-sufficient. It was notunusual for parts to be manufactured onboard — valve spindles would be madeand electric motor armatures rewound.Numerous spare parts were carried inwooden boxes as per the British system,but these were kept in separate storerooms, locked and secure, and used onlywhen all efforts to manufacture the parton board failed. Frivolous entry intothese sacred boxes was at one's peril.One such spares box which was bolted tothe deck in one of the forward messdecks contained a massive armatureweighing some 900 kg. Although thecrew in whose mess it resided had noidea what was inside, the box offered aconvenient seat at tot time and was, ofcourse, regularly treated to copious quan-tities of paint. Those who knew the iden-tity of the object within often ponderedhow it would be moved should it ever berequired. It apparently remained un-touched until the ship decommissioned.

Ontario was refitted in 1950 and thenemployed as a training ship for officercadets. In 1954 all of her medium- andclose-range armament was removed,with the exception of the after twin four-inch mounting, one quad Bofors mount-ing and one Boffin mounting. Hertorpedo tubes were also removed. In ad-dition she received a new paint scheme

19

Ontario's last commanding officerwas Captain Littler, seen here on Jan.30, 1958. (DND photo OT- 3761)

of light grey and was redesignated fromCL to CLB.

The ship carried out many trainingdeployments which included trips toAustralia, Europe and the Far East. Shecarried her own band during these de-ployments, and it was always a treat tolisten to their practice sessions at sea. Aceremonial guard was also made up ofselected members of the ship's company.

Many traditional sunset ceremonies wereperformed in foreign ports to the delightof the spectators who had never wit-nessed one. The equator crossings andthe associated "crossing the line" cer-emonies were major events and antici-pated by all. Occasionally "banyans"were held ashore. These were essentiallybeach parties, usually held on some re-mote shore when the ship was on a longdeployment. It was the only opportunityfor shore leave when port visits were fewand far between. LS and below were al-lowed an extra beer in addition to theirration of one beer a day. Training exer-cises were carried out on a regular basiswhen the ship worked independently orwith other fleet units. Junior officers andcadets were kept well occupied.

When the envisioned role of the navyrefocused on anti-submarine warfarewith the introduction of the new St.Laurent-c\ass destroyers in the 1950s,HMCS Ontario's days were numbered.Her surface-to-air weapons had been ob-solete since the end of the war with theadvent of jet aircraft. Her six-inch gunswere dated, and a logical replacementwould have been a quick-firing weaponas was planned by Royal Navy for itscruisers. Other updates would have been

required for the ship to remain a viableunit in modern warfare, but in 1958 theship was decommissioned and, in 1960,broken up for scrap at Osaka, Japan. Itwas a sajl and, some say, premature endfor a great ship, and marked the end ofbig guns at sea in the Canadian navy.

Author's noteMy sincere thanks to Mr. Donald

Scott of Sudbury, Ontario for supplyingthe information on HMCS Ontario's,commissioning. Mr. Scott was a memberof the commissioning crew and is orga-nizing a reunion of former members ofthe ship's company which to be held inToronto, April 26-28, 1996. Anyone in-terested in attending the reunion maycontact him at (705) 670-0180, or bymail at 405-190 Mountain St., Sudbury,Ont. P3B4G2.

Harvey Johnson served as an electrician inHMCS Ontario from 1954 to 1957. He retiredfrom the navy as a chief petty officer firstclass in 1981, and is now a technologist inthe DMSS 4 Hull Outfitting section.

The CIMarE Online! comes to the InternetJust point your WWW browser to:http://infoweb.magixonV~isaacs/cimare/cimare.htm

The CIMarE has set off on an excit-ing new venture! Not too long ago,with very little fanfare, the first pagesof the new CIMarE Online! were rolledout onto the Internet.

The CIMarE Online! contains linksto other marine-related WWW sites.There are many resources available onthe Internet related to the marine in-dustry. An excellent example is theMariNet, which contains a wide listingof companies that offer marine engi-neering services, daily marine industrynews reports and links to marine engi-neering publications available on theInternet. Other links available includethe U.S. National Shipbuilding Net-work and Jane's Information Store.

The addition of the CIMarE to theInternet can be seen as a significantmilestone for the Institute. The CIMarEOnline! will be accessible via the WorldWide Web (WWW) by virtually anyone

in the world who has access to theInternet. This includes, of course,CIMarE members from branchesacross Canada. Through the CIMarEOnline! we hope to link all our mem-bers in ways that were never beforepossible. We envision that one day anymember will be able to access the latestinformation from any of the branchesof the CIMarE, or from one of HerMajesty's Canadian ships.

We hope to see you soon at CIMarEOnline! And while you are there, signour guest book and drop us a line to letus know what you think.


NewsBriefeNew supermodule CPFconstruction

HMCS Ottawa (CPF-12) completedher erection sequence in Saint JohnShipbuilding Limited's graving dock lastNovember. Since the inception of theCPF project SJSL has continued to adaptits construction approach to reduce con-struction time and person-hours whileimproving overall quality (see "CPFConstruction — Experience Gained,"June 1995 issue). Typical of this was therecent decision by SJSL to install a sec-ond manotoic ringer crane. The firstcrane was installed in October 1989 toimplement megamodule construction,starting with HMCS Toronto. The secondcrane, installed in March 1995, in-creased SJSL's lifting capacity from 450tonnes to more than 800 tonnes. SJSLimmediately began plans to take advan-tage of this new capability. Proposalswere developed for dual crane lifts, in-cluding (Fig. 7):

• combining megamodules 4 and 5into the single swpermodule 4/5;

• increasing the outfitting level of thekeel (megamodule 3A), consisting of theFAMR, FER, and AER, by installing theGT raft, gearbox, and diesel generatorsin the module hall;

Fig. 2. The erection of HMCS Ottawa's megamodule 8 on Aug. 23, 1995.

CPF-12SUPERMODULE

PROPOSEDSUPERMODULE 8-7

SUPERMODULE 4-5650 TONNES

PROPOSEDSUPERMODULE 3

700 TONNES

PROPOSEDSUPERMODULE 2-7

Fig. 1. Proposed CPF Supermodules

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL FEBRUARY 19% 21

• combining portions of megamodules2, 7 and 8 to form two new supermod-ules, one of which would cap all machin-ery spaces at once, the other combining

the superstructure, operations and bridgecomplexes.

In the end, the advanced state ofHMCS Ottawa's erection prevented the

CPFs7-11

MEGAMODULE 5 MEGAMODULE 4(390 TONNES) (263 TONNES)

CPF 12

SIX ORIGINAL ERECTION BLOCKS(108 TONNES EACH)

SUPERMODULE 4/5(650 TONNES)

Fig. 3. Evolution of the supermodule.

full implementation of the supermodules.Nevertheless, SJSL management decidedto implement a reduced proposal whichwould still enable them to significantlyincrease their pre-oufit. This includedthe full implementation of supermodule4/5 and increasing the level of pre-outfitof megamodule eight. These two propos-als were evaluated for structural impacton the existing lifting points and bothproposals were deemed feasible.

Figure 2 shows megamodule 8 (nowover 500 tonnes) being erected by thedual manotoic cranes, with additionalitems such as the vertical-launch systemblast shields in place. Figure 3 demon-strates the evolution of supermodule 4/5from the original six erection blocks usedon the first six CPFs, to the megamod-ules developed for the SRP II ships, andfinally the combined supermodule 4/5used for CPF-12. The maximum lift-weight increased from 108 tonnes for theoriginal erection units to more than 650tonnes for CPF-12. Figure 4 shows theerection of supermodule 4/5 (with one ofthe Hibernia drilling platforms in thebackground).

Thus the CPF project has and contin-ues to allow SJSL the opportunity to op-timize its construction techniques andbuilding strategies. This process of con-tinuous improvement will be of para-mount importance if SJSL is to remaincompetitive as it prepares to reenter thecommercial shipbuilding market.—Lt(N) L.M. Maxwell, NAO, CPF De-tachment Saint John, N.B.

ISO 9000 for NETE?With the assistance of 3 CFQAR,

NETE has commenced a critical reviewof internal policies, procedures and workinstructions to satisfy the requirements ofISO 9001 (94) quality standards. It isexpected that this work, which has beenauthorized under NP0032, will be com-pleted by mid-FY 96/97, at which time adecision will be made by the NETE man-agement committee on whether or not toseek ISO certification for the test andevaluation services provided by NETE.— S. Fournier, Eng., Manager, Facili-ties & Property Section, NETE.

Fig. 4. The erection of supermodule 4/5 on July 24,1995.


WORKSHOP MODULE(AFTER ISO POSITION)

RCC MODULE(FORWARD ISO POSITION)

Fig. 1. Overhead view of the containerized diving system layout on board an MCDV sweepdeck

Containerized diving and ROV systemsto replace Cormorant

Maritime Command's deep-divingcapability is about to become substantial-ly reduced with the announced paying-off of the diving-support ship HMCSCormorant in 1997. Rather than replaceCormorant in the conventional manner(i.e. ship for ship), the Directorate of Na-val Requirements and the Directorate ofMaritime Ship Support are working to-gether to develop a design package for acontainerized diving system and a con-tainerized remotely operated vehicle(ROV) system for use primarily on boardthe Kingston-class maritime coastal de-fence vessel (MCDV).

The shipboard diving outfit consistsof two 8x8x20-foot (2.4x2.4x6-metre)ISO-type containers. (Figure 1 showstheir arrangement on board an MCDVsweepdeck.) The forward container is theRCC module, which will house a recom-pression chamber and air compressors.The aftermost container is a workshopmodule that can be outfitted for surface-supplied diving, mine countermeasuresdiving, or battle damage repair opera-tions. The design actually calls for thismodule to carry equipment that is com-

mon to all three missions (e.g. work-bench, diving-suit stowage), with anymission-specific equipment being loadedas necessary in less than 24 hours.

Diving equipment that has been pack-aged inside standard ISO-size containersand embarked only for the duration of amission has the distinct advantage ofbeing able to be loaded aboard "vesselsof opportunity." Such usage also elimi-nates the cost and overhead associatedwith acquiring and maintaining purpose-built diving tenders. The navy intends toprocure one containerized diving systemfor each coast.

The SDL-1 and Pisces IV mannedsubmersibles now carried by Cormorantwill be replaced by a deep-dive ROV sys-tem capable of providing inspection, andobject search and recovery capabilities to2,000 metres. The specific equipment tobe procured awaits an engineering analy-sis of the MCDV's capabilities, but theROV outfit is expected to comprise threemodules — a containerized control vanin the forward ISO position, an umbilicalwinch in the minesweeping winch posi-

tion, and a deep-dive ROV stowed in anA-frame aft. — Lt(N) G. Alexander,DMSS 2-3; Mr. R. Atwood, DMSS 2-7.

1994 Peacock AwardBelated congratulations are in order

for Lt(N) Eric van Gemeren for receiv-ing the 1994 Peacock Award for excel-lence in MARE 44B training. Thepresentation was made at last year'sWest Coast engineering conference byPeacock Inc. Senior Vice-president andGeneral Manager Randy Hammell. VanGemeren also won the 1993 CAE Awardfor top marks during his 44B shorephase (October 1994 issue). Bravo Zulu,Eric, for consistent, outstanding effort.

CIWS updateA contract was signed late last No-

vember with Hughes Canada's Servicesand Support Division in Calgary to pur-chase ordnance alterations (ordalts) forthe navy's 21 Phalanx close-in weaponsystems. Over time these ordalts willbring the systems to the USN block 1,baseline 2D configuration. This will in-volve 17 block 1, baseline 0, and four


block 1, baseline 1C systems. The signif-icant difference between the baseline 0and baseline 1C systems is the conver-sion of the hydraulic gun-drive to apneumatic system.

Major improvements covered by thebaseline 2D ordalts include replacing theobsolete CDC 496E computer with amodern supportable high-order languageRISC processor, as well replacing thepresent hydraulic gun drive with a pneu-matic drive (baseline 0 systems only),and improving the search/track sub-system. In addition the parameter analy-sis and storage system computer will beupgraded and an end-to-end test systemwill be incorporated.

These improvements will be wel-comed from an operational and engineer-ing perspective, but the main reason forbringing the systems up to the 2D base-line is to guarantee configuration andlogistic support compatibility with theUSN, thereby ensuring the systems are

supportable for the remainder of theirlife.— CPO1 Craig Calvert, DMSS 6.

New performance test forship NBC filter stations

In collaboration with DMSS 4, theNaval Engineering Test Establishment inLaSalle, Que. has developed a capabilityto conduct in-situ evaluations of ships'NBC filter stations. The test equipmentis compliant with NATO STANAGs andrecommendations, and is held by theNETE East and West Coast field servicerepresentatives to provide rapid supportto the fleet. Filter station tests can be ar-ranged through the NETE FSR or theLCMM for shipboard NBC filters,DMSS 4-2-3, Lt(N) D. Sisley, to meetplanned maintenance requirements, if aproblem is suspected, or before deploy-ment to areas where a potential NBC riskexists.

The test procedure involves injectingchallenge substances into the filter sta-

tion inlet and monitoring the outlet airwith sensitive detectors. Leaks as smallas 5 x 10'5 (downstream concentration/inlet concentration) can be detected. Thechallenge substances are used at lowconcentrations which are not hazardousto ship personnel. Testing is normallycompleted alongside, without assistancefrom ship's staff and without impact onnormal ship activities. The tests havebeen shown to identify mechanicalfaults, such as defective or improperlyinstalled filters, and exhausted gas-filtercharcoal.

NETE has documented the test proce-dures for Iroquois- and Halifax-classships in CFTOs promulgated by DMSS4-2-3. For Iroquois-c\ass ships, informa-tion can be found in C77-263-000/NK-001; for the Halifax class, see C77-304-OOO/NK-001. — Michael Davies, Head,Testing and Applied Engineering Sec-tion, NETE.

Index to 1995 ArticlesFEBRUARYIn Praise of Engineeringby Capt(N) Sherm EmbreeEverything old is new againby Commodore F. W. GibsonA Mouse in the Navy — Does it Belong?by Barbara FordCambodia — The Forgotten MissionPart 1: Apocalypse IIby LCdr Ted DochauPart 2: The CSE as a Military Engineerby Lt(N) Rob MackA Commanding Officer's Expectations ofthe MARE Department Headsby Cdr D.J.KyleThe Effect of Multipath Propagation inMissile Engagementsby Lt(N) M. FitzmauriceAlternative Posting Opportunitiesby LCdr Derek W. DavisLand-based Oily Wastewater TreatmentOil and water — they do mix!by Lt(N) Mike McCallHMCS Kootenay Gearbox Explosionby Lt(N) David Sisley

JUNEMAREs — Systems Engineers Bridgingthe Gapby Capt(N) J.R. Y. De BloisCue cards for the futureby Commodore F. W. GibsonCombat System Damage Controlby LCdr Bruce GrychowskiCPF Construction — Experience Gainedby Capt(N) B. Blattmann andCdr H.V. ArchibaldIncident: Oxygen Explosion in Cormorantby LCdr Jim Muzzerall, StephenDauphinee and LCdr Kevin WoodhouseSurvey says!by Brian McCulloughInterference Suppression using an HFAdaptive Antenna Receiving Systemby Lt(N) Michael P. CraigHydrogen Sulphide: A Deadly Shipmateby Lt(N) K.W. NortonHMCS Fraser— Last of the ISLsby Brian McCullough

OCTOBERTraining — Our ace in the hole, or a"black hole?"by Capt(N) I.D. MackA Retrospective on 35 Yearsby near-Admiral Mike Saker (ret.)Relief Operationsby LCdr Nick Leak, LCdr Rob Mack andLt(N)F.T. TaitThe DDH-280 Vertical Launching SystemInstallation — An Engineering Featby Lt(N) Brig HenryElectric Propulsion — Way of the Futureby LCdr Mark TinneyCareer Manager's Updateby LCdr Derek W. DavisActive Jammers in Anti-ship Missile De-fence — Onboard or Offboard?by Lt(N) Sylvain Carriere1995 Central Region Seminarby Lt(N) Michael P. CraigBlackwater Tanks — Confined Space Entryby LCdr David PeerProtecteur Hurricane Relief Operationsby LCdr Nick Leak, Lt(N) F.T. Tait andLCdr Rob Mack


national defense defence nationale maritime engineering ... · maritime engineering journal, dmms,...

Documents