ENGINEERING - Royal Australian Navy

NAVY 

ENGINEERING 

ISSUE 2 FEBRUARY 2002 

BULLETIN

N AV Y E N G I N E E R I N G B U LL E T I N F EB R U A RY 20 02 

1 

E D I TO R I A LBOA R D 

C h a i rm a n 

Captain Craig G. Kerr, RAN 

M e m b e rs 

Engineering Advisory Council (EAC) 

E d i to r 

Lieutenant Commander Ray Cairney, RAN 

Published by 

Defence Publishing Service 

D i s c l a i m e r 

The views expressed in this Bulletin are the personal views 

of the authors, and unless otherwise stated, do not in any 

way reflect Royal Australian Navy Policy 

D e a d l i n e 

Issue 3 June 2002 Contributions by April 2002 

Issue 4 January 2003 Contributions by November 2002 

C o n t ributions should be sent to 

The Editor 

Navy Engineering Bulletin 

CP4–7–135 

Campbell Park ACT 2600 

Telephone: (02) 6266 3443 

Fax: (02) 6266 2388 

E-mail: navyengineeringbulletin@defence.gov.au 

D i st ri b u t i o n 

To be added to the distribution list contact the Editor. 

CONTENTS 

Foreword 2 

CNE Introduction 3 

A Word from the Editor’s Desk 5 

Navy Engineering – A Vision for the Future 6 

Our Challenges and Opportunities 7 

Re-invigorating Engineering in the RAN 10 

Engineering Opportunities 13 

Engineering and Maritime Doctrine 14 

Project HELP: Healthy Engineering and Logistic Policy 17 

Navy Engineering Doctrine Project 18 

Investigation into the Catastrophic Failure of the Port High 

Pressure Main Air Compressor 19 

Fleet Intermediate Maintenance Activity 22 

Engineering Division Annual Report 2001 24 

Revised Policy for Technical Sailor Promotion to Commissioned Rank 25 

Officer Promotions 29 

Graduating Weapons Engineering Application Course (WEAC) 30 

Sailor Promotions 31 

Life on an MHC as a Technical Sailor 32 

Fleet Intermediate Maintenance Activity – HMAS Waterhen (FIMA-W) 35 

ANZAC Greenies in the Arabian Gulf 37 

Battle Force Electronic Mail 41 

Seakeeping Characteristics of Patrol Boats 42 

What is a Hydrographic Ship? 45 

Maritime Systems Division Contract Quality Assurance Program 

and the Integrated QA Contract Support Database 47 

Why is the Workforce Upside Down? 51 

An Engineer’s Lament 53 

Qualifications and Licenses – aren’t they the same thing? 54 

Signature Aspects of Marine Gas Turbine Propulsion 57 

Navy Engineering Professional Development Program 61 

The Electronic Technical Certificate of Competence 62 

The Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia Inc. 64

2 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B U L L ET IN F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

BY RADM GEOFF SMITH, 

AO, RAN, MARITIME 

COMMANDER, AUSTRALIA 

Foreword 

In February 2001, a number of our ships and a submarine were 

scheduled to participate in EX TASMANEX with units from the New 

Zealand Navy. Our performance in that exercise was significantly 

degraded due a significant number of engineering casualties that 

occurred before and after the exercise commenced. 

In fact, serious problems with the 

fuel pumps on HMAS SUCCESS 

meant that she had to be 

w i th d raw n from the exercise 

before leaving Sydney. This 

situation caused me considerable 

chagrin. I could handle the 

inevitable jibes of the Kiwis, but 

I was very concerned about the 

reliability of the Fleet. I shared 

for these unforseen events, a 

large number of changes were 

made in a very short time; some 

large, some small, but almost all 

involved engineering effort. 

I am very pleased to report that 

as the operational tempo has 

increased, the Fleet engineering 

reliability has been very good. 

. . . the whole Navy moved 

from an exercise mentality to 

a fully operational mode, due 

to the ‘unauthorised boat 

arrivals’ in the north and our 

government’s response to the 

‘war against terrorism’. 

beyond the capacity of uniformed 

people. The engineers in FIMA 

continue to provide consistent 

high quality support to the Fleet 

and have deployed in support 

of operations in KANIMBL A 

and MANOORA. 

The year 2001 reconfirmed in 

my mind ‘that engineers make it 

happen’ and I want you to know 

that your efforts have been 

appreciated. I commend the 

“Naval Engineering Bulletin” to 

you. I trust that the knowledge 

and wisdom herein is used to 

ensure that the Fleet is kept 

ready to fight and win at any time. 

Yours sincerely, 

my concerns with the Chief Staff 

Officer Engineering and the Force 

Element Group Commanders. 

The result was that a number 

of key engineering problems in 

several FEGs were identified and 

prioritised. The engineers (and 

people of other specialisations) 

w i thin the Maritime Headqu a rte rs , 

the Force Element Groups and 

the DMO, set about solving them 

to improve the reliability of our 

platforms. The second thing that 

occurred was that the whole Navy 

moved from an exercise mentality 

to a fully operational mode, due 

to the ‘unauthorised boat ar rivals’ 

in the north and our gove rn m e n t ’ s 

response to the ‘war against 

terrorism’. In preparing our ships 

A major contributing factor has 

been the energy and effort 

expended by engineers and 

technicians across the Navy. 

Marine and electronics 

technicians at sea have kept 

watches, done the maintenance, 

monitored systems, fixed defects 

and kept the machinery and 

weapons at a high s tate of 

readiness for long periods of time. 

Fleet engineering staff have 

c o n d u c ted wo rkups and eva l u a t i o n s 

tirelessly and offered support and 

assistance when and where 

required. DMO and SYSCOM 

engineers have provided the 

wherewithal to modify the ships 

and managed the contractors to 

do the maintenance that was 

G.F. SMITH AO 

Rear Admiral RAN 

Maritime Commander Australia

N AVY E N G I N E E R I N G B U LL E TI N F EB R U A RY 2 0 02 

3 

CNE Introduction 

In our last issue of the Bulletin, I expressed my concern that the 

contribution that engineering expertise and experience is making 

within Navy has been declining for a number of years, and as a 

result the status of engineering in Navy needs significant improvement. 

Since being appointed Chief Naval Engineer (CNE), I have sought to 

determine the issues facing Navy Engineering. 

BY COMMODORE 

KENNETH W. JOSEPH 

I have held discussions with many 

engineer offi c e rs, sailors and 

Navy civilian engineers , 

i n te rv i ewed many junior offi c e rs , 

p a rt i c u l a rly those consideri n g 

resignation, and had discussions 

w i th CN, the Mari t i m e 

Commander and with Indust ry. 

I have addressed cours e s 

including WEAC / M E AC, ATT and 

I T T, and have visited FIMA East , 

We st and Darwin. The Engineeri n g 

fo rum and wo rkshop held in 

D a rwin in July 2001 exa m i n e d 

p roblems curre n t ly facing Nav y 

E n g i n e e ring. Consequ e n t ly, I feel I 

h ave a good understanding of th e 

m a ny issues facing Nav y 

E n g i n e e ring and now the time has 

come to ta ckle th e m . 

In my introductory remar ks to the 

first issue of the N aval 

Engineering Bulletin I outlined my 

responsibilities and objectives as 

CNE. One of my objectives was to 

refine the engineering processes 

within Navy, so I have initiated 

Project HELP – Healthy 

Engineering & Logistics Policy 

to correct deficiencies in 

engineering and logistics policy, 

and refine and document the 

processes. The Engineering 

aspect has commenced and the 

first phase, now complete, was 

to define the role of CNE. This 

position has been defined as the 

Head of the Corps for Navy 

engineers and technicians both 

uniform and civilian, and as the 

Navy Technical Regulatory 

Authority. Further details of 

Project HELP are explained in 

an article in this Bulletin. 

Another of my objectives was t o 

review Navy’s requirement of its 

engineering personnel and how 

they may best contribute to 

Navy’s capability. During the last 

few years Navy has undergone 

significant organisational and 

procedural changes that have 

impacted on the delivery of Navy 

Engineering. When combined with 

changes in technology and the 

engineering profession, Navy 

Engineering may now not meet 

the needs of our Navy operating 

more complex, minimum manned 

ships in a commercial support 

environment. I am also aware 

that these changes are having an 

adverse impact on the morale of 

Navy’s engineering personnel in 

part because their role and the 

vision for their future is not clear. 

The Darwin Engineering Seminar 

highlighted the need to document 

how engineers contribute to the 

Navy mission. So with CN’s 

approval, I have initiated another 

project to examine how Navy 

Engineering will evolve to meet 

this challenge. The project is 

being undertaken in two stages. 

The first stage will develop an 

issues paper that presents 

options for the way ahead. 

The second stage will use the 

agreed outcomes of the first 

stage to develop a public 

document – Navy Engineering 

Doctrine. This document will 

describe the future role, 

capability and requirements of 

Just remember, particularly 

in this time of increased 

operational tempo, that 

every day – engineers make 

it happen! 

Navy Engineering, to better utilise 

our engineering assets and for 

engineering personnel to 

understand how they contribute 

to Navy’s mission. The project is 

being undertaken by Commander 

Mathew Hudson RANR and 

Mr Athol Yates. Further details 

are found later in this Bulletin. 

I know that many of you are most 

concerned at the loss of the 

engineering Two Star and now 

the lack of engineering 

representation on CNSAC. While 

I will continue to lobby for both of 

these, it should be noted that 

engineering is not self serving – 

it is an integral part of supporting 

the Navy Mission. So it is 

important that your CNSAC 

representative is well briefed on 

the engineering aspects of the 

agenda items for each meeting. 

Shortly after the first issue of the 

Navy Engineering Bulletin hit the

4 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B UL L ET IN F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

BELOW JUST REMEMBER – ENGINEERS 

MAKE IT HAPPEN 

sea lanes, I received a phone call 

from the Commanding Officer 

of one of our major sur face 

combatants saying how much he 

enjoyed reading it. The feedback 

from the engineering community 

has been equally positive. I was 

most impressed at the standard 

of the articles and I thank the 

contributors for their ef forts 

without which we wouldn’t have 

a Bulletin. To encourage the 

submission of articles, prizes 

are awarded for the best ones. 

My congratulations go out to 

Mr Peter Clark, LCDR Mark 

Warren and CPO Vic Young who 

won prizes for their contributions 

to the first edition. 

I would also like to thank LCDR 

Ray Cairney for editing this issue 

between postings. You will 

observe a number of changes in 

this issue to align it with Brand 

Navy, including the name of the 

Bulletin and its ‘look and feel’. 

In conclusion, the reinvigoration 

of Navy Engineering has 

commenced and I ask for your 

support to HELP and the Navy 

Engineering Doctrine. Just 

remember, particularly in this 

time of increased operational 

tempo, that every day – 

Engineers make it happen! 

About the author Commodore Kenneth W. 

Joseph was born 16 April 1954 in Sydney. 

He joined the Royal Australian Naval 

College in 1971. He then attended the 

University of New South Wales in 1973, 

graduating in 1976 with a Bachelor of 

Electrical Engineering Degree. This was 

followed by engineering courses with the 

Royal Navy and with the United States 

Navy in 1977/78. 

He served in the destr oyer, HMAS PERTH 

from 1978–80,where he managed the 

ASW and Gunnery systems. As a young 

Lieutenant in 1981/82 he served on the 

staff of the Director Naval Weapons 

Design, primarily concerned with the 

design and manufacture of the Australian 

indigenous sonar known as “MULLOKA “. 

From 1982–85 he served as the Resident 

Naval Engineer at the sonar manufacturer’s 

plant. 

In 1985 he returned to sea as the 

Weapons Electrical Engineering Of ficer 

of HMAS PERTH which won awards for 

Gunnery and Missile system excellence 

and the effectiveness of ASW,AIO and 

Communications systems. In 1987 he 

was posted ashore as the Of ficer in Charge 

of the Trials Unit at the Royal Australian 

Navy Trials and Assessing Unit. His 

responsibilities included the trials and 

acceptance recommendations of all ne w, 

modified or overhauled ships, aircraft and 

other operational systems. 

In 1991, he was posted to the Naval 

Postgraduate School in Monterey, 

California to pursue a Mas ter of Science 

degree in Management. His thesis 

addressed Operational Test and Evaluation 

(OT&E), and he graduated With Distinction 

in 1992. On returning to Australia in 

February 1993 he ser ved with the Director 

Naval Engineering Requirements – War fare 

Systems where he progressed policies on 

OT&E and Operational Softwar e 

Engineering Management. 

In November 1993, he was posted as the 

Engineering and Support Director for the 

Offshore Patrol Combatant Project, wher e 

he was responsible for the management of 

the ship design and proposed Integrated 

Logistic Support during the Project Design 

Phase. In February 1995, he was promoted 

to Captain and appointed as the Director 

Capability Development and Analysis in 

Force Development (Sea). The appointment 

as the Minehunter Coastal Project Director 

followed in December 1996 where he 

achieved the successful delivery of the 

first two ships. He was promoted to 

Commodore in December 1999 and 

posted as the inaugural Director General 

Naval Systems in March 2000. He was 

appointed as the Chief Naval Engineer in 

September 2000.

N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B U L L E TI N F E B R U A RY 2 00 2 

5 

A Word from the 

Editor’s Desk 

BY LIEUTENANT COMMANDER 

RAY CAIRNEY 

Well folks, the first issue is a tough act to follow. Tom and Angela’s 

efforts resulted in a very good publication. As you can see below, 

we have had some feedback with a couple of Letters to the Editor. 

Continue to let me know how we are going: good, bad or indifferent. 

To reiterate, one of the aims of 

the bulletin is to provide an 

avenue to all areas of the Navy 

Engineering community to be 

enlightened on a range of 

engineering and related issues. 

It also provides the opportunity 

for engineers and technicians, 

both service and civilian, to put 

their thoughts and good ideas on 

paper and have them published. 

So keep the submissions coming. 

Thankfully, with this issue of the 

Bulletin I faced a similar problem 

to that of the previous Editor with 

more articles than I could fit into 

the limited space. Once again 

there is a need for balance and 

several articles missed out on 

that score. More articles from 

sailors across all disciplines are 

needed, and more from fleet 

units. Also important is brevity. 

A twelve-page article won’t make 

it. A seven-page article (including 

graphics) will struggle. 

In the second half of 2001, 

a lot of work went on in various 

areas aimed at reinvigorating 

Navy Engineering. In this vein, 

the first part of this issue is 

somewhat dedicated to 

articulating the direction that 

Navy Engineering is headed wit h 

several articles centred around, 

or the result of the engineering 

gatherings that took place when 

a number of Fleet units were in 

Darwin in July 2001. It appears 

that the future of Navy 

Engineering could be bright if 

we take charge of it. 

I have also included in this issue 

a brief flier on the Maintenance 

Engineering Society of Australia 

(MESA) as a way of highlighting 

the existence of engineering 

interest groups. I intend making 

such adds a regular feature of 

the bulletin. 

Lieutenant Commander 

Ray Cairney 

Editor 

L E T T E R STO THE EDITO R 

I would like to congratulate you, 

your editorial team and all who 

contributed to the renewed 

Naval Engineering Bulletin. 

Well done. I enjoyed reading the 

whole magazine and think it adds 

considerably to our subs tance 

and identity as an engineering 

body. 

I would part i c u l a rly like to 

c o n gra t u l a te LCDR Mark Wa rre n 

on his th o u g h t - p rovoking paper, 

‘The Impending Extinction of th e 

Naval Engineer’. His line of logic 

is sound, we are on a cours e 

that will incre a s i n gly te st th e 

value of our contribution and 

I am not convinced we have a 

sound case in re b u t tal. But, 

I would conte st Mark’s line of 

logic along another line of logic 

that says Naval Engineer Offi c e rs 

who apply engineering skills do 

m a ke a real, defining diffe re n c e 

to our ability to opera te our 

s ystems at optimum 

p e rfo rmance at sea, and th e s e 

a re people who will always be 

valued and never discarded. If 

you are uncertain about what 

e n g i n e e ring skills means, sta rt 

by looking at the IEAu st 

d e s c ription qu o ted by Mark and 

think about what the te rm 

applied-science means. I have no 

doubt th e re is the opport u n i t y 

and need for applied-science 

e n g i n e e ring at sea. 

I would also congratulate Mark 

on striking at the false belief that 

more complex technology 

requires more complex technical 

training. He is quite right, the 

reverse is actually more correct, 

and few people around Navy 

have thought this through and 

understood the relationship. 

Leaving aside what it might mean 

for operators, in the technical 

world it means for sophisticated 

systems we require fewer people, 

but those few people require 

different skills, they need 

systems-performance and 

diagnosis type technical skills. 

There are many complex matters 

involved in deciding our future as 

engineers and technicians, but 

we might start with the question: 

do we as a Navy want to ‘fight 

and win at sea’ or do we want to 

‘fight, fix and win at sea’? 

Andrew Cawley 

CAPT, RAN 

I was greatly impressed by the 

content of the first issue of the 

Naval Engineering Bulletin. 

As an instructor with Scientific 

Management Associates 

delivering training to Navy 

personnel, the material presented 

in your publication provides very 

valuable assistance in making 

linkages between training 

material and the workplace. 

A good example of the above is 

the article by Mr Peter Clark 

(Electric Propulsion for Sur face 

Combatants). This provided very 

useful contextual information on 

the relevance of DC motor theor y 

in the module on DC Machines 

and for the comparison of the 

various propulsion systems. 

Mark Burt 

Shoal Water, WA

6 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T I N F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 

BY CDRE KEN JOSEPH 

Navy Engineering – 

A Vision for the Future 

Our Challenges and Opportunities 

CNE PRESENTATION TO ENG I N E E R I NG SEMINAR – DA RWIN JULY 2001 

I want to tell you a fairy story. 

Once upon a time, 

The year is 2013. The new Air 

Wa rfa re Dest royer HMAS 

AU ST RALIA has just been 

commissioned, on time and on 

b u d get. (I told you this was a 

fa i ry sto ry ! ) The Chief of Nav y 

has just left the Commissioning 

fe stivities and is enjoying a 

quiet brandy in the back of his 

limo on the way to the airp o rt . 

Vice Ad m i ral Paul Field, th e 

n ewly appointed Chief of Nav y 

and the fi rst to be an Engineer, 

is re flecting. Engineering had 

come a long way since we lost 

the Engineering Ad m i ral in 

2000, when engineers we re 

p e rc e i ved to be too narrow, ri s k 

ave rse and not adding value. It 

had been a concerted effo rt by 

the Engineering Community to 

think st ra te g i c a l ly and re fo c u s 

th e m s e lves on the future, to 

adapt to ch a n ge and in fact to 

d ri ve it so that the opport u n i t i e s 

of ch a n ge we re realised. To not 

j u st continue on as th ey had 

a l ways done and let ch a n ge ru n 

right over them. The Chief of 

D e fence Fo rce and the Ministe r 

n ow understood that an 

Engineer was ideal for th e 

L e a d e rship and Capability 

M a n a gement role of Chief of 

Nav y. 

He re fl e c ted on th e 

Commissioning. HMAS 

AU ST RALIA was a marvel of 

a u tomation, all electri c 

p ropulsion, multiple re d u n d a n c y, 

Au st ralian phased array ra d a r, 

and large ly Au st ralian Command 

and Control system. It virt u a l ly 

ran itself, but the people we re 

n e c e s s a ry. The flexibility of th e 

s u rface combatant was vital and 

the addition of people in th e 

s ystem was found essential to 

this task. A mista ke Air Fo rc e 

had learned in AIR 6000 when 

th ey went for the pilot-less air 

combat Unmanned Areal Ve h i c l e . 

In full battle confi g u ration the Air 

Wa rfa re Dest royer could opera te 

w i th as little as 60 people, I 

mean why send more people into 

h a rm’s way than you have to. Yo u 

see most of the crew was an 

i n s u rance item, for when human 

j u d gement and initiative we re 

re qu i red. It was realised ye a rs 

ago that the hard engineeri n g 

wasn’t done on board, but 

a s h o re. Howeve r, the experi e n c e 

gained by going to sea wa s 

recognised so she usually carri e d 

over 100 most of the time. 

And just like the now fully 

capable Collins class, Australia 

was the parent Navy for the Air 

Warfare Destroyer. Sure it had 

American weapons and other 

equipment, that weren’t cost 

effective to be developed in 

Australia, but these were built 

and supported in Australia. The 

change from the fully imported 

Guided Missile Destroyers 

(DDGs) and Guided Missile 

Frigates (FFGs) had been hard 

on the Engineering Community. 

They had been used to just 

maintaining the configuration, 

keeping them going, with most 

of the effort needed to enhance 

the configuration coming from 

overseas. Now as a parent Navy, 

most of Navy’s engineering 

effort was going into improving 

the performance of our ships. 

And the people, they were a 

good bunch. For sailors, the 

critical rank was still Petty 

Officer – the Supertechs as 

they were known, and they were 

highly sought after jobs. These 

were the guys who could make 

the ship’s systems sing and 

were vital in a crisis. They were 

educated to advanced Diploma 

level, well trained with extensive 

sea and shore experience, and 

the job at sea paid really well, 

and then there was the 

possibility of making Chief and 

really raking it in, with maybe 

even a Bachelor’s Degree in the 

offering. Navy had learned that 

if you trained a little, 

experienced a little, provided 

job satisfaction and always 

maintained the incentive to 

keep developing, then you 

didn’t need a huge bunch of 

juniors and so could af ford to 

pay people more. 

For officers, well their primar y 

job was not at sea. Sure there 

was the Chief Engineer on 

HMAS AUSTRALIA.She was 

responsible for optimising her 

systems and providing the 

engineering judgement, and it 

was a great job highly sor t 

after, but the sea job wasn’t the 

focus of her career. In a parent 

Navy, an engineer could 

contribute far more ashore, but 

the sea going experience was 

essential. That was the real 

difference between her and the 

public service and industr y 

engineers. 

And thinking of Defence 

Industry. The partnership with 

Industry had really paid off. No


7 

longer was Navy in competition 

with Industry. The Air Warfare 

Destroyer design, development 

and support activities were a 

joint effort. Industry was 

working with Navy and Navy was 

working with Industry, because 

that’s where the real 

engineering gains were to be 

had. Sailors and Of ficers 

worked with Industry, providing 

their at sea experience and 

gaining the in depth technical 

knowledge and skills that made 

them better engineers and 

technicians. Separate Navy 

engineering support no longer 

existed, nor was it needed. 

O ffi c e rs and sailors in th e 

o p e rational readiness fo rce, as 

d i stinct from the Canberra 

based st ra te g i c a l ly fo c u s e d 

fo l ks, we re managed by th e 

Fo rce Element Group based Sea 

Readiness Centres, th a t 

m a n a ged each person’s pers o n a l 

d evelopment individually. Also 

th e re wasn’t a stovepipe in 

e n g i n e e ring, in fact engineeri n g 

wasn’t a separa te bra n ch any 

m o re. It was more of a 

p ro fessional qu a l i fication: more 

about career flexibility and 

p e rsonal choice. If you wa n te d 

to re a ch the top you had to be 

b ro a d ly experienced, with 

e n g i n e e ring providing a good 

basis for wa rfi g h ter training and 

u l t i m a te ly command. Howeve r, 

th e re was still a career fo r 

s p e c i a l i st engineers who’ve 

a c c o mplished their maste rs of 

e n g i n e e ring and some even at 

the PhD level. Their career wa s 

l i m i ted in rank but th ey we re 

paid we l l ! 

As he slowly dozed off in the 

back of the limo, he thought of 

how he could be the first Navy 

Engineer to make Chief of the 

Defence Force! 

And they all lived happily ever 

after . . . 

Yes my story is a fairy tale – but 

it is also a vision. However it is 

just one vision. Our job over the 

next few days is to determine our 

shared vision of Navy Engineering 

in the future. The one we want to 

drive towards. I will set the scene 

for the next few days, by outlining 

what I see as our challenges and 

opportunities for the future. But 

first what is CNE? 

W H AT IS CNE? 

CNE is the professional head of 

Engineering in Navy and the 

Head of Corps for the Engineering 

Branch. He is responsible for 

providing CN with specialist 

advice on engineering, defining 

Navy’s engineering requirements 

and advising on engineering 

personnel matters. I see CNE as 

the owner of the engineering 

process in Navy. He is to ensure 

our engineering processes are 

efficient, effective, well 

documented and understood by 

those in Navy, those in the 

enabling groups and by Industry. 

He is responsible for: 

• Defining Navy’s Engineering 

Requirements. 

• RAN Material Standards 

• Technical Regulatory Framework 

• Engineering Policy & to ensure 

we are consistent across Navy 

• Review and analysis of 

engineering in Navy 

Just because I was appointed as 

CNE doesn’t mean I instantly 

know the solutions to all 

engineering issues. That is why 

we have the Engineering Advisor y 

Groups and Engineering Advisor y 

Council. 

OUR CH A L L E NGES – 

T H I NGS THAT COULD TAKE US 

D OWN OR SINK US 

Our Challenges for the future 

are in three broad areas; our 

changing environment, our 

changing profession and our 

contribution to the Navy Mission. 

Our Changing Environment 

Our environment has changed 

significantly in recent years, 

particularly in areas of 

Technology, our Acquisition and 

BELOW OUR CHALLENGES: THINGS THAT 

COULD TAKE US DOWN OR SINK US 

As VADM Field finished his 

Brandy and replaced his glass, 

he thought of the effort of the 

past years to get to the 

situation of today. He reflected 

on the engineers who never 

rose above Commodore in their 

efforts to turn Navy Engineering 

around, but it had wor ked and 

everyone was benefiting. 

Engineering was alive and well, 

and has a certain future. 

He is the Head of Corps for the 

Engineering Branch, responsible 

for both service and civilian, 

officers and sailors. This includes 

participation in promotion boards 

and offering career and 

professional development and 

posting advice. He is chairman of 

the Engineering Advisory Council 

and responsible for promotion of 

engineering in Navy.

8 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B UL L ET IN F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 

BELOW IN EVERY DISASTER THERE IS AN 

OPPORTUNITY 

Industry policy and the way 

Government expects us to 

manage our assets and 

expenditure. We are a parent 

Navy now and Industry needs to 

be able to support our assets 

here in Australia, but this also 

gives us a more strategic 

approach to our Defence industry 

base. Society is changing also. 

We have different demographics 

and employment trends towards 

a job rather than a career in a 

single organisation 

Our Changing Pro fession 

Our profession as engineers and 

technicians is changing. I am 

concerned that the contribution 

that engineering expertise and 

experience is making within Navy 

has been declining for a number 

of years, and as a result the 

status of engineering in Navy 

needs significant improvement. 

Our status has declined and 

engineering advice does not carry 

the weight it once did. We are 

perceived as not adding value, 

of being narrowly focused on 

technical issues, being risk 

averse and seeking gold-plated 

solutions. Our political naivety 

will need to be dealt with to 

ensure our differing priorities 

and long term perspective is 

considered and paid heed to. 

Engineers add value to 

Navy by optimising our 

capability and managing risk. 

We get the most out of what 

we have: equipment, people 

and money – afloat, 

submerged and ashore. 

We are not specialists like 

doctors, dentists and legal 

personnel, and yet we are not 

mainstream and our careers are 

limited. There is a lack of clear 

direction and a unified approach. 

Our Contribution to the 

Navy Mission 

What do we as engineers and 

technicians have to offer? 

The skills which technical 

personnel consider they have 

and non-techos may not: 

• Technical Understanding of why it 

works and how it works, resulting 

in sound judgments being made 

on technical matters. 

• Problem Solving Ability based on 

logical and analytical thinking 

that result in practical solutions 

and a consultative approach. 

• Systems Engineering Approach, 

which includes the ability to take 

a strategic view of the situation 

and identify causal relationships 

and not be impetuous, 

• Special Engineering and 

Management Skills, including an 

understanding of whole of life 

management, mathematics, 

statistics and being able to 

define measurable per formance 

and quality indicators. 

• Facilitate delivery of capability. 

Engineers add value, they make 

it happen. 

In every disaster there is an 

opportunity! 

OUR OPPORT U N I T I E S 

Fu t u re Role in Nav y 

Engineers add value to the Navy 

by optimising our capability and 

managing risk. We get the most 

out of what we have: equipment, 

people and money – afloat, 

submerged and ashore. We take 

a Systems Engineering approach, 

and the New Navy has reinforced 

the importance of systems 

engineering both as a way of 

thinking and as an engineering 

discipline. We, as engineers and 

technicians, are best placed t o 

ensure our assets are fit for 

purpose. We are safety and 

quality assurance focused. 

However as we are increasingly 

called upon to manage risk our 

decisions need to be credible. 

We should aim to be part of 

and integral to the overall 

management of the new multidisciplinary 

Navy – a team that 

will be all the more powerful 

for that approach as we focus 

our knowledge.


9 

Our Pro fe s s i o n 

We need to clearly define our role 

both at sea and ashore, for 

officers, sailors and civilians. 

We need to develop, articulate 

and implement career structures 

to deliver the engineering 

expertise the Navy requires in the 

future, with options that include 

lateral recruiting, divorcing skill 

from rank and marrying skill and 

remuneration. We also need to 

ensure that our knowledge 

remains current, with wellconsidered 

Professional 

Development and Career 

Management programs that 

consider the needs of Navy and 

the individual. Programs that 

incorporate dedicated full time 

civil schooling, short courses, 

seminars, professional 

accreditation and possibly a 

formal mentoring program. 

A DA P T I NG TO CH A NG E 

While engineering in Navy today 

is different to when I was a 

Lieutenant at sea in a DDG, it is 

just part of an evolution of 

engineering that has seen the 

change from sail to steam, from 

paddlewheels to screw propellers 

and the change from lar ge calibre 

guns to missiles. Being a parent 

Navy of high tech equipment 

offers new challenges. We will 

need to make changes to 

manning, employment, skill 

requirements, training, logistic 

support and management. 

ships and AWD. We need to 

adapt to these changes and be 

proactive or the changes will ride 

right over us. 

P ROGRESS TO DAT E 

There is some great work going 

on in DNPR(E&L), DGNPT, MHQ, 

DMO and in ships. These include 

reviews, papers, projects and 

other initiatives. However this 

wo rk lacks focus and coord i n a t i o n . 

What are we all aiming for here? 

CO NC LU S I O N 

We have th ree choices. We 

could do nothing, but this is 

not an option, as things will 

o n ly get wo rse. We could 

re t u rn to the “Good Old Days ” , 

but this also is not an option 

even if we could define when 

th ey we re or what th ey 

we re like . 

. . . engineering . . . has seen 

the change from sail to 

steam, from paddlewheels 

to screw propellers and the 

change from large calibre 

guns to missiles 

I believe we need a strategic and 

unified approach to the future 

I am not being a merchant of 

gloom and doom. I just want you 

all to realise that we need to 

change. We need a vision for the 

way ahead and strategies to 

enable us to get there. 

How do we do it? Who does it? 

And by when? This will require 

a cooperative and coordinated 

approach across Navy. That is 

our task for this seminar and 

workshop. 

It’s 2013. The Chief Naval 

Engineer, CAPT Paul Field 

picked up his briefcase and had 

a look around his shabby office 

in the basement of Maritime 

Headquarters for the last time. 

As CNE he was the last 

remaining uniformed engineer. 

He stood there reflecting. The 

Navy was in a mess. Ships tied 

up for lack of personnel, 

delayed projects, the Air 

Warfare Destroyer had never 

left the drawing board, ships 

always breaking down, and poor 

morale of those who were left. 

Our fully contractor maintained 

ships had resulted in total 

industry domination, with high 

prices, poor quality of work and 

poorly maintained ships. He 

reflected on how we got here. 

Uniformed techos had failed to 

adapt to change, failed to take 

the initiative and make sure the 

changes happened with their 

input. They had quickly become 

irrelevant, had little influence 

and were just ignored. We had 

lost all our good people and 

then things just went downhill 

rapidly. It was most depressing. 

He thought of his next job with 

the all civilian Defence Materiel 

Organisation. At least he would 

try to make a good contract 

manager. As the last one out, 

he switched off the lights. 

Not such a good vision of the 

future and not one we want. 

BELOW ADAPTING TO CHANGE: THEN (TOP) 

AND NOW (BOTTOM) 

Instead of yearning for the past 

or focusing too much on our 

older assets, we need to focus 

more on being a g reat parent 

Navy of ANZAC, Collins, MHC, 

RPBs and eventually new support 

I’ll close with another vision of 

the future, another fairy story . . .

1 0 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T IN F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

BY CMDR ANDY HAMILTON, 

RAN, ADNPR (ME) 

Re-invigorating 

Engineering in the RAN 

KAKADU 2001 FORUM AND WO R K S H O P S 

A series of meetings, workshops and forums were held in Darwin over 

the period 23–26 Jul 2001. The object of these activities was to 

examine problems currently facing the RAN’s Engineering community 

and to develop a future direction for Engineering in the RAN. Time was 

also allocated for key personnel to give presentations on items of 

particular interest to technical personnel. 

Whilst the forum was well 

attended by Technical Senior 

Sailors and Engineer Officers, the 

lack of attendance by Technical 

Junior Sailors and ‘other branch’ 

personnel was disappointing. 

The Workshop sessions were 

particularly useful and will remain 

a feature of future gatherings. 

Heads of Departments are asked 

to encourage their teams, at all 

levels, to be part of the “think 

tank” that can and will have an 

impact on the future direction of 

Engineering in the Navy. More 

detailed proceedings of the 

Darwin gathering are available 

from WO AT Bruce Tunnah at 

DNPR (E&L). 

P R E S E N TAT I O N S 

A number of presentations 

were given in the lead up to the 

Workshop sessions. Commodore 

Ken Joseph, RAN, Chief Naval 

Engineer (CNE) set the scene 

for the forum with a light hearted 

vision as to how things might 

look for the RAN in the year 

2013. An extract from his 

presentation is included as 

one of the articles in this issue of 

the Bulletin. CNE applauded the 

concept of running the workshops 

and encouraged attendees to get 

involved and to think laterally 

when developing solutions to 

the workshop questions. 

Other presentations included 

those from: 

• Captain Paul Field, RAN, on 

Maritime Doctrine, 

• Commander Menno Zwerwer, 

RAN, regarding Safety and 

Certification, 

• Mr Graeme Stacey from BHP 

Shipping who described the 

engineering management of 

Shipping in the commercial 

environment, 

• Commodore Trevor Ruting, RAN, 

and Mr Ian O’Hara, regarding the 

Defence Materiel Organisation 

(DMO) and the Centre for 

Maritime Engineering (CME) 

• Lieutenant Barney Kristensen, 

RAN ,regarding the roles and 

functions of the Personnel 

Training Advisory Centres (PTACs). 

• Commander Bronko Ogrizek, 

RAN, on initiatives to enhance 

the skills of our technical 

personnel within the Submarine 

Engineering community 

• Commander Jacqui King, RAN, 

centred on the integration of the 

Explosive Ordnance Engineer 

(EOE) stream into the WEE 

stream. 

• Commander Geoff Cannon, RAN, 

regarding issues being dealt with 

at the RAN’s Combat Dat a 

Systems Centre (CDSC). 

• Commander Darryl Varcoe, RAN, 

who raised the issue of 

machinery space rounds, their 

relevance and application to 

today’s modern power plant 

systems and the manpower 

overhead they consume. 

• Lieutenant Commander Clyde 

Wheatland, RANR regarding 

manning issues relating to the 

Replacement Patrol Boat (RPB), 

• Warrant Officer MT Peter Lyngcoln 

on evolving contract concepts for 

the support of the Landing Craft 

Heavy (LCH) post Life of Type 

Extension (LOTE), and 

• Captain Craig Kerr, RAN, Director 

of Naval Professional 

Requirements (Engineering and 

Logistics), set the scene for the 

workshops. Human Resources 

Management Plans were 

described, and a shor t 

demonstration was given on how 

the workforce is structured. 

T E CH N I CAL SA I LORS ADV I S O RY 

G ROUP (TSAG) MEETING 

Warrant Officer ATA Bruce Tunnah 

chaired the TSAG. A complete 

version of the minutes is 

available from WO Tunnah at 

DNPR(E&L). The key issues 

included recognising the 

importance of the TSAG as the 

engineering forum where senior 

sailors have the opportunity to 

provide input to how engineering 

is conducted in the RAN and the 

need to formulate agenda items 

early. WO Murray McCauliffe from 

the Initial Training Facility (ITF) 

provided an overview of ‘Sea 

Eagle 4’, which is a project 

initiated from CN’s Office with the 

aim if changing the structure of 

Recruit Training. Other items 

included a brief on Skills 

Development Centres (SDC) by 

WO Dave Bates, the Electronic 

Technician Certificate of

N AV Y E N G I N E E R I N G B U LL ET I N F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

1 1 

Competence (ETCC), and 

cultivating MTCC qualified CPOs 

in Minor War Vessels. 

WO R K S H O P S 

Several workshops were 

conducted with the aim of 

resolving a number of issues. 

The workshop approach was used 

in preference to an open forum, 

which had not been particularly 

fruitful in the past. The workshops 

were well attended and attendees 

were quite passionate about 

some of the issues raised. 

Workshops where facilitated by 

Commander Scott Muller and 

conducted by group leaders 

as follows: 

CMDR STEVE BA S L E Y 

H ow can the st u c t u re and 

c o mposition of ET/MT te ch n i c a l 

t raining be ta i l o red to bette r 

meet Navy’s re qu i rement ove r 

the next ten ye a rs ? 

The group decided to focus on 

three main themes as a means to 

identify the recommended 

refinement to the current training 

continuum. Firstly there is a need 

to adjust aspects of Initial 

Technical Training (ITT) and 

Advanced Technical training (ATT) 

to ensure that the training is 

applicable for the job, and that 

it meets the career 

aspirations/expectations of our 

sailors. Secondly, we need to 

provide an avenue for lateral 

entry and flexible employment 

of qualified and/or experienced 

personnel and finally, there is 

a need to explore alternative 

methods of entry that recognise 

the diversity and academic 

potential of personnel entering 

the technical training continuum. 

Actions Ari s i n g 

• DNPR(E&L) is raising Terms of 

Reference for an Occupational 

Analysis of the ET and MT 

Categories; and 

• Training Authority Logistics (TA 

LOG) is investigating ways of 

refocussing and condensing the 

Initial Technical Traing period 

significantly, with the aim of 

offering technical top up courses 

at the completion of a sailor’s 

first sea posting. 

LC DR STEVE ENGLISH 

H ow can we imp rove th e 

st ru c t u re of engineeri n g 

o p e ra tor qu a l i fi c a t i o n s / 

recognition of RAN qu a l i f c a t i o n s 

to national sta n d a rd s ? 

This group discussed the 

following key elements: Operator 

Qualification Structure, 

Recognition of RAN Qualifications 

to National Standards, 

Remuneration, Requirement 

for MT(E) to gain operator 

qu a l i fications, and Training ability. 


• Restructure as suggested in the 

Smith report; 

• Each Force Element Group (FEG) 

is to confirm watch keeping 

positions and the qualifications 

required; 

• Each FEG to redefine 

requirements for MWC; and 

• DNPR (E&L) to continue 

alignment with National 

Standards. 

LEUT ANDREW REICH ST I E N, RAN 

What are the key elements 

re qu i red within the next 12 

m o n ths to set the fo u n d a t i o n s 

for the engineering community 

to support the RAN in the 

f u t u re command, contro l 

communication and comp u te rs 

(C4) Enviro n m e n t ? 

Following key elements from Plan 

Green in relation to C4 support, 

the group determined that the 

Engineering Community needs to 

put in place a consolidated 

maintenance approach for C4 

systems and suitable 

management practices for ad-hoc 

C4 implementation. More 

importantly, Engineers need to 

become involved in the 

development of C4 architecture 

and standards. 

LEUT IAN McC LOSKEY RN 

Simulation – To what exte n t 

should the Navy embra c e 

simulation for te chnical 

o p e ra tor training over the 

next 10 ye a rs ? 

The team answered: ‘To the 

extent that we train our people 

ashore/alongside so that they 

are qualified in all respects – 

except for some specific seagoing 

competencies requiring HOD 

endorsement. In addition, 

simulation/stimulation should be 

provided to allow for continuation 

training at sea (including tactical 

training/simulation).’ Key 

considerations arising from this 

issue include the idea that where 

feasible, Ship fits should be 

replicated and that simulator 

cells should also incorporate the 

body responsible for sponsoring 

operator documentation. 

The simulator should be capable 

of real time performance and 

the requirement for simulator 

training needs to properly 

specified and written into 

contracts for new acquisition. 


• ANZAC SMO will consider the 

above recommendations in 

formulating the statement of 

requirements for the ANZAC 

Trainer, which will be situated in 

HMAS STIRLING. 

LC DR ANDREW FYSH 

RAN maintenance policy st ra te g y 

This group discussed the present 

day maintenance philosophy and 

alterative methods. 

Actions Arising: 

• A corporate maintenance 

philosophy is required to set 

priorities for FEGs. DNPR (E&L) 

will approach the FEG 

Management cell on this subject; 

and 

• A number of initiatives are 

already under way in the ANZAC, 

FFG and Submarine (SM) System 

Program Offices (SPOs) in such 

areas as reliability centred 

maintenance. 

LC DR PETER MITCHELL 

Recognition of the value of 

e n g i n e e ring in ach i eving nava l 

c a p a b i l i t y 

The need for better education of 

the wider Navy community about 

what engineers can do for you.

1 2 N AVY E N G I N E E R I N G B U L LE T I N F EB R U A RY 2 0 0 2 

BELOW MEANINGFUL AND REWARDING 

EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL ENGINEERING 

PERSONNEL 


• Adopt a promotional campaign 

such as the newly commenced 

Naval Engineering Bulletin; 

• All members saw the need to 

have permanent seat at CNSAC; 

• An increased representation is 

needed on all new procurement 

projects; and 

• An enhancement is required for 

the MEO designate course either 

join in the CO/XO desig or further 

develop the MEO desig course. 

CMDR PETER MARSHALL 

C a reer Management – What fi ve 

st ra tegies can te chnical care e r 

m a n a ge rs implement over th e 

next 12 months to fa c i l i ta te 

p ro fessional deve l o p m e n t , 

st reamline postings, ach i eve 

c a reer aspirations of individuals 

and still meet the re qu i re m e n t s 

of the Nav y ? 

This group focused on the 

Career Professional development 

problems facing the Engineering 

community. 


• Selective Directorate of Sailors 

Career Management (DSCM) 

staffing increases; 

• (Workforce) Structures and 

Postings. Provide greater shore 

balance between Perth and 

Sydney, improve career planning, 

post to 160% billets at sea to 

cater for training inef fective, 

amend sea/shore ratios to reflect 

training requirements and reintroduce 

‘swap draft’ lists in 

Navy News. DNPR(E&L) and Navy 

Workforce Planning are working 

on this area of concern; 

• Leadership and the engagement 

of the immediate supervisors into 

career management. This subject 

will be covered in the DNPR(E&L) 

road shows; 

• Remove time in rank for 

promotion, with promotion based 

solely on competence and 

performance. This subject is 

being considered by DNPR(E&L); 

• Lateral recruiting and 

continuation of recent FIMA 

related initiatives such as Skills 

Development Centres; and 

• Reduction of current over training 

to better match expectation to 

reality. Fleet Intermediate 

Maintenance Agency (FIMA)/ 

Engineering Faculty (EF) HMAS 

CERBERUS and DNPR (E&L) are 

working on this issue. 

. . . it is now time to get 

on with the business of 

engineering by taking the 

initiative and driving change 

for the best outcomes. 

LCDR BURNINGHAM 

What th ree st ra tegies can th e 

RAN put in place to incre a s e 

re tention in the engineeri n g 

f ra te rn i t y ? 

The wo rkshop group re c o m m e n d e d 

creating challenging, meaningful 

and rewarding employment 

for all Engineering personnel 

and providing personalised and 

decisive Technical HR 

Management. The group also 

recommended a review of 

financial and non-financial 

recognition of engineering 

personnel. 


• These three points will be 

included as part of the study 

into Occupational Assessment, 

requested by DNPR(E&L), for 

the technical branches. 

CNE, COMMODORE JOSEPH 

Closing Re m a rks – St ra te g i c 

v i ew for engineeri n g 

CDRE Joseph closed the 

proceedings with another 

‘Fairy Tale’ with a much gloomier 

outlook that would result if the 

engineering community sat still 

and let change drive engineering 

into oblivion. He summarised by 

saying that as a community, 

we’ve heard the vision, that the 

presentations and workshops 

have given us an immediate 

focus and that it is now time to 

get on with the business of 

engineering by taking the 

initiative and driving change for 

the best outcomes.

N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B U LL E TI N F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 

1 3 

Engineering Opportunities 

MARINE ENGINEER OFFICER SECONDMENT TO CO M M E RCIAL VESSEL 

An opportunity exists for ME Officers to undertake a short-term 

(three-week) secondment to a merchant vessel as part of the on board 

engineering team. This experience will be of most benefit to Officers 

with a minimum of MEOCC qualification who are (or will be) occupying 

MEO/DMEO positions or engineering/logistic support roles ashore. 

The range of experience to be 

gained includes: 

• Personnel management 

techniques and existing 

conditions of service in 

commercial shipping. 

• Differences in merchant ship vs 

RAN operations (engineering and 

whole ship) in a minimum 

manned environment. 

• The commercial shipping 

approach to preventative and 

corrective maintenance. 

• The challenges of technical 

regulation under classification 

society and statutory regimes. 

• The use and control of shore 

based maintenance contractors 

by ship’s engineers. 

• The challenge of operating a ship 

under a Quality Management 

System (based on mandatory 

International Ship Management 

Code). 

• Having the ship take control of 

the ship’s own repair budgets. 

• Determination and management 

of on board spares inventory by 

the on board engineers. 

• Use of various Condition 

Monitoring Maintenance 

techniques on board. 

W H AT YOU CAN EXPECT. 

Successful vo l u n te e rs will be 

wo rking alongside the Merch a n t 

Engineer Offi c e rs in operating and 

m a i n taining the ship systems. 

You will have the opportunity to 

o b s e rve all engineering and 

b ri d ge operations, with the Chief 

Engineer and Master of the ve s s e l 

available to field qu e stions on 

all aspects of commercial 

ship management. 

The secondment is aimed at 

broadening the Officer’s skill and 

insight into engineering in general 

with a specific focus on marine 

engineering. It is also expected to 

provide ideas that may be useful 

in improving the way RAN 

engineering is done at sea and in 

shore support. 

Secondment to Ship 

S u p e ri n tendant for Commerc i a l 

Ship Re fi t / D o ck i n g 

Further to the seagoing 

secondment above there is a 

possibility of arranging 

secondment of RAN Marine 

Engineer Officers to work with a 

Commercial Ship Superintendent 

in the management of a docking 

availability. 

This secondment will be most 

appropriate for Of ficers involved 

in maintenance management and 

planning within the Sus tainment 

Management Offices (SMO) and 

Ship Repair Contracting Of fices 

(SRCO). 

The aim will be to prov i d e 

e x p o s u re to commercial pra c t i c e s 

used for wo rk packa ge pro d u c t i o n , 

c o n t racting and management of 

p hysical wo rk in conjunction with 

the ship’s engineers. It is hoped 

that exposure to diffe rent ideas 

and methods will pro m o te 

i mp rovement of current RA N 

p rocesses for underta k i n g 

m a i n tenance ava i l a b i l i t i e s . 

S U M M A RY 

One seagoing secondment has 

already been undertaken on a 

BHP vessel operating on the 

Australian coast during 2000, 

with a second commencing in 

late Nov 2001. A ship 

superintendent attachment during 

a refit activity in mid 2001 has 

also occurred. All attachments 

have proven both beneficial to 

the parent unit and to the 

individual concerned. 

Head Maritime Systems (HMS), 

Rear Admiral Scarce, has 

endorsed the concept of 

additional seagoing and docking 

attachments. 

Further enquiries or expressions 

of interest should be directed to 

• LCDR Richard Ar thur 

on (02) 9359 6067 or 

richard.arthur@defence.gov.au, or 

• CMDR Peter Marshall 

on (02) 9359 6050 or 

peter.marshall6@defence.gov.au, 

in the Amphibious and Afloat 

Support Sustainment 

Management Office (AASSMO).

1 4 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T IN F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 

BY CAPT PAUL FIELD OAM 

Engineering and 

Maritime Doctrine 

The following paper is a precis of a presentation given by Capt Field 

at the EAG Meeting in Darwin in July 2001. In the paper he seeks to 

draw a link between engineering activity as we know it and maritime 

doctrine. He concludes that engineering activity underpins and 

supports Australian maritime doctrine. He further concludes that an 

understanding of maritime doctrine is essential to the future direction 

of engineering in the RAN. CAPT Field wishes to acknowledge the efforts 

of Capt James Goldrick in producing ‘Australian Maritime Doctrine’ on 

which he has leant heavily in the preparation of this paper. 

I N T RO D U C T I O N 

CN summed it up in his forward 

to the work ‘Australian Maritime 

Doctrine’ when he stated: 

“Australian Maritime Doctrine is 

the RAN’s keystone work . . . 

it is a guide to understanding 

what the RAN contributes to 

Australia’s national security and 

how it does this.” 

We engineers must also ensur e 

that people understand what and 

how we contribute to the RAN, if 

we are to remain relevant to the 

RAN in the future. One way of 

doing that is to show that what 

we do underpins and supports 

Australian Maritime Doctrine. 

A I M 

The aim of this paper is to 

explore the linkage between 

engineering in the RAN and 

‘Australian Maritime Doctrine’. 

W H AT IS MARITIME DOCTRINE? 

At the highest level, Maritime 

Doctrine describes the military 

options that the N avy and 

associated maritime forces can 

provide to government when 

dealing with situations in our 

area of strategic interest. At a 

lower level, it shows how we 

might go about putting those 

options into effect and what 

factors are critical for a 

successful outcome. 

Maritime Doctrine describes the 

types of operations that our Navy 

might be called upon to engage 

in. It describes our current force 

structure, how we are organised 

to conduct operations, and how 

those operations can be 

supported for a successful 

outcome. It also describes the 

limitations and constraints that 

we as a medium power Navy 

must work within. 1 

So What? – I am an Engineer 

Maritime Doctrine describes 

the framework in which we work 

and contribute as engineers. 

If we understand Maritime 

Doctrine, then we as engineers 

are better able to see the value 

of the contribution we are 

making toward the delivery of 

combat power in the Australian 

maritime context. 

It could be argued that eve ry th i n g 

that engineers do; contri b u tes to 

Au st ralia’s exe rcise of Mari t i m e 

Power within the fra m ewo rk of 

M a ritime Doctrine. To bette r 

u n d e rstand the role of engineers 

and our contribution within th e 

f ra m ewo rk of Au st ralian Mari t i m e 

D o c t rine, it is useful to look at th e 

ch a ra c te ri stics of Maritime Powe r. 

The characteristics of Maritime 

Power are as follows: 

Mobility in Mass, Readiness, 

Access, Flexibility, Adaptability, 

Reach, Poise and persistence, 

Resilience 

Mobility in Mass 

The mobility of warships pr ovides 

many options for political and 

strategic decision-makers across 

a wide range of contingencies. 

Mobility is the ability to place a 

warship to our advantage, 

possibly a long distance from 

Australia. This is not new and five 

RAN ships are currently operating 

in two separate operations 

demonstrating their mobility and 

flexibility to the Nor th and in 

the Gulf. 

So how do we as engineers 

contribute to mobility? Mobility is 

possible because of the reliable 

performance of main propulsion 

systems and the availability and 

accuracy of communications, 

sensor and weapons systems. 

M u ch engineering effo rt is 

expended in ensuring that th e 

RAN’s platfo rms are mobile. 

Sometimes it is ta ken for gra n te d 

l i ke the availability of domest i c 

e l e c t ri c i t y, wa ter or te l e p h o n e s , 

but we know that behind th e 

scenes th e re are many engineers 

doing what is necessary to 

m a i n tain and imp rove the serv i c e s 

and keep the ships at sea.

N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B U L L E TI N FE B R U A RY 2 0 02 

1 5 

Re a d i n e s s 

Ships can be made ready and 

rapidly deployed for a 

contingency. Some recent 

examples include our response to 

border protection issues and the 

War Against Terrorism. Being on 

scene early can help prevent 

escalation and prevent widening 

of a conflict. 

From an engineering perspective 

we contribute to every step of 

making ships ‘ready’. This begins 

at the maintenance planning 

stage and is an inherently 

engineering biased activity. 

Readiness from an engineering 

perspective includes the 

maintenance period, harbour 

and sea trials, personnel 

qualification training, work up 

and operational readiness 

evaluations. From there, 

readiness is maintained through 

an ongoing commitment to 

m a i n tenance, system perfo rm a n c e 

and defect re c t i fi c a t i o n . 

It has taken a significant 

engineering effort to prepar e 

HMA Ships KANIMBLA, SYDNEY 

and ADELAIDE for their 

deployment to the Gulf. 

Engineering effort has been 

expended to prepare, install, test, 

modify and accept equipment 

unique to that particular 

operation. It has taken 

engineering effort to train the 

people and prepare systems to 

ensure that they per form to 

specification for the duration of 

the deployment. 

Ac c e s s 

Warships leave no footprint in the 

water and so can operate over 

70% of the ear th’s surface 

without violating a countries 

national space. This provides 

government with a wide range of 

options in terms of diplomatic 

presence, without actually having 

people on the ground. 

Engineering effort is critical to the 

RAN’s ability to have a presence 

in or near an area of strategic 

interest. The reliability and 

performance of engineering 

If we understand Maritime 

Doctrine, then we as 

engineers are better able 

to see the value of the 

contribution we are making 

toward the delivery of combat 

power in the Australian 

maritime context. 

propulsion plant, water making 

facilities and power generation 

equipment, allow the ship t o 

stay at sea for long periods. 

Communications and sensor 

systems allow the Command to 

gather intelligence, communicate 

with higher authorities and 

receive direction from a long 

distance. 

F l e x i b i l i t y 

Warships are immediately 

responsive to government 

direction in a subtle way. They 

can simply ‘be there’ as a 

presence, such as when HMAS 

DARWIN deployed off the coas t 

of East Timor, long before any 

decision was made to commit 

land forces. Warships can be 

deployed and withdrawn at will. 

High capacity communications 

now permit a high deg ree of 

responsiveness to parent 

Commands and the Government. 

Flexibility is dependent on the 

reliability of engineering systems. 

Unreliable systems would greatly 

reduce the range of options 

available. For example, a major 

failure of a warship propulsion 

system in the area of strategic 

interest may cause extreme 

political embarrassment. 

Ad a p ta b i l i t y 

Warships can transition from 

peacetime state to the highest 

degree of battle readiness 

without giving any external 

indication of their increased 

readiness. Organising warships 

into task groups allows defence 

against higher level threats and 

the ability to apply a higher level 

of stress to others. 

Engineering systems underpin 

battle readiness. The engineering 

team has already achieved a high 

level of readiness to leave the 

wharf safely, weapons systems 

and higher order responses to 

battle damage are tested during 

o p e rational readiness eva l u a t i o n s . 

Engineers then maintain that 

level of readiness for the duration 

of the ship’s operation. 

Re a ch 

Reach is defined as the 

distance from homeport at 

which operations may be 

carried out. Warships carry 

much of their logistic suppor t 

with them, allowing them to 

conduct sustained operations. 

This can be enhanced by the 

use of replenishment vessels. 

The arrest of illegal fishing 

vessels in the Southern Ocean 

in 1997 and 1998 is a good 

example of ‘reach’. 

The design of engineering 

systems allows for a wide range 

of operations in dif ferent 

environments. The effect of those 

environments on engineering 

systems must be appreciated. For 

example, the effect of sea water 

temperature on engineering 

systems is very dif ferent in the 

Gulf than in the Southern Ocean. 

The role of engineers is to 

understand the impact that 

different environments have on 

propulsion and weapons systems. 

Fuel economy is also a factor in

1 6 N AVY E N G I N E E R I N G B U L LE T I N F E B R U A RY 2 0 0 2 

BELOW RESILIENCE: CREWS ARE TRAINED 

TO CONTROL AND ALLEVIATE THE EFFECTS 

OF DAMAGE 

determining reach. At the tactical 

level, this might cause the 

engineer to provide advice to the 

Command in respect of the most 

economical arrangement of plant 

and machinery. 

Poise and Pe rs i ste n c e 

Most warships are almost wholly 

self contained and can operate 

without recourse to the shore for 

periods of weeks or even months. 

Frigates operating in support of 

border protection to the north are 

routinely spending more than 

60 days at sea. The poise and 

p e rs i stence of wa rships is ve ry 

useful for gove rnments atte mp t i n g 

to re s o lve complex and 

ambiguous situations such as 

m a ritime border pro tection issues. 

Poise and pers i stence can be 

enhanced when te chnical skills 

and logistic support are ava i l a b l e 

to repair equipment in the area of 

o p e rations. This poses inte re st i n g 

qu e stions. Do we need to have 

the skills onboard or can we have 

a centre of expertise available to 

the maintainer from ashore? Is it 

not possible to design a wa rs h i p 

w i th adequ a te redundancy to 

a l l ow it to gra c e f u l ly degrade ove r 

the period of the mission? 

M a ritime Doctrine poses issues 

that may cause engineers to seek 

d i ffe rent ways to opera te and 

m a i n tain engineering syste m s . 

Re s i l i e n c e 

Warships are resilient. They are 

designed and their crews are 

trained to control and alleviat e 

the effects of damage. All ships 

are characterised by a deg ree of 

redundancy in their equipment 

and manning. Even major defects 

or damage may not mean that a 

unit ceases to be able to make a 

contribution to the force as a 

whole. 

The MEO and WEEO and their 

teams have a key role in the 

management of action damage 

and the restoration of systems. 

Is this a valid role in the future 

though, given the destructive 

power of modern weapons? 

MARITIME DOCTRINE AND THE 

FUTURE OF ENG I N E E R I NG 

The elements of Maritime 

Doctrine do not change muc h 

with time. They are as applicable 

now, as they were in the time of 

Nelson. We have simply adapted 

them to better understand the 

reason for our Navy’s being in an 

Australian context. 

This brief perusal of the elements 

of Maritime Doctrine shows that 

there is a close linkage between 

engineering activity and each of 

the doctrinal elements. This is 

not surprising as engineering 

underpins and supports all of the 

Navy’s operational activity. 

This is useful for engineers, as 

like the providers of domestic 

power, water and telephones, 

we are apt to be ta ken for gra n te d 

in the minds of war planners and 

Commanders. Maritime Doctrine 

provides an adequate framework 

that links engineers to the 

reasons why we have a Navy. 

The future of engineering is 

dynamic. Environmental and 

legislative issues, personnel 

attitudes and expectations; 

all impact on the way we employ 

technology. As surely as paddles 

gave way to sail, gas turbines will 

give way to all electric drives; 

and missiles will give way to 

high-energy weapons. People may 

disappear from ships altogether, 

to be replaced by a shoreside 

(or spacebased) technical 

support centre. 

CO NC LU S I O N 

An understanding of Maritime 

Doctrine provides a fundamental 

guide to engineers, as the 

principles of Maritime Doctrine 

are unlikely to change at the 

same pace as technology. 

Engineers have a vital role to 

play, now and in the future in the 

support of RAN activity. Maritime 

Doctrine, therefore, provides 

engineers with a reminder of their 

contribution today and a 

touchstone for adapting to the 

changes of the future. 

About the author CAPT Field joined the 

RAN as a Cadet Midshipman at the RANC 

and is a graduate of UNSW with Bachelor s 

and Masters degrees. He has served in a 

variety of shore and sea appointments and 

has completed both the RANSC and JSSC. 

CAPT Field was the MEO of HMAS DARWIN 

and ADELAIDE and is af fectionately known 

as the father of FCIMS for which he seeks 

understanding and forgiveness. He has 

served in the Maritime Command for nearly 

three years, first as the Fleet Marine 

Engineer Officer and now as Chief Staff 

Officer Engineering. 

References 1. As engineers this might 

mean working with foreign sourced 

equipment, accepting limitations on spares 

and training, limited sources of knowledge 

and expertise. It may also drive us to 

greater ingenuity and a closer relationship 

to Australian industry to maximise use of 

limited resources.

N AV Y EN G I N E E R I N G B U LL ET I N F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

1 7 

Project HELP 

HEALTHY ENGINEERING AND LOGISTIC POLICY 

BY CAPT TIM BARTER 

As CNE outlined in his introduction a project has commenced to correct 

deficiencies in engineering and logistics policy. The project is called 

project HELP. The following summarises current progress on correcting 

deficiencies in engineering policy. 

A review has been conducted of 

Navy policy on technical 

regulation provided in DI(N) LOG 

47-3 and its implementation. 

This review found that: 

• the existing policy is in 

accordance with the draft ADF 

policy and accords with bes t 

practice in industry and the 

public sector, 

• there was a broad acceptance of 

both the policy and the need for 

the policy in the RAN and 

organisations supporting the 

RAN, but 

• there was a very large variance in 

the implementation of the policy 

and very poor under standing of 

the policy across all areas, and 

• due to poor imp l e m e n tation and 

l a ck of understanding, the policy 

is not being imp l e m e n ted corre c t ly 

and as a result the aim, which is 

to control ri s ks during design 

c o n st ruction and maintenance, is 

not being ach i eved. 

To correct these deficiencies 

a comprehensive Technical 

Regulatory System (TRS) needs 

to be implemented that pr ovides 

instructions and guidance on 

how the policy is to be achieved. 

Work has commenced to develop 

and document a TRS. The existing 

DI(N) LOG 47-3 requires revision 

to reflect changes t o 

organisational arrangements 

across the ADF and to provide 

further detail on the elements 

of a technical regulatory system. 

Both the Army and Air Force have 

implemented comprehensive 

systems to support their 

technical regulatory policy. 

Where possible a joint approach 

will be implemented and this may 

require minor changes to Navy 

implementation. 

The current focus is on fully 

defining the scope of a TRS with 

the aim of providing a solid 

foundation to commence 

development of the full system in 

2002. Based on Army and Air 

Force experience it takes over two 

years to develop a TRS. Because 

of the risks to Navy the intent is 

to have the key documentation in 

place by the end of 2002. 

For further details contact CNE 

on (02) 6266 3020. 

Some readers may have noticed 

an omission in this article thus 

far. The L in HELP stands for 

logistics but there is no mention 

of logistics. While this is the 

Engineering Bulletin you are 

probably interested in what is 

being done to improve the 

related support discipline of 

Logistics – Watch this space in 

future Bulletins! 

E NG I N E E R I NG ADV I S O RY 

CO U NC I L 

To ensure CNE has appropriate 

advice to manage and 

reinvigorate engineering in the 

Navy he has reinstituted the 

Engineering Advisory Council 

(EAC). The EAC is to be the 

executive steering committee 

responsible for advising CNE on 

his two primary functions of Head 

of Corps and Technical 

Regulatory Authority. The tasks of 

the EAC will include the oversight 

of project HELP and the 

development of Navy Engineering 

doctrine projects that are 

discussed in this Bulletin. The 

membership of the EAC has been 

deliberately kept to a small 

number of senior engineering 

positions: 

• CNE: Chair 

• CAPT M Adams: DMO 

representative 

• CAPT P Field: MHQ representative 

• Mr G MacDonald: Civilian 

Engineers and Technicians 

• CAPT A Cawley: Training matters 

• CAPT C Kerr: Engineering 

personnel 

• CAPT T Barter: Technical 

Regulation 

• WO B Tunnah: Chair of the 

Technical Sailor Advisory 

Committee. 

These are your representatives 

and if you feel there are issues 

that the EAC needs to consider 

you can raise them directly with 

the appropriate representative. 

But before you start poking the 

chest of an EAC member you 

might consider if this is the 

correct way to raise the issue. 

The EAC is not a venue to by 

pass the command chain or the 

divisional system. 

The EAC receives input from the 

WEAGs, MEAGs, AEAGs and 

TSAGs. These forums should be 

used where possible 

Technical issues should be raised 

using the appropriate process ie 

TM179, TM187, documentation 

change proposals. 

What is a Te chnical 

Re g u l a to ry System? 

A system to control the risks 

during design, construction and 

maintenance that effect fitness 

for service, safety and the 

environment. 

H ow does a Te chnical 

Re g u l a to ry System wo rk? 

By ensuring Navy systems are 

designed, constructed and 

maintained; to approved 

standards, by authorised 

organisations who comprise 

competent and authorised 

individuals; and whose work is 

certified correct. 

BELOW BRAZIL GOVERNMENT OWNED OIL 

COMPANY PETROBRAS PLATFORM SHORTLY 

BEFORE SINKING 

Extract from earlier company s tatement: 

“Petrobras has established an innovative 

programme of cost cutting on its P36 

production facility, the project successfully 

rejected the established constricting and 

negative influences of prescriptive 

engineering, onerous quality requirements 

and outdated concepts of inspection and 

client control . . .”

1 8 N AV Y E N G I N E E R I N G B U L LE T IN F EB R U A RY 20 0 2 

Navy Engineering 

Doctrine Project 

During the last fifteen years the RAN has undergone significant 

organisational and procedural changes that have impacted on the 

delivery of engineering. The skills and application of engineering is 

largely based on past practice. As a result, the structure, training, 

administration and employment of engineering personnel may not 

be optimally aligned with the realities of a Navy operating smaller, 

minimum manned ships in a commercial support environment. 

The platforms and systems now 

in service are not generally 

supported by other Navies and 

access to deep engineering 

expertise and experience has 

been declining for a number of 

years. The capabilities outlined in 

the recent White Paper and Navy 

Plan Blue may also have an 

impact on Navy’s requirement for 

in-house engineering expertise 

As promulgated in CN’s all ship 

all shore message HAA/VAA/WAA 

292300Z NOV 01 a project has 

commenced to examine how 

Navy Engineering should evolve 

to meet these challenges. 

The project is being conducted in 

two parts. The first part will 

develop an issues paper that will 

present options on: 

• the role of Navy Engineering 

• how Navy Engineering should 

best support the maritime 

doctrine, and 

• the issues to be addressed to 

ensure Navy has the necessary 

engineering support it requires 

into the foreseeable future. 

This paper will specifically identify 

for the short term (5yrs) and the 

longer term (15yrs) the: 

• d riving inte rnal and exte rnal trends, 

• images of the future for Navy 

Engineering, 

• the key groups and their 

interests, perceptions and actions 

regarding Navy engineering, 

• the realistic options or models for 

Navy Engineering for the future, 

and 

• similarities between Navy 

Engineering and non-defence 

engineering sectors. 

The second stage will use the 

agreed outcomes of the first 

stage to develop a public 

document – the Navy Engineering 

Doctrine. This document will 

describe the future role, 

capability and requirements of 

Navy engineering, to better utilise 

our engineering assets and for 

engineering personnel to 

understand how they contribute 

to Navy’s mission. 

The project is being undertaken 

by Mr Athol Yates who is 

supported by CMDR Mathew 

Hudson RANR. 

Mr Yates is an engineer who has 

been employed as a senior policy 

analyst in public policy by The 

Institution of Engineers, Australia 

and has conducted extensive 

research into engineering in 

support of Government activities. 

He has published a number of 

papers on these topics. A recent 

paper ‘Government As An 

Informed Buyer, Yates, Athol for 

The Institution of Engineers,’ 

Australia is highly relevant 

because most of the issues Navy 

engineering faces have parallels 

in other areas of Government. 

As many of you will know, Mat 

Hudson was the previous Fleet 

Weapons Electrical Engineer 

Officer and recently transferred to 

the RANR. He has a great deal of 

experience in the issues facing 

Navy Engineering. 

After an initial research period, 

Mr Yates and CMDR Hudson will 

consult widely in Navy, across 

the ADF and in the private and 

public sector. The aim is to have 

an issues paper by second 

quarter 2002. 

The scope of this project and the 

term ‘Navy Engineering’ includes 

the total Navy technical 

community uniform and civilian, 

technicians and professional 

engineers. We want your opinion. 

Not just from the Navy 

engineering community but the 

opinion of those outside this 

group. Submissions are invited 

and should be for warded to 

tech.help@defence.gov.au 

For further details contact 

CNE on (02) 6266 3020.


1 9 

Investigation into the 

Catastrophic Failure of the 

Port High Pressure Main 

Air Compressor 

09 OCTOBER 2001 

BY LCDR TIM KEMP, RAN, 

MEO TOBRUK 

The Port High Pressure Main Air Compressor (Port MAC) experienced 

a catastrophic failure early 09 October 2001. This article outlines the 

events leading to that failure and the subsequent investigation. 

The Port MAC was overhauled 

during a Maintenance Availability 

that extended from 19 March – 

27 July 01. Subsequent to the 

overhaul the system was set to 

work by the contractor, and 

Ship’s Staff in-accordance, wit h 

Fleet In Service Trials (FIST) 

procedures. The Sea Training 

Group also sur veyed the Port 

MAC during the Light of 

Examination (LOE) and a series 

of spectrographic oil analyses 

were conducted. The total 

running hours since the overhaul 

were 170 hours. 

The conclusions from the 

investigation show that the failure 

mode was: 

• The Port MAC first stage piston 

gudgeon pin securing device 

(circlip) did not have adequate 

mating surface area; 

• The circlip fretted and cracked its 

housing, dislodged, and became 

bound with the first stage 

cylinder liner; and 

• The connecting rod imposed 

sufficient forces to score the liner 

and disintegrated the piston 

assembly. 

The Port MAC, even with this 

significant damage, continued 

to run with the second stage 

piston imparting a system 

pressure of 15 bar. The standby 

compressor was required to 

regain system pressure. 

The conclusion indicates that the 

cause of the failure can be 

attributed to the failure of the 

retaining circlip. 

SY STEM DESCRIPTION 

The Port MAC is a HAMWORTHY 

MODEL 2TM6 that has a free air 

delivery of 285m3/hr. It has a 

first stage air pressure of 4 bar 

and a second stage air pressure 

of 25 bar. The control circuit for 

the air compressor starts the unit 

when the pressure in either the 

Port or Starboard air receivers 

drops below 17 bar, and stops 

the unit when the pressure in the 

receivers increases to 28 bar. The 

MACs can be configured in ‘lead’ 

or ‘lag’ configuration that allows 

either the Port or STBD unit to 

act as the primary unit, the other 

unit as the standby unit to 

automatically engage if the air 

pressure in the air receivers 

cannot be sustained by the 

primary unit. This would normally 

only occur during heavy periods 

of manoeuvring. The MACs have 

the capacity to provide an 

adequate system pressure under 

normal operating conditions with 

an average duty cycle equivalent 

to 15 minutes in every hour. 

P O ST MAINTENA NC E 

AVA I LA B I L I TY SET TO WO R K 

The Port and S tarboard MACs 

were overhauled and set to work 

during the Maintenance 

Availability. Both compressors 

were set to work after closing 

inspections conducted by the 

contractor, Quality Assurance 

staff, MHQ fleet staff, and ship 

staff. The compressors were set 

to work utilising the Fleet In 

Service Trials (FIST) 

commissioning documentation 

and equipment handbook. 

The compressors were ‘run in’, 

and oil tests dispatched for 

spectrographic oil analysis. 

The 23 August 2001 oil analysis 

report indicated that the port 

MAC lubrication oil had high 

sodium content. The lubricating 

oil was changed out on 31 

August 01. Oil was drained from 

the compressor, the sump was 

cleaned out and an inspection of 

the crankcase and all moving 

components conducted. Deemed 

satisfactory, the compressor was 

filled with oil, reassembled and 

re-commissioned. A further two 

oil samples were despatched to 

the oil test laborator y. These 

results indicated that, the sodium 

levels were acceptable, wear 

metals were consistent with 

normal running in, and that there 

was no uncharacteristic wear 

occurring within the compressor. 

I NC I D E N T 

The MACs were configured in Port 

lead, and STBD lag. During the 

middle watch (0001–0400)

2 0 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL LE T I N FE B R U A RY 2 00 2 

FIGURE 1 PIECES OF THE FIRST STAGE 

PISTON 

FIGURE 2 FIRST STAGE CONNECTING ROD 

AND PISTON ASSEMBLY 

FIGURE 3 FIRST STAGE BIG END BEARING 

SHELL TOP 

09 October 2001 at approx i m a te ly 

0200 watchkeepers noticed that 

the Port MAC was not delivering 

the required air pressure, and 

that the Starboard MAC was 

running to supplement the 

required system pressure. The 

Port MAC had been continuously 

operating for approximately 

30 minutes. Inspection of the 

compressor parameters using 

fitted gauges indicated that there 

was no air compression at the 

first stage and air compression 

of 17 bar at the second. 

The initial assumption was that 

the compressor was not 

unloading correctly as there was 

no abnormal noise or vibration of 

the unit. The compressor was 

then restarted, however the unit 

sounded ‘flat’, and was shut 

down again. Subsequently the 

electrically operated solenoid 

unloading valves were tested 

and the control circuit was prove d 

to be functioning corre c t ly. The 

c o mp ressor was then shutdow n 

awaiting further inve st i ga t i o n . 

INITIAL INSPECTION 

The initial inspection of the unit 

was conducted to ascertain why 

the fi rst sta ge (LP cylinder) wa s 

not loading. The control syste m 

was proven electri c a l ly and 

m e ch a n i c a l ly and dete rmined to 

be operating corre c t ly. The 

d e l i ve ry va lve cove rs to the fi rst 

sta ge cylinder head we re re m ove d 

to allow inspection of th e 

unloading va lve, however upon 

re m oval the fi rst sta ge piston wa s 

found to be shatte red. The 

c o mp ressor was then st ri p p e d 

d own to assess the full extent of 

the damage incurred and to try to 

identify the root cause. 

DESCRIPTION OF DA M AGE 

The Port MAC was photog raphed 

and then inspected by the 

Engineer and the CPOMT Artificer 

prior to any further disassembly. 

To ensure that the opening 

(disassembly) was conducted in 

a controlled and effective 

manner, the key personnel to 

The fra c t u red pieces all show 

signs of rapid and violent 

s h e a ring commensura te with 

sudden and heavy imp a c t 

loading. 

conduct the opening were 

briefed and a quarantine area 

established. All removed 

components were placed in the 

quarantine area and clearly 

identified. All ‘pieces’ that were 

removed from the compressor 

were placed in a bucket to group 

them as they were identified. 

Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate 

the extent of damage incur red by 

the first stage piston. The pieces 

of the piston and the conrod 

assembly were inspected for any 

fatigue wear patterns/fretting/or 

cracking. The cylinder sleeve and 

mating surfaces all appeared to 

be well lubricated and there was 

no readily apparent binding/ 

localised heat marks/welding 

or scraping marks. 

The fra c t u red pieces all show 

signs of rapid and violent 

s h e a ring commensura te with 

sudden and heavy imp a c t 

loading. The fra c t u red pieces we re 

all re c ove red in the sump dire c t ly 

b e l ow the conrod assembly. 

The conrod assembly was intact 

as is shown in Figure 2. Note 

that there was suf ficient piston 

material remaining to allow a 

relatively balanced and uniform 

movement of the conrod in the 

cylinder sleeve. The fact that the 

compressor continued to operate 

with a reduced output af ter the 

collapse of the fir st stage piston 

indicated that the crankshaft is 

still running true. 

Condition of the first stage big 

end bearing shell indicated 

adequate lubrication and no 

evidence of overheating. The 

condition of the crankshaft, 

bearings, lubricating oil supply, 

and housing was assessed to 

ascertain if there was a mode of 

failure implicating misalignment, 

fatigue, poor oil supply, or 

bearing failure. While there is a 

considerable loading of 

embedded metal particles in the 

white metal bearing material, the 

contamination is consistent with 

a catastrophic failure resulting in 

large amounts of metal fragments 

being transported throughout the 

lubricating oil system. Figures 3 

and 4 show the big end bearings 

and the sustained damage. 

The bearing shells and housings 

showed no signs of misalignment, 

joint face fretting, fretting of the 

bearing back, excessive nip or 

crush, joint face bruising, or 

gradual (long-term) abrasion. 

The bearings exhibited evidence 

that there was ample lubricating 

oil supply, that they were 

operating satisfactorily and that 

the metal particulate foreign 

damage was sustained in a 

relatively short timeframe. Note 

that the flash and the overlay are 

still intact, and that the wear 

patterns are uniform and well 

within the expected appearance 

for relatively new bearings. 

The first stage cylinder liner 

inspection shows that hone 

markings remain evident on the 

working surface. This is indicative 

of very few running hours and 

relatively light loadings. There is 

no indication of localised 

overheating on the liner, nor any 

sign of metal transfer. There are 

however, two 3mm-deep, 10mmwide 

vertical scores that aligned 

to the gudgeon pin and circlip 

position. The distance between 

these two groves is consistent 

with the width of the circlip ends.


2 1 

The forward gudgeon pin circlip 

was located in the sump. It is 

suspected that the circlip used 

in the overhaul did not have 

sufficient surface contact, and 

that the design deviates 

significantly from the original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

intended circlip. The circlip had 

been deformed (see Figure 5) 

and shows that it had minimum 

surface contact with the 

gudgeon pin. 

Metal around the circlip boss 

area on the liner side of the 

circlip has been displaced. 

The nature of the metal removal 

suggests that the boss area of 

the piston has been fretted and 

cracked away allowing the circlip 

to dislodge. The gudgeon pin also 

shows evidence of fretting against 

the circlip (see Figure 6). 

The aft gudgeon pin is still in 

situ. There is no evidence of 

fretting with the gudgeon pin and 

the cylinder boss area remains 

intact. The circlip used for the 

aft retaining mechanism on the 

g u d geon pin had an incre a s e d 

s u rface area contact comp a red to 

the one used on the fo rwa rd end. 

This allowed increased re ta i n i n g 

c o n tact with the gudgeon pin. 

Metal particulate impact damage 

was noted on the crown and side 

of the second s tage piston. 

forward gudgeon pin. The 

hypothesised mode of failure is 

as follows: 

• The forward circlip frets against 

the piston boss area from 

repeated impact from the 

gudgeon pin; 

• The boss area on the cylinder 

breaks away allowing the circlip 

to dislodge; 

• The forward circlip binds with the 

cylinder liner, jamming the first 

stage piston; 

• The conrod continues to drive 

into the cylinder shattering the 

first stage piston; 

• The shattered piston drops 

into the sump, however the 

compressor continues to run at a 

reduced output level (15 bar); 

and 

• The drop in output is noted and 

the compressor shut down for 

investigation. 

CO NC LU S I O N S 

The Port MAC was rebuilt during 

the Maintenance Availability and 

set to work. The maintenance and 

operation of the MAC could not 

be attributed to the failure of 

the MAC. The spectrographic oil 

analyses conducted prior to the 

failure indicate that there was 

no abnormal wear or lubricating 

oil problems. 

The conclusions from th e 

i nve st i gation are that the Po rt 

M AC suffe red a cata st ro p h i c 

The Port MAC, even with this 

significant damage, continued 

to run with the second stage 

piston imparting a system 

pressure of 15 bar. The standby 

compressor was required to 

regain system pressure. 

The conclusions indicate that 

the cause of the failure can be 

attributed to the failure of the 

forward retaining circlip on the 

first stage piston. 

FIGURE 4 FIRST STAGE BIG END BEARING 

SHELL BOTTOM 

FIGURE 5 FORWARD GUDGEON PIN 

CIRCLIP 

The fi rst sta ge piston gudge o n 

pin securing device (circ l i p ) 

did not have adequ a te mating 

s u rface area. 

Fragments of metal were found 

in close proximity to this area 

however the size and type of 

fragments indicate that this 

damage was most probably 

sustained through carry over 

from the fir st stage failure. 

FA I LURE MODE 

The root cause and primary 

failure has been attributed to the 

fa i l u re. The fi rst sta ge pisto n 

g u d geon pin securing dev i c e 

( c i rclip) did not have adequ a te 

mating surface area. The circ l i p 

f re t ted and cra cked its housing, 

d i s l o d ged, and became bound 

w i th the fi rst sta ge cylinder 

l i n e r. The connecting ro d 

i mposed sufficient fo rces to 

s c o re the liner and shatter th e 

p i ston assembly. 

FIGURE 6 FORWARD CIRCLIP BOSS AREA


BY LIEUTENANT 

DANNY ELSTOB, RAN 

Fleet Intermediate 

Maintenance Activity 

This article is the next in the series on “What does MHQ’s Engineering 

Division do?” In the previous edition of the Bulletin, CMDR Damien Allan 

outlined the work of the Fleet Marine Engineering and Fleet Hull 

Engineering sections. This article aims to give the reader an insight into 

the goings on at the Fleet Intermediate Maintenance Activity (FIMA). 

BELOW DARWIN NAVAL BASE – HOME TO 

FIMA DARWIN 

As technology changes along with 

Navy culture, we are seeing an 

ever-increasing trend of smaller 

ship’s companies and increased 

requirement for ships to be 

available for sea. This has 

established a requirement to 

provide increased uniformed 

maintenance support, particularly 

at the Intermediate Level. This 

support includes, but is not 

limited to, maintenance, 

personnel interchanges or 

substitutes and training. 

It is important that Intermediate 

Level Maintenance (ILM) 

resources are used efficiently 

and effectively. FIMA is the 

organisation responsible for this 

resource management role. 

FIMA is primarily comprised of 

five Fleet Maintenance Activity 

Elements. These elements are 

physically located in Cairns, 

Darwin, Perth (Garden Island), 

Sydney (Garden Island) and at 

HMAS WATERHEN (Sydney’s 

North Shore), and each element 

services the intermediate 

maintenance needs of their local 

areas. FIMA is controlled centrally 

by Commander Fleet 

Maintenance (CFM) and the FIMA 

National Administration Office 

(FNAO) located within building 

103 at Garden Island in Sydney. 

THE PLAY E R S 

FIMA National Ad m i n i st ra t i o n 

O ffi c e 

FNAO as part of the Maritime 

Command Engineering Division 

(ENGDIV), provides business 

management, Quality Assurance, 

Management Information System 

support and Library support 

to all FIMA Units. Also FNAO 

hosts the FIMA Web site at 

fima.defence.gov.au. This site 

provides an insight to the other 

FIMA units. 

FIMA CA I R N S 

The primary role of FIMA Cairns is 

the maintenance support of the 

Cairns Based Fleet Units 

(CBFUs), in particular 

FREMANTLE Class Patrol Boats 

(FCPB) and Landing Craft – 

Heavy (LCH) with only a minor 

maintenance involvement in the 

Hydrographic Ships and Sur vey 

Motor Launches. In providing this 

maintenance support, FIMA 

provides a valuable service to the 

Maritime Commander in keeping 

the Northern Fleet operational. 

FIMA DA RW I N 

The primary function of FIMA 

Darwin is to provide a high level 

of maintenance support to the 

Darwin based FCPBs and LCHs. 

FIMA Darwin also provides 

support to visiting Ships and a 

base and workshop facility for the 

Deployed FIMA Assistance Group 

(DFAG) when in the Darwin area. 

The relocation of the FCPBs from 

Sydney and Perth to Darwin 

Naval Base was completed in 

November 2001. Thirty billets


2 3 

where transferred to the Darwin 

area in support of the relocation. 

FIMA PERT H 

FIMA Perth provides workshop 

and specialist assistance to ships 

and submarines home-por ted at 

Fleet Base West (FBW). 

Maintenance on ships that are 

away from homeport or abroad is 

carried out by a DFAG. An AMP 

was conducted on HMAS 

FIMA WAT E R H E N 

FIMA Waterhen is ideally 

positioned to support Mine 

Warfare and Clearance Diving 

Group (MCDGRP) assets. The 

organisation is developing an 

in-depth level of technical 

expertise, primarily with HUON 

Class Mine Hunters Coastal 

systems and equipment. This is 

achieved by working closely with 

the Mine Warfare Faculty and 

FIMA as a whole achieves 

outstanding results in providing 

a timely and effective technical 

service to fleet units where and 

when needed. 

COMIC RELIEF 

M a n a ger Ve rsus the Engineer 

C o n ve rs a t i o n 

A man is flying in a hot air 

balloon and realises he is lost. 

He reduces height and spots a 

man down below. He lowers the 

balloon further and shouts, 

“Excuse me, can you help me? 

I promised my friend I would 

meet him half an hour ago, 

but I don’t know where I am.” 

The man below says, “Yes. 

You are in a hot air balloon, 

hovering approximately 20 to 30 

feet above this field. You are 

between 40 and 42 degrees N. 

latitude, and between 58 and 

60 degrees W, longitude. 

DECHAINEUX in Manila in the 

Philippines in August 2001 and 

an LM2500 Gas Turbine was 

changed out in HMAS ADELAIDE 

during Exercise KAKADU V in 

July/August 2001. The FIMA 

Perth Skills Development Centre 

(SDC) commenced in April 2001. 

The scheme will enable Seamen 

Technical Sailors to progress their 

Trade Competency Logs while 

ashore and has been established 

to reduce the overall training 

burden on Fleet units. The Centre 

has been tremendously 

successful in improving our 

technical sailors hand skills. 

FIMA SY D N E Y 

The main focus of FIMA Sydney is 

the support of ships based at 

Fleet Base East (FBE). Over the 

past year FIMA Sydney has 

implemented a Skills 

Development Centre (SDC) like 

FIMA Perth, and has also 

introduced the Navy Youth 

Program, which is an exciting new 

way of attracting young people to 

consider a career in the Navy. 

The Program involves a twelveweek 

course centred on work 

experience in FIMA Sydney. 

During the course, there will be 

opportunities for the participants 

to visit ships and other 

establishments. 

the Mine Warfare and Clearance 

Diving Sustainment Management 

Office (MCDSMO) and their 

In-Service Support (ISS) 

contractors. 

FIMA SUPPORT 

All FIMA units including the DFAG 

have provided stalwart support to 

a variety of activities including 

Operations STABILIZE, TANAGER, 

BEL ISI, CRANBERRY, SLIPPER, 

RELEX and Operation TEE-BONE 

in the Southern Ocean. Support 

to major exercises such as 

KAKADU and Fleet Concentration 

Periods in the Darwin area 

remain prominent items on the 

FIMA calendar. FIMA as a whole 

achieves outstanding results in 

providing a timely and ef fective 

technical service to fleet units 

WHERE AND WHEN NEEDED. 

“You must be an engineer,” says 

the balloonist. 

“I am” replies the man. “How did 

you know?” 

“Well” says the balloonist, 

“everything you have told me is 

technically correct, but I have no 

idea what to make of your 

information, and the fact is I am 

still lost.” 

The man below says, “You must 

be a manager.” 

“I am” replies the balloonist, 

“But how did you know?” 

“Well,” says the man, “you don’t 

know where you are, or where 

you are going. You have made a 

promise, which you have no idea 

how to keep, and you expect me 

to solve your problem. The fact 

is you are in the exact same 

position you were in before 

we met, but now it is somehow 

my fault”.

2 4 N AV Y EN G I N E E R I N G B U L L ET IN F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

BY CAPT P.A.FIELD OAM RAN 

Engineering Division 

Annual Report 2001 

The Engineering Division in the Maritime Command is a flexible, 

responsive and innovative component of the Maritime Command that 

is focussed on providing a quality service to Fleet units and the FEGs. 

The Engineering Division supports the Sea Training Group and provides 

a wide range of specialist and general engineering services to the Fleet. 

It comprises the Fleet Headquarters Staff, the Mobile Operational 

Technical Units and the FIMA National organisation, with units in 

HMAS CAIRNS, HMAS WATERHEN, HMAS STIRLING, Darwin Naval 

Base and Garden Island Sydney. 

The Chief Staff Officer 

E n g i n e e ring, CAPT Paul Field OA M , 

is the Maritime Commander’s 

principal advisor on engineering 

matters. He is also responsible 

for the management of the Fleet 

technical charge qualification 

program and to the Chief of Staff 

for the corporate governance of 

the Engineering Division. 

This year has been exciting and 

challenging. During EX 

TASMANEX, several Fleet units 

suffered defects that adversely 

affected the conduct of the 

exercise. Engineering Division 

have since worked closely with 

the FEGs to improve the reliability 

of the Fleet. Key issues included 

resolving main engine problems 

in HMAS SUCCESS, solving 

electrical power problems in 

ANZAC Class ships and improving 

the retention of electrical 

technical sailors in FFGs. The 

measure of our success this year, 

however, has been the reliable 

performance of our ships during 

OP RELEX and OP SLIPPER, with 

few defects that have significantly 

affected operations. 

Operations at sea are well 

supported from the shore by the 

FIMA organization, who have 

enjoyed a very good year. The 

Skills Development Centres have 

improved the competence of our 

technical sailors, prior to their 

first sea posting. FIMA is doing 

high quality work at low cost and 

is becoming the service provider 

of choice to the DMO. The Navy 

Youth Program, a new work 

experience program at FIMA 

S y d n ey, has enjoyed early success 

with over half of the participants 

planning to join the Navy. The 

FIMA Sydney diesel re-build team 

has been reformed and has 

successfully overhauled diesel 

engines in HMAS NEWCASTLE 

and HMAS MELBOURNE. 

FIMA has actively suppor ted Fleet 

units ‘where and when needed’. 

This year, FIMA sailors steamed 

an illegal fishing vessel back to 

Australia from South Africa, 

deployed to Darwin to support 

EXERCISE KAKADU and have 

deployed in HMAS KANIMBLA, 

as part of Australia’s contribution 

to the ‘War Against Terrorism’. 

In 2002, Fleet Engineering Staff 

will be fully committed to the 

work up of Fleet units. FIMA is set 

to expand the Navy Youth 

Program with two new courses 

and will maintain and expand the 

suite of technical services offered 

to the Fleet. Engineering Division 

will improve the measurement 

and reporting of its output and 

provide quantitative and 

qualitative measures of the wor th 

of FIMA. With an eye on the 

future, FIMA Cairns and FIMA 

Darwin will need to begin to 

prepare for the introduction of a 

new Class of Patrol Vessel and 

FIMA Sydney and Perth and the 

MOTUs, need to find the best way 

to adapt and contribute to the 

FCIMS support environment. 

The Engineering Division has 

accomplished a lot this year. 

Next year, we are focussed on 

leveraging off our impr ovements 

to provide a better service to the 

Fleet. Our challenges are to 

maintain the momentum, 

continuously improve the quality 

of our services and prepare for 

the future.


2 5 

Revised Policy for 

Technical Sailor Promotion 

to Commissioned Rank 


RAY CAIRNEY, RAN 

This article aims to provide an update on the policy regarding the 

Engineer Officer Scheme. It is not a formal policy document but a 

view of where the policy on Engineer Officers is likely to be in the 

very near future. 

In June 1998 the Engineering 

Advisory Council (EAC) gave inprinciple 

endorsement to the 

introduction of an Electronic 

Technical equivalent of the 

Marine Technical Charge 

Certificate (MTCC) and Aviation 

Maintenance Certificate of 

Competence (AMCC). At the 

same meeting the Chief Naval 

Engineer also endorsed the 

establishment of an Advanced 

Diploma (in a relevant technology 

discipline) (ADT) as the indicative 

minimum educational 

qualification for ME/WE/AE CQ. 

With these two decisions in place 

there was then the opportunity to 

establish a common qualification 

framework for promotion to 

commissioned rank across the 

three engineering disciplines. 

In November 2000, the Ad va n c e d 

Diploma (Te chnical) st ream wa s 

i n t roduced to provide CC qu a l i fi e d 

Senior Sailors with an avenue to 

p ro gress to Engineer Offi c e r 

w i thout the need to underta ke a 

four year engineering degre e . 

The introduction of the ETCC was 

announced in June 2001 with the 

Defence Instruction [DI(N) PERS 

75-43)] being issued in mid 

October 2001. 

E NGINEER OFFICER 

S CHEME (EOS) 

All of the current and previous 

schemes through which in-service 

candidates were able to seek 

promotion to commissioned rank 

as an Engineer Of ficer (EO) have 

now been rolled into a single 

scheme known as ‘The Engineer 

Officer Scheme’ (EOS). The 

substantial change is the 

introduction of the Advanced 

Diploma (Technical) AD(T) stream 

which strives to recognise the 

experience, technical charge 

qualification and competence of 

technical senior sailors. The EOS 

does not include the Warrant 

Officer Entry Scheme, as officers 

entering through this scheme are 

Prescribed Duties officers vice 

EOs. There is more detail on the 

Warrant Officer Entry Scheme 

later in this article. 

The existing avenues of Engineer 

Officer Sailor Entry (SE)degree 

streams (RMIT/ADFA/ 

Undergraduate) are not af fected 

by the introduction of the AD(T) 

stream and remain open to all 

technical and non-technical 

sailors. The Australian Maritime 

College in Launceston remains an 

option for eligible Marine 

Technical sailors. 

All of the current and 

previous schemes through 

which in-service candidates 

were able to seek promotion 

to commissioned rank as an 

EO have now been rolled into 

a single scheme known as 

‘ The Engineer Officer 

Scheme’ (EOS). 

All EOS candidates now attend 

a common EOS Selection Board 

with membership comprising: 

• CAPT GL EN 1 (Chairman) 

• SORMIT 2 (Member) 

• a DNOP representative (Member) 

• a Navy psychologist (Member) 

The EOS comprises two streams 

differentiated by the possession, 

or not, of the MTCC/ETCC/AMCC. 

As the ETCC has only been 

introduced recently, there is a 

population of ET sailors for whom 

this method of dif ferentiation 

does not readily apply. However, 

as detailed in DI(N) PERS 75-43, 

the ETCC will become a

2 6 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T IN F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 

mandatory prerequisite to sit on 

Officer Selection Board for AD(T) 

studies commencing from 01 

January 2003, while ET personnel 

sitting Officer Selection Boards 

for studies commencing prior to 

01 January 2003 are exempt the 

requirement to hold the ETCC 

provided they are fully qualified 

for promotion to CPO. 

Notes 1. When DNPR(E&L) is a CAPT GL 

EN, it is preferred that person chairs the 

board. 

2. SORMIT has been chosen as it is 

assumed most candidates will be applying 

for RMIT. NPTC-C advice will be sought for 

candidates applying for ADFA or other 

institutions. 

EOS – PRE CH A RGE OR 

C E RT I F I CATE OF CO M P E T E NC E 

All non-te chnical sailors and 

AT/ET/MT sailors from AB to PO 

( w i thout CC) will continue to be 

s e l e c ted for appointment as 

o ffi c e rs in accordance with th e 

ge n e ral provisions of ABR 10 , 

C h a p ter 10 Annex B (the next 

amendment will see this Annex 

re-titled ‘Engineer Offi c e r 

S cheme’). Successful candidate s 

then comp l e te a fo u r- ye a r 

B a chelor of Engineering in 

one of the re qu i red engineeri n g 

disciplines. In view of th e 

s u b stantial pers o n n e l 

i n f ra st ru c t u re already in place, 

n o n -A D FA degree studies will 

continue to be conducte d 

p ri m a ri ly at RMIT. 

Candidates wishing to study at 

ADFA will be required to 

undertake the same 

examinations and follow the 

same procedures as RMIT 

candidates, however, eligibility for 

entry to UNSW will be confirmed 

through NPTC-C rather than Staff 

Officer RMIT. Ex Leading Seamen 

attending ADFA will be assigned 

as part of the Advanced Student 

Squadron while ex Able Seamen 

will join the undergraduate cadet 

body. However, the academic 

studies will be the same. 

Successful candidates will be 

subject to Bi-annual Academic 

Review. 

Officer training will be conducted 

in accordance with extant 

instructions for personnel 

undertaking degree studies. 

After successful completion of 

degree studies personnel will be 

posted to undertake the 

appropriate application course. 

At this point they will join the 

normal EO Charge Qualification 

(CQ) training/c a reer pro gre s s i o n , 

sta rting with a Cert i fi c a te of 

C o mp e tence and later pro gre s s i n g 

to Charge Qualifi c a t i o n . 

EOS – CH A RGE OR CERT I F I CAT E 

OF CO M P E T E NC E 

All AT/ET/MT sailors with a CC, 

by virtue of their accumulated 

training and experience only 

require an Advanced Diploma 

(in the relevant discipline) to 

enable them to enter the EO 

charge program. Notwithstanding 

the AD(T) Stream being the 

normal avenue for CC qualified 

senior sailors progressing to 

commissioned rank, they remain 

eligible to undertake degree 

studies at RMIT/ADFA and are 

not compelled to undertake only 

advanced diploma studies. 

Sailors will continue to apply for 

acceptance as Officer Candidates 

(OCs) in accordance with the 

general requirements of ABR 10, 

Chapter 10 Annex A, with the 

exception that the educational 

requirement of Academic Level 

Technical (AL T) will be removed. 

In its place will be the 

requirement for personnel to 

provide written evidence of 

acceptance to undertake an 

approved course of study at a 

TAFE or university before 

appearing at an Of ficer Selection 

Board (OSB). Initially each 

curriculum will need to be 

approved by DNPR(E&L), 

however, with time a 

comprehensive list of approved 

courses will be produced. The 

course/s must allow the OC to 

complete the Advanced Diploma 

within 18 months full time study. 

OCs who demonstrate superior 

performance during AD(T) studies 

(credit average or better) may, 

subject to RAN requirements, be 

offered the opportunity to 

articulate their studies into a full 

Engineering Degree. 

Sailors who successfully 

complete their Advanced Diploma 

will be appointed as of ficers and 

will progress to officer training at 

HMAS CRESWELL, which will be 

followed by Application courses 

in the appropriate disciplines. 

RPL may be available on some 

application courses outlined in 

the following paragraphs. 

Ex-MT sailors who hold a CC 

qu a l i fication norm a l ly will not be 

re qu i red to underta ke the Mari n e 

E n g i n e e ring Application Course as 

these people are considered to 

possess substantial and comp l e te 

Ex-MT sailors who hold a 

CC qu a l i fication norm a l ly will 

not be re qu i red to underta ke 

the Marine Engineeri n g 

Application Cours e . . . 

p ropulsion system knowl e d ge. 

Ex-MT personnel with o u t 

a p p ro p ri a te platfo rm experi e n c e 

will be re qu i red to underta ke 

M E AC and components of th e 

a s s o c i a ted AMEO task book at 

the discretion of DNOP in 

c o n s u l tation with the FMEO. 

Ex-ET sailors normally will be 

required to undertake the 

Weapons Electrical Engineering 

Application Course (WEEAC) and 

progress their associated AWEEO 

study guide to achieve WEE 

Certificate of Competence 

(WEECC) on completion of

N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B U LL ET I N F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 

2 7 

Advanced Diploma studies. 

These ex-ET sailors normally do 

not possess the full suite of 

combat system knowledge to 

proficiently under take DWEEO 

duties. However, they may apply 

for recognition of prior learning 

for elements of the WEAC. They 

may also seek exemptions from 

sections of the AWEEO Study 

Guide, but all must sit and pass 

the oral board to achieve their 

Certificate of Competence in 

order to pursue a career in the 

WEE Charge Program. 

Prescribed Duties of ficers and 

are allocated a Primar y 

Qualification in accordance with 

their former sailor category 

(e.g. GL MT, GL ET). 

WOE officers without an 

Advanced Diploma will have 

their career options limited, 

as they are not permitted to be 

posted to an EO char ge position. 

Competitive WOE officers 

may be offered the 

opportunity of completing 

an Advanced Diploma on a 

full-time basis . . . 

Ex-AT CC qualified sailors may not 

be required to complete all 

components of the Air 

Engineering Officer Application 

Course (AEOAC) prior to 

undertaking the duties of Deputy 

AEO, but they will be required to 

obtain the AEOCC. 

WA R RANT OFFICER ENTRY 

S CH E M E 

The general provisions of the 

WOE Scheme are detailed in ABR 

10 Chapter 9, however, further 

discussion with particular 

reference to technical WOs is 

included here for clarity. WOE 

officers are commissioned as 

A full career option requires the 

completion of an AD(T) or degree 

and subsequent career 

requirements identical to EOS – 

Post CC. Competitive WOE 

officers may be offered the 

opportunity of completing an 

Advanced Diploma on a full-time 

basis to meet the full 

requirements of a Charge 

Engineer position. Alternatively, 

individual WOE officers may 

complete an AD(T) in their own 

time utilising existing RAN 

Educational Support Schemes. 

RPL may be available from the 

tertiary institution on an 

individual basis. 

They may, however, be liable for 

service as Deputy Engineering 

Officers (or equivalent) to meet 

operational requirements, 

providing they possess an 

Engineer Officer’s Certificate of 

Competence. (In most cases for 

WOE officers, the MTCC, ETCC 

and AMCC may be directly 

articulated to the MEOCC, 

WEECC and AEOCC respectively. 

Some personnel may require a 

short spell at sea as a bridging 

opportunity, and some may need 

to complete a Harbour 

Watchkeeping Certificate.) 

TABLE 1 

Seniority on Appointment 

Seniority on Seniority on Appointment following Advanced 

Engineering Officer’s Scheme Entry Type Appointment following Degree Studies Diploma (Te chnical) St u d i e s 

Warrant Officer Entry LEUT O/3 N/A N/A 

Ex WO Technical remaining in current discipline LEUT O/4 LEUT O/2 

Ex WO Technical changed to another Engineering discipline LEUT O/3 N/A 

Ex WO Non-Technical LEUT O/3 N/A 

Ex CPO Technical remaining in current discipline LEUT O/3 LEUT O/1 

Ex CPO Technical with CC changed to another Engineering Discipline LEUT O/2 N/A 

Ex CPO Non-Technical LEUT O/1 N/A 

Ex PO Technical remaining in current discipline LEUT O/2 LEUT O/P 

Ex PO Technical with CC changed to another Engineering Discipline LEUT O/1 N/A 

Ex PO Non-Technical LEUT O/P N/A 

LS with no Post Secondary Qualifications SBLT O/1 N/A 

AB with no Post Secondary Qualifications SBLT O/P N/A

2 8 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL LE T IN F E B R U A RY 2 00 2 

THE ADVA NCED DIPLO M A 

There are currently a wide variety 

of Advanced Diplomas being 

offered by a range of educational 

service providers. Due to the 

different career paths resulting 

from the transition from 

SAILSTRUC to CBTA, and the 

differing entry requirements of 

individual training providers it has 

not yet been possible to provide 

definitive guidelines for Advanced 

Diploma eligibility. The future 

intention is to compile a register 

of suitable courses in the vicinity 

of major fleet bases and 

facilities. In the interim, 

candidates must approach an 

institution of their choice and 

then seek DNPR(E&L) approval 

for the proposed course of study. 

RANK AND SENIORITY ON 

APPOINTMENT FOR SA I LO R S 

CO M P L E T I NG ADVA NC E D 

D I P LOMA AND DEGREE ST U D I E S 

Rank and seniority on 

appointment are determined on 

the basis of the sailor’s rank and 

post secondary qualifications 

held on the day immediately 

preceding appointment. Although 

provisional rank is recognised, 

due to the methodology of civil 

accreditation of naval training, 

post secondary qualifications are 

based on those applicable to 

substantive sailor rank held. 

Personnel undertaking degree 

studies do not accrue seniority in 

the rank on appointment. Once 

they successfully complete the 

degree they will be promoted as 

per the schedule in Table 1. 

Personnel who initially under take 

Advanced Diploma studies 

remain in their rank until the 

Advanced Diploma has been 

awarded, however, they do 

accrue seniority as a sailor. 

They are promoted to the rank 

of Lieutenant on award of the 

Diploma. Should these people 

subsequently proceed to degree 

studies, their seniority as a 

Lieutenant will be adjusted on 

completion of degree studies to 

align with that of the degree 

streamed CC qualified sailor 

entering the EOS from the same 

sailor rank. 

Recent policy development has 

identified the need to recognise 

the previous technical experience 

of CC qualified senior sailors who 

opt for degree studies in an 

engineering discipline other than 

that which they were originally 

trained; for example an ex MT CC 

qualified sailor under taking an 

Aerospace Engineering degree. 

Recognition will take the form of 

additional seniority as indicated 

in Table 1. 

S U M M A RY 

The policies outlined in this 

article provide a unified 

framework for in-service 

candidate entry to the officer 

corp as Engineer Of ficers. 

Figure 1 shows the career paths 

available to all successful OC 

applicants in the EO stream and 

Table 1 details rank and seniority 

on appointment for EOS.


2 9 

Officer Promotions 

INCUMBENT RANK NAME DATE ESTABLISHMENT 

CMDR ME SM Q Donley, LP 01-Jan-02 Stirling (SM FEG) 

CMDR ME Q Dunne, ME 01-Jan-02 Ranlo Singapore 

CMDR WEA Q Lawrence, C J 01-Jan-02 816 SQN 

CMDR WE Q Mccourt, MG 01-Jan-02 Harman (ACSC) 

CMDR WE Q Purcell, MS 01-Jan-02 Harman (ACSC) 

CMDR WE Q WInslade, SC 01-Jan-02 Kuttabul (NSC SMO) 

LCDR ME Q Arthur, R A 01-Jan-02 Kuttabul (AAS SMO) 

LCDR WE Q Barnes, R 01-Jan-02 Kuttabul (TA LOG) 

LCDR ME Q Bird, N D 01-Jan-02 Stirling (SRCO-WA) 

LCDR ME Q Blackman, M J 01-Jan-02 Stirling (FIMA Perth) 

LCDR MT Brown, A W 01-Jan-02 Kuttabul (SRCO-EA) 

LCDR AE Capper, C L 01-Jan-02 817 SQN 

LCDR ME Q Carmock, M A 01-Jan-02 HS Ship Blue Crew 

LCDR WE Q Charles, M R 01-Jan-02 Harman (ANZAC SMO) 

LCDR ME SM Q Forgie, A 01-Jan-02 Stirling (TA SM) 

LCDR ME Q Gishubl, R M 01-Jan-02 Harman (MHC PROJ) 

LCDR ME Q Green, G D 01-Jan-02 Darwin 

LCDR ME Q Griffiths, D W 01-Jan-02 Harman (ANZAC PROJ) 

LCDR WE O Hutchinson, D W 01-Jan-02 UK RAF Cranwell 

LCDR WE Q Kavanagh, D J 01-Jan-02 Adelaide 

LCDR WE Q Mills, S J 01 - J a n - 02 C e r b e rus (ANZAC PRO J ) 

LCDR WE Q Morris, P C 01-Jan-02 MHQ AUST 

LCDR WE Q O’Leary, M R 01-Jan-02 Harman (ANZAC PROJ) 

LCDR ME Q O’Rourke, D P 01-Jan-02 Warramunga 

LCDR AE Q Rowson, A M 01-Jan-02 RAAF Williams 

LCDR ME SM Q Sammons, J C 01-Jan-02 Stirling (SM SMO) 

LCDR WE Q Soper, P D 01-Jan-02 Harman (MHC PROJ) 

LCDR MT Spooner, S W 01-Jan-02 Cairns (PBL CLO) 

LCDR ME Q Thompsett, V I 01-Jan-02 Stirling (FIMA Perth) 

LCDR WE Q van Vliet, L 01-Jan-02 Harman (DSCM) 

LCDR WEA Q Watson, A H 01-Jan-02 UK RNAS Yeovilton 

T/LCDR WE Q Price, W M 03-Aug-01 SC FEG 

LEUT WE Ashdown, C R 01-Jan-02 Arunta 

LEUT WE Bailey, M A 01-Jan-02 Arunta 

LEUT WEA Burr, K 01-Jan-02 AVN FEG 

LEUT WE Davis, M V 01-Jan-02 Brisbane 

LEUT WE Gram, D 01-Jan-02 SC FEG 

LEUT AE Holgate, G P 01-Jan-02 AVN FEG 

LEUT ME Howe, R E 01-Jan-02 Westralia 

INCUMBENT RANK NAME DATE ESTABLISHMENT 

LEUT ME Lakey, G T 01-Jan-02 Cerberus 

LEUT WE Miskelly, A B 01-Jan-02 Arunta 

LEUT WE Robertson, M A 01-Jan-02 Warramunga 

LEUT WEA ROSSOTTI, D F 01-Jan-02 DMO 

LEUT MT ROWE, R 01-Jan-02 Maritime Command 

LEUT ME SHANNON, J D 01-Jan-02 Cerberus 

LEUT WEA SIMMONDS, M R 01-Jan-02 AVN FEG 

LEUT AE SKINNER, S N 01-Jan-02 816 SQN 

LEUT MT WIDDISON, T J 01-Jan-02 Kuttabul 

LEUT WE WINTER, A C 01-Jan-02 Melbourne 

LEUT WE WREN, S J 01-Jan-02 Darwin 

LEUT MT YOUNG, M 01-Jan-02 DMO 

P/LEUT (WE) CRONIN, M F 01-Jan-02 Cerberus 

P/LEUT (ME) GUERIN, L A 01-Jan-02 Kanimbla 

P/LEUT (WE) JONES, C E 01-Jan-02 Newcastle 

P/LEUT (ME) Kremer, A J 01-Jan-02 Arunta 

P/LEUT (ME) McLoughlin, C W 01-Jan-02 Warramunga 

P/LEUT (ME) Neale, S A 01-Jan-02 Warramunga 

P/LEUT (ME) Neurauter, C 01-Jan-02 Tobruk 

P/LEUT (WE) Nissen, J R 01-Jan-02 ANZAC 

P/LEUT (ME) Parsons, T R 01-Jan-02 Success 

P/LEUT (ME) Price, G W 01-Jan-02 Westralia 

P/LEUT (ME) Smith, B R 01-Jan-02 Success 

P/LEUT (WE) Teasdale, R S 01-Jan-02 Warramunga 

P/LEUT (WE) Wilkinson, J R 01-Jan-02 ANZAC 

SBLT (WEA) Angstmann, M K 01-Jan-02 Kuttabul 

SBLT WEA Arney, S G 01-Jan-02 816 SQN 

SBLT (ME) Benning, L A 01-Jan-02 Adelaide 

SBLT WEA Dantoc, M M D L 01-Jan-02 723 SQN 

SBLT WEA Fairs, G A C 01-Jan-02 817 SQN 

SBLT (WE) Grosse, D M 01-Jan-02 Canberra 

SBLT AE Kyle, C G 01-Jan-02 816 SQN 

SBLT (WE) Melville, N J 01-Jan-02 Warramunga 

SBLT (WE) Milne, D K 01-Jan-02 Cerberus 

SBLT (ME) Milne, R D 01-Jan-02 Sydney 

SBLT (WE) Shanny, J P 01-Jan-02 Sydney 

SBLT (WE) Speke, M D 01-Jan-02 Sydney 

SBLT (WE) Sweet, G L B 01-Jan-02 Adelaide 

SBLT (WE) White, B J 01-Jan-02 Darwin


Graduating Weapons 

Electrical Engineering 

Application Course (WEAC ) 

TOP SUB LIEUTENANT PHIL HOUEN 

M I D D L E SUB LIEUTENANT CARMEN EDHOUSE 

BOTTOM SUB LIEUTENANT DANE NEWMAN 

The Weapons Electrical 

Engineering Application Course 

prepares junior WE Of ficers for 

their initial posting as an AWEEO 

in the fleet. WEAC builds on the 

theoretical knowledge learned at 

university/TAFE by providing the 

naval application of engineering 

technology and naval engineering 

administration. Course member s 

come from a wide variety of 

backgrounds and academic 

institutions including ADFA, direct 

entry and undergraduate entry 

officers with degrees from civilian 

universities, degree stream sailor 

changeover officers from ADFA 

and RMIT and senior sailor 

changeover officers with 

Advanced Diploma of Technology. 

There are generally two WEE 

Application Courses conducted 

each year. The earlier course is 

usually more heavily attended 

with the course commencing in 

June/July having fewer students. 

We look forward to seeing the 

following WEAC 28 graduates in 

the Fleet in the near future. 

Following is a brief outline of the 

graduating WEAC class. 

Sub Lieutenant Phil Houen 

joined the Navy in January 1996 

and graduated from ADFA with a 

Bachelor of Electrical 

Engineering. 

“I think of WEAC as putting the 

theory into practice.” SBLT Houen 

said “There was a lot crammed 

into six months. It included two 

months for Junior Of ficer’s 

Leadership Course and Advanced 

NBCD plus a few weeks of touring 

various establishments. One of 

the strong points of WEAC was 

the different experiences that 

people brought to the course 

and the diffe rent paths th ey 

took to get there.” 

While SBLT Houen enjoyed his 

time on WEAC, he is looking 

forward to the experience he will 

gain as he continues as AWEEO 

in HMAS MELBOURNE. 

Sub Lieutenant Carmen 

Edhouse began her career in the 

Royal Australian Navy on 20 

January 1997. Carmen, from 

Devonport in Tasmania, joined 

the Australian Defence Force 

Academy and completed a 

Bachelor of Electrical Engineering 

degree. 

“My first year was an intense 

induction into the military culture, 

and was full of many surprises 

and opportunities.” Carmen has 

told the Bulletin. “At the 

beginning of 1998, I spent the 

university holidays in HMAS 

CANBERRA as part of the training 

cruise program undertaken by all 

midshipmen in their second year 

at ADFA. During the May 

semester break I found myself 

working at FIMA CAIRNS for two 

intriguing and beneficial weeks.” 

“Third year became more 

academically driven, as well 

as completing the military 

component of my training. 

As part of my engineering degree 

I achieved 60 days of engineering 

work experience. This was broken 

up into two sections, 30 days at 

the beginning of third year within 

our respective service, and 30 

days at the beginning of forth 

year in outside industr y.” 

Carmen’s work experience 

included working with Boeing 

Australia at HMAS WATSON 

testing the Collins Class 

Submarine Combat Data System, 

and at the end of 1999, 

spending time with United 

Defense in Minneapolis, 

Minneasota in the MK 45 mod 4 

Gun Section. 

Having completed WEAC, Carmen 

intends making the most of her 

current posting as AWEEA in 

HMAS NEWCASTLE 

Sub Lieutenant Dane Newman 

joined the RAN in July 1998 

having already completed an 

Engineering Degree prior to 

enlisting. Although he joined as 

an Electronic Technician, he was 

keen to make use of his studies 

and become an Engineer in the 

Navy. Following a successful 

officer selection board in 

November 2000, he commenced 

the New Entry Officers Course 

(NEOC) at HMAS CRESWELL in 

January 2001. Towards the end 

of NEOC he spent four weeks 

onboard HMAS KANIMBLA for the 

NEOC training cruise. Dane 

commenced WEAC training at 

HMAS CERBERUS in July 2001 

and soon found himself back 

at HMAS CRESWELL where he 

completed the Junior Of ficers 

Leadership Course and Advanced 

NBCD. 

“I have enjoyed my time in the 

Navy, and I have found it 

rewarding to be an Of ficer.” 

Dane said. “Having spent the last 

12 months in training I’m looking 

forward to rejoining the Fleet. 

I eagerly await the many 

challenges and opportunities that 

will arise during my time as an 

AWEEO onboard HMAS ANZAC.”


3 1 

Sailor Promotions 

RANK NAME PROM TO SHIP/ESTABLISHMENT 

A/CPOET Crabb CPOET Kuttabul 

A/CPOET Cross CPOET Kuttabul 

A/CPOET Scott CPOET Kanimbla 

POATV Burden CPOATV Stirling 

POATV Edwards CPOATV Albatross 

POATV McGuinness CPOATV 805 SQN 

POET Evans CPOET Canberra 

POET Foster CPOET Kuttabul 

POET Free CPOET DEFCEN Melb 

POET Hendrie CPOET HS Ship Red Crew 

POET Kirgan CPOET Harman 

POET McMillan CPOET Kuttabul 

POET Robinson CPOET Coonawarra 

POET Strawhan CPOET Kuttabul 

POET Weller CPOET Stirling 

POET Westerlaken CPOET Waterhen 

POMT Gilgen CPOMT Cerberus 

POMT Henke CPOMT Adelaide 

POMT Miller CPOMT Stirling 

POMT Stark CPOMT Jervis Bay 

POMT SM Harris CPOMT SM ANZAC 

POMT SM Hutchinson CPOMT SM Harman 

A/POET Cornelius POET Albatross 

LSATA Degraaf POATA 723 SQN 

LSATV Levy POATV 817 SQN 

LSATV Little POATV 816 SQN 

LSET Digweed POET Stirling 

LSET Larsen POET Westralia 

LSET Marotte POET HS Red Ship Crew 

LSET Morotte POET Harman 

LSET Wright POET Coonawarra 

LSET SM Iverson POET SM Stirling 

LSET SM Wilcox POET SM NHQ-SA 

LSMT Brooker POMT HS Ship White Crew 

A/LSET Pulleine LSET Warramunga 

ABATA Adams LSATA Tobruk 

ABATA Conley LSATA Canberra 

ABATA Haywood LSATA Stirling 

ABATA Miller LSATA Albatross 

RANK NAME PROM TO SHIP/ESTABLISHMENT 

ABATA Norton LSATA Sydney 

ABATA Whelan LSATA Albatross 

ABATA Wratten LSATA 817 SQN 

ABATV Coghlan LSATV Canberra 

ABATV Griffith LSATV Success 

ABATV Haigh LSATV Albatross 

ABATV Hajek LSATV Albatross 

ABATV Lyons LSATV 816 SQN 

ABATV McDonnell LSATV Darwin 

ABATV McKendrick LSATV Albatross 

ABATV Mitsakis LSATV Albatross 

ABATV Richards LSATV Success 

ABATV Suhor LSATV 723 SQN/ ALB 

ABATV Tallon LSATV 817 SQN 

ABATV Tommlinson LSATV 817 SQN 

ABET Reynolds LSET Stirling


BY CPOMT DAVID MCCAMLEY 

Life on an MHC as a 

Technical Sailor 

NUSHIP DIAMANTINA is fast approaching the end of an intensive 

period of contractor sea trials that commenced in August of this year. 

She is the fifth Mine Hunter Coastal (MHC) to be produced at the 

Australian Defence Industries facility in the NSW city of Newcastle. 

During this period, the Technical Department has played an integral 

part in the success of the trials, as the contractors relinquished 

responsibility for the daily running and operation of the various 

machinery and electrical plant as well as the electronic systems. 

BELOW HMAS HAWKESBURY ON EXERCISES 

The Technical Department is sub 

divided into two smaller sections, 

the Marine Engineering and the 

Electronics Department which 

comprises of a Chief Petty Officer 

Marine Technician, who is 

supported by two Petty Of ficers, 

four Leading Seaman and four 

Able Seaman. 

The Marine Technical department 

is divided into two primary watch 

keeping responsibilities, the 

Platform System Manager (PSM) 

and the Assistant System 

Manager (ASM). 

The PSM conducts his wa tch in th e 

Machinery Control Room (MCR). 

From this position, the PSM is 

able to manage the operation of 

the two Main Switchboards and 

the three-platform system 

monitoring consoles each of 

which are designated with 

specific control and monitoring 

functions. Utilisation of the three 

consoles provides up to 90% of 

Main Engine, auxiliary platform 

and Damage Control system 

monitoring capability as well as 

60% remote control operating 

functionality. This requires a 

highly motivated and experienced 

operator with good system 

knowledge and communication 

skills. 

The ASM’s primary roles are to 

conduct visual rounds of all 

running machinery verifying 

correct operation, maintaining 

the auxiliary systems such as 

fuel, oil and fresh water and 

respond to alarms and 

emergencies as directed by 

the PSM. A high deg ree of 

responsibility is entrusted to 

the ASM’s, as they are effectively 

the eyes and ears of the PSM. 

The Main Propulsion Plant is 

driven by a 1600 kW, turbo 

charged, four stroke, low 

magnetic V8 diesel engine 

manufactured in Italy by 

Fincantieri. A multi plate clut ch 

assembly connects the engine to 

a 4 to 1 ratio gear box and 

propulsion shaft line. The five 

bladed Controllable Pitch 

Propeller is capable of being 

traversed to 89 degrees thus 

reducing drag and noise when 

mine hunting. 

The Auxiliary Propulsion System 

comprises of three hydraulically 

operated retractable propullsors 

that can be operated from the 

MCR, Bridge, Operations Room or 

connected to the Mine Hunting 

Auto Pilot providing automatic 

track keeping and hover mode for 

mine hunting operations. 

The ships electrical power is 

produced by three 365 kW diesel 

driven generators manufactured 

by Isotta Franschini. A power 

management system allows for 

automatic starting, paralleling 

and connection of stand by 

generators should a fault occur in 

a running generator. One 

generator provides sufficient 

power to meet the ships cruising 

requirements however a second 

generator is necessary should the 

Auxiliary Propulsion System be 

required due to the starting 

current of each propulsor being in 

the vicinity of 650 Amps. 

The Electronics Department, which 

also falls under the domain of th e 

C P O M T, comp rises of a Sonar, a 

Communications and a We a p o n s 

qu a l i fied sailor. Wi th the continual 

a d vancement of te chnology and 

s ystems onboard an MHC th e 

e l e c t ronics sailor tends to 

specialise in individual are a s 

ra ther than multi-skilling. Some of 

the systems the electronics sailor 

m a i n tains are outlined in th e 

fo l l owing para gra p h s .


3 3 

The 2093 Mine Hunting Variable 

Depth Sonar produced and 

supported by Thompson Marconi 

Sonar is state of the ar t 

directional ‘Beam Formed’ sonar. 

The array operates at various 

frequencies that can virtually take 

a picture of the seabed and 

surrounding area. 

The Tactical Data System, 

manufactured by BAE provides 

the interface between the 

operators and the electronic 

Mine Hunting/Sweeping systems. 

The system consists of five 

Multi Function Control Consoles 

that display and control, 

electronic inputs and outputs. 

These signals are received from 

the Sonar, Navigational Aids, 

Mine Disposal System and ESM 

via the Data Distribution Unit. 

Four consoles are located in the 

Operations Room with a fifth 

position located on the Bridge for 

use by the Of ficer of the Watch or 

the Surface Plotter. During Mine 

Hunting/Sweeping operations 

the ship is controlled from the 

Operations Room, thus providing 

the ship with pinpoint hovering 

accuracy. 

During Mine Hunting/Sweeping operations 

the ship is controlled from the Operations 

Room, thus providing the ship with pinpoint 

hovering accuracy. 

The CEA developed 

communications system is 

virtually identical in capability to 

that of an Anzac Frigate. The ship 

is Internet capable and Inmarsat 

B and C are carried. 

The main sur face/air armament 

is the Bofors 30-mm gun, plus 

two electronic counter measure 

chaff launchers. 

The Mine Disposal Vehicle (MDV ) 

is fi t ted with its own mini sonar 

and underwa ter camera 

c o n t rolled from the Opera t i o n s 

Room via fi b re optics in the te th e r 

cable. The MDV Submers i b l e 

vehicles deliver a Danish 

m a n u fa c t u red mine disposal 

e x p l o s i ve ch a rge to the mine. 

The sophistication of the various 

systems supports multiple 

redundancies. These re d u n d a n c i e s 

allow for contingencies, 

ranging from simple planned 

maintenance to action damage, 

to occur without inter fering with 

the ships assigned tasking. 

The planned maintenance re g i m e 

is deri ved from a comp u te r- 

ge n e ra ted database known as 

Anzac Maintenance Planning 

S ystem (AMPS). This syste m 

p rovides periodical planned 

m a i n tenance routines fo r 

a p p rox i m a te ly 150 individual fi t te d 

s ystems. The administ ra t i ve burd e n 

placed on wo rk centre manage rs 

responsible for the allocation, 

d i st ribution and compilation of th e 

routines can at times become 

daunting. When fa c to ring in oth e r 

a n c i l l a ry ta s ks that he perfo rm s , 

time const raints and minimal 

m a np ower due to pri m a ry wa tch 

keeping re qu i rements become 

m ajor fa c to rs . 

LEFT HUON DURING CONSTRUCTION


ABOVE HMAS HUON LEADS HMAS ANZAC, 

HMAS BRISBANE AND HMNZS TE KAHA 

OUT OF SYDNEY HARBOUR FOR THE START 

OF EXERCISE OCEAN PROTECTOR 

Although the workload at times 

can seem excessive, the state of 

the art equipment by its very 

nature provides a unique set of 

challenges that result in a high 

degree of job satisfaction. 

These circumstances however 

produce a two-fold ef fect in that 

because of the technology 

employed, the ships rely on a 

high degree of contractor suppor t 

for maintenance but gain in 

diagnostic proficiency. 

Consequently the technical 

department onboard, as with 

other fleet units, has lost or will 

lose to varying degrees, the 

fundamental core skills gained 

during previous service. 

Each member of the department 

is cross trained, to a degree, 

in mechanical and electrical 

specialities which fosters an 

atmosphere that relies greatly on 

team effort which is the situation 

onboard DIAMANTINA. 

When on task, the Ships 

C o mp a ny is inva ri a b ly closed 

up in a two wa tch defe n c e 

s ystem. This signifi c a n t ly 

reduces the off wa tch re st and 

re c reation time for the te ch n i c a l 

s a i l o rs as th ey are st i l l 

responsible for mainte n a n c e , 

and th ey also play a major ro l e 

in the damage contro l 

o rganisation onboard. 

As DIAMANTINA’s Commissioning 

d a te draws near, the crew as a 

whole are looking fo rwa rd to 

becoming an operational HMA 

Fleet unit and putting into pra c t i c e 

what has been learnt during a 

long but fruitful trials peri o d . 

About the author CPOMT McCamley joined 

the Navy in 1977 as an ETP and was 

posted to HMAS SWAN after initial 

Category Training. In 1985 after serving 

three years onboard HMAS JERVIS BAY, he 

accepted a posting to HMAS WATERHEN as 

commissioning crew of HMAS 

RUSHCUTTER. Since then CPOMT 

McCamley has had numerous posting t o 

various Mine Countermeasure Vessels 

culminating in the commissioning cr ew of 

HMAS Hawkesbury and the soon to be 

commissioned NUSHIP DIAMANTINA.


3 5 

Fleet Intermediate 

Maintenance Activity – 

HMAS Waterhen (FIMA-W) 

HMAS WATERHEN, the shore support facility for the Mine Warfare and 

Clearance Diving Group (MCDGRP), is a prime piece of real estate on 

Sydney Harbour at WAVERTON. The base has been an Australian 

Defence Force asset for many years, and as a result it has seen a great 

deal of change. Not only have the personnel and military hardware 

constantly changed, but the buildings and infrastructure located upon it 

have also been transformed dramatically in recent years. In 1994 a 

complete modernisation commenced, and this was completed in 

December 1996. 

In the early 1960’s WATERHEN 

consisted mainly of single-storey, 

timber-framed, corrugated iron 

and fibro buildings. The 

workshops supported the TON 

Class Minesweepers. The high 

power electrical workshop was at 

the northern end, the mechanical 

workshop at the southern end, 

and the shipwright workshop was 

in the middle. The Stokers and 

Chippies workshops opened onto 

the roadway on the eastern side 

allowing for work to be conducted 

outside. The Stokers workshop 

was very compact, approximately 

one fifth of the current facility. 

The battery shop was a small 

annex, adjacent to the northern 

end of the building. Electric 

motor rewinding and baking was 

carried out in the Greenies 

workshop. In the centre of the 

workshop was a bench about six 

feet long and four feet wide with 

hinged sides that when lif ted 

formed a giant uckers board. 

The uckers bits were made from 

the base sections of 40/60 mm 

Bofor shell casings and the dice 

of 75mm square shoring timber 

cut to form cubes and painted in 

international uckers colours. 

Many a lunch hour gave way to 

the sounds of dice throwing and 

uckers movement. One of the 

best two-handed games seen was 

between Dolly Gray and Bud 

Nilon in the early 1990’s, before 

the building was demolished. 

In recent years FIMA WATERHEN 

has seen many changes, not 

least of which is its name. With 

the ama l gamation of the old 

F I M A-W and the Mobile 

O p e rational Te chnical Un i t – M i n e 

Wa rfa re (MOTU-MW) in 2000, an 

o rganisation known as the Mine 

Wa rfa re Operational Engineeri n g 

G roup (MWOEG) was cre a te d . 

This name, howeve r, was short - 

l i ved and FIMA-W was re - b o rn . 

F I M A-W is now a ve ry modern 

facility with a wo rk fo rce capable 

of providing te chnical support to 

the new Coastal Minehunte rs 

(MHC) and other MCDGRP assets. 

FIMA-W is active in providing 

technical training for all 

personnel. Sailors are given the 

opportunity to under take further 

training via a newly implemented 

program in which civilian 

instructors are utilised on-site to 

provide expert instruction, 

resulting in a more successful 

rate of competency progression. 

Most sailors posted to FIMA-W 

operate from Building 3 at 

WATERHEN. The ground floor 

consists of a main wor kshop 

dedicated to hull and propulsion 

BY LIEUTENANT PAUL DENNENY, 

CSC, RAN 

TOP FIMA-W BATTERY SHOP STAFF 

CONDUCTING ELECTROLYTE SPECIFIC 

GRAVITY TES T 

BOTTOM VIEW OF FIMA WATERHEN 

(BUILDING 3) FROM THE NORTHERN 

WHARF


maintenance, and smaller 

workshops for woodwork, ships 

husbandry, battery maintenance, 

and glass reinforced plastic 

repair. The upper floor comprises 

an electronics workshop, 

engraving room, and 

administration and planning cells. 

FIMA-W is rather dif ferent from 

other FIMA’s in that it provides 

technical support to the MCDGRP 

Operational Support Department, 

often in locations well outside of 

the Sydney area. Specifically, 

FIMA-W has an Operational 

Support Element that provides 

technical assistance to MCDGRP 

assets such as: 

• Forward Support Unit (FSU) – 

containerised accommodation, 

offices, generators, workshops, 

etc 

• Mine Warfare Command Support 

System (MWCSS) – which 

includes mobile communications 

and operations centres, in 

addition to trailer-mounted 

satellite earth stations 

FIMA-W is rather different 

from other FIMA’s in that 

it provides technical support 

to the MCDGRP Operational 

Support Department, often 

in locations well outside of 

the Sydney area. 

• Mine Sweeping Control Systems 

(MSCS) – precise navigation and 

route survey equipment and 

software 

• Mine Warfare Auxiliary Sweep 

Group (MWASG) – minesweeping 

winches, DYADS, etc 

• Motor Survey Drone Unit (MSDU) 

– remote controlled craft for 

preliminary sweeping of channels 

• Recompression Chamber (RCC) – 

Dive School at HMAS PENGUIN 

FIMA-W is a modern and 

technologically advanced 

organisation that plays a key role 

in the performance of the Mine 

Warfare and Clearance Diving 

Group. Feel free to visit us some 

time when you’re in the area. 

About the author LEUT Paul Denneny CSC 

joined the RAN in 1977 and served as an 

ATC then ETC, reaching the rank of CPO 

before accepting the of fer of a 

commission. LEUT Denneny has ser ved 

in HMAS MELBOURNE (aircraft carrier), 

STALWART, DUBBO, HOBART and finally in 

PERTH where he gained his WECC. LEUT 

Denneny is now the OIC FIMA WATERHEN, 

enjoying his time ashore before rejoining 

the fleet in November 2002. 

RIGHT RECOMPRESSION CHAMBER AT 

HMAS PENGUIN


3 7 

ANZAC Greenies 

in the Arabian Gulf 

BY COMMANDER ROB ELLIOTT, 

RAN – WEEO HMAS ANZAC 

“. . . The outstanding reputation that you (HMAS ANZAC) gained during 

your operational tour in the Arabian Gulf brings great credit to yourself 

and the RAN. That you have been specifically requested by our allies 

to remain on station and instruct new arrivals in the finer points of 

MIO operations is indicative of the excellent work you have done . . .” 

VADM D.J. Shackleton, RAN, Chief of Navy 

27 September 2001 

INTRODUCTION 

Welcome to HMAS ANZAC’s 

Weapons Electrical Engineering 

(WEE) Department’s ‘story’ of 

experiences in working up to and 

serving in the Arabian Gulf as 

part of Operations DAMASK X 

and SLIPPER between the period 

15 June and 24 November 2001. 

The focus of this article is on the 

operational side of the WEE 

Department’s role in such a 

deployment. It is important to 

understand that ANZAC’s primar y 

duty was the enforcing of United 

Nations security sanctions 

against Iraq with respect to illegal 

oil smuggling operations – the 

Department’s focus was to 

provide the support necessary to 

Command to help achieve this. 

THE PREPARATIONS 

The preparations for ANZAC’s 

long anticipated operational 

deployment began with courses 

being undertaken for boarding 

party, helicopter underwater 

escape training and biological 

and chemical warfare. With a 

complement of 176 people (flight 

crew embarked), ANZAC has the 

requirement for all departments 

to participate in many different 

evolutions. Apart from running 

and manning the weapons and 

fire control side of the combat 

system, the WEE department was 

required to have members in 

boarding party and evolutions 

party – 24 hours a day. At the 

end of the day these people were 

effectively taken out of the 

department for the duration of 

the time in the Area of Operation 

(AO). The end result – a 

combination of reduced 

equipment operation (based on 

tactical requirements) and 

additional jobs being taken on by 

specific WEE day workers. 

The ship’s maintenance period 

prior to sailing (Intermediat e 

Maintenance Availability 4) saw 

the installation of many new 

items such as additional INTEL 

equipment, automated bridge 

voice recording, internal 

communications improvements 

and modifications to our Rigid 

Hull Inflatable Boats (including 

the addition of a third RHIB). 

Much of this equipment was 

installed at short notice and with 

little guidance. Notwithstanding, 

the equipment was installed and 

set to work with ship’s staff 

having to learn the new 

functionality as time progressed. 

It is noted that although this is 

not an ideal situation, the 

challenges that these situations 

bring make such “quick 

installations” just that bit more 

exciting for the technician. 

Noting the lead-time for sto res to 

a rri ve in th e a t re, to ensure 

continued operability of cri t i c a l 

s ystems, ‘insurance spares’ we re 

e m b a rked above the norm a l 

a l l owance. These we re pri o ri t i s e d 

towa rds exte rnal communications 

and command and control. It 

was inte re sting to note that just 

over 65 percent of these spare s 

we re actually used whilst on 

station in the AO. Other activities 

included developing how an 

A N Z AC class ship would seal in 

response to an NBC th reat. This 

was just one of a number of 

‘ fi rsts’ for the Class that wo u l d 

be ach i eved on this deploy m e n t . 

Heat was always a big 

c o n s i d e ration to how equ i p m e n t 

would fa re. Installation of a 

c o m m e rcial air conditioner in 

one of the WEE comp a rt m e n t s 

to ove rcome the expecte d 

summer heat in the No rth e rn 

A rabian Gulf was an exa mple of 

s u ch considera t i o n s . 

Being developed were Force 

Protection (USN equivalent of 

BELOW ANZAC BOARDING OPERATIONS IN 

THE ARABIAN GULF


We a th e rc o ck) routines based 

on USN pro c e d u res to pro te c t 

p e rsonnel and equipment in 

h a r b o u r. Issues pertinent to 

the ship’s assessment by 

Sea Training Group at th e 

O p e rational Level Of Capability 

( O LOC), revo lved around how th e 

D e p a rtment would opera te with 

a significant number of members 

ta ken away for boarding part i e s , 

s e c u rity teams, and ongoing 

boat evolutions- doing more 

w i th less. 

THE OLOC WORKUP – 

A FRESH APPROACH 

Noting the type of deployment 

Operation DAMASK X was, a fresh 

approach was taken to our 

workup by Sea Training Group. 

As this was the first time an 

ANZAC Class Frigate would be 

worked up to the OLOC level, 

a tailor made work up was 

planned. Of course the most 

obvious aspect is that we wer e 

training for war not peacetime 

operations. Therefore during the 

workup there was considerably 

more flexibility in finding 

innovative solutions. A simulated 

Otto Fuel spill was washed off the 

deck using a firehose, a piece 

of equipment with a ber yllium 

hazard was thrown overboard. 

In both these cases, the normal 

peacetime pollution laws were 

overridden (as part of the 

simulation) due to the tactical 

threat. Both decisions saved 

considerable time and ef fort for 

the clean up teams leaving them 

free to maintain their equipment. 

The ability for the Department to 

act in a more ‘realistic’ manner 

was not only professionally 

rewarding, but also motivating. 

On the ‘day of the race – the 

Operational Readiness Evaluation 

(ORE)’, ANZAC was interrogated 

by foreign patrol vessels, 

conducted a compliant boarding 

of WARRAMUNGA, was attacked 

by F/A-18s and A4s (air defence 

serial) and monitored increasingly 

threatening aircraft probes whilst 

standing sea fire brigade 

exercises, WEE incidents and 

WEE casualty control drills wer e 

occurring internally. A damage 

control exercise triggered by a 

The first engineering problem 

to face us in the AO was the 

extreme heat of the Arabian 

summer. The first day in 

Bahrain, the mercury was 

sitting at 48°C in the shade. 

collision with a large Dhow 

followed by numerous anti-air 

warfare events, non-compliant 

boardings of WOLLONGONG, 

TOWEX of WARRAMUNGA and 

an another air attack triggered 

the final ORE assessed activity. 

Other firsts during this 

deployment included being the 

first RAN vessel to be fully 

integrated into a USN task group, 

and to perform level 2 noncompliant 

boardings. To achieve 

this level of interoperability, 

adoption of USN intelligence 

distribution/secure comms 

methods were required. Battle 

Force E-mail provided an efficient 

secure e-mail capability to the US 

forces, while Coalition Wide Area 

Network (CWAN) allowed units 

to access up to date classified 

information using Internet page 

presentation. 

IN THEATRE OPERATIONS – 

G ROUNDHOG DAY 

After successfully completing our 

OLOC ORE, ANZAC transited to 

the AO to begin the real job. 

ANZAC finally entered the AO on 

30 July 2001. It has been said 

that operational deployments 

are 99% boredom and 1% 

excitement but at first this didn’t 

seem to be true. Even after our 

work-up there was still a lot to 

be learnt in the AO. First we 

attended ‘MIO University’ run 

by the United States Coast 

Guard boarding specialists. 

The boarding parties then got 

to test their skill on vessels 

awaiting inspection in the UN 

holding area. Not knowing what 

to expect kept everyone on edge 

throughout the fir st patrol (there 

were a total of 5 patrols). 

The first engineering problem to 

face us in the AO was the 

extreme heat of the Arabian 

summer. The first day in Bahrain, 

the mercury was sitting at 48°C 

in the shade. Upper deck 

ammunition lockers very quickly 

exceeded the maximum 

temperatures allowed and cooling 

was set up earlier and earlier 

everyday. Soon the lockers were 

being cooled from dawn to dusk 

and even then problems existed. 

If the hoses were not perfectly set 

up they would cool one side 

adequately but the other would 

still bake. Finally with some 

inventive use of cable ties and 

foam to help distribute the water, 

the problem was controlled. 

Within a week on station we 

began to realise how busy it 

could be for a minimum manned 

ship. The WEE department in 

ANZAC consists of 29 personnel. 

Our contribution to the boarding 

parties was three. During periods 

of high boarding activity these 

people were effectively lost to the 

department – hence the reason 

why they were chosen as people 

we could lose without 

replacement. Boardings through 

the night and cleaning and 

training routines during the day 

left little to no time for other 

work. This much had been 

expected. The load on the rest of 

the department was ho wever not 

expected. There was a need to 

provide security teams to monitor 

detained smugglers, steaming 

parties to divert smugglers to the


3 9 

. . . in an AO such as the Arabian Gulf there 

is still a need to go beyond the concept of 

“ we must wait until the spares turn up”. 

Lateral thinking, systems engineering and 

risk management need to remain as keywords 

in a Department’s vocabulary. 

United Nations holding area, 

health and comfort teams to 

check on the conditions of 

detained vessels and DC teams 

to assist damaged vessels. At 

times the Department had almost 

a third of our Greenies away 

(including the WEEO as I/C of 

security and steaming parties). 

As part of the minimum manning 

concept, evolutions party is 

provided from the WEE and 

Supply Departments. Boat 

operations for much of the night 

stretched the capacity of the 

evolutions party and in the end 

two alternating evolutions parties 

were formed to give some respite. 

Suppressing the ANZAC beast for 

too long, led to only one result, 

and that was to order the gun to 

fire on an alarm barrage. 

Command ensured that the 

weapons crews were always 

ready by conducting these firing 

drills in designated safe areas 

with no notice. This was an 

excellent way to maintain morale 

and ensure system operation in 

one very quick evolution. 

On the matter of upper deck 

maintenance of WEE equipment, 

it was noted that anything 

exposed on the upper decks 

experienced greatly increased 

wear due to the high heat, 

humidity and salinity. The need 

to have weapons loaded and 

comms gear hooked up 

exacerbated this. There was no 

easy solution to this problem. 

Careful attention to freshwater 

wash downs and use of 

protective ‘Denzo’ tape helped. 

Another environmental effect was 

the poor quality of water in the 

Arabian Gulf, which caused 

further problems. Air conditioning 

systems fed by salt water cooling 

steadily degraded over the 

deployment leading to reduced 

BELOW LSET(W) DANNY KAYSER IN THE 

HEAT OF THE ARABIAN SUN (45°C PLUS) 

CONDUCTS MAINTENANCE ON THE 

VERTICAL LAUNCHING SYSTEM DURING 

A MAINTENANCE WINDOW. 

Over time, the excitement wore 

off and the operations became 

routine. With this came the 

problem of how to get planned 

maintenance done without 

compromising the operations of 

the ship. This was particularly 

true for maintenance of the 

weapons system or maintenance 

requiring access to the masts 

and the subsequent RADHAZ 

restrictions. Port visits provided 

some opportunity to perform 

planned maintenance however 

the necessity to rest personnel 

restricted this. Breakdown 

maintenance also provided 

opportunities. The requirement 

to repair equipment immediately 

allowed many other less urgent 

but still vital planned 

maintenance routines to be 

conducted. Windows of 

opportunity were made available 

for maintenance – usually 

2200-0400 twice a week. 

Weapon systems confidence 

became an issue due to the 

covert nature of MIO patrol.

4 0 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B UL L ET IN F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

reliability on some systems. 

A concerted effort by the Stokers 

mid way through restored all to a 

serviceable condition. 

The high usage of equipment 

and the conditions re s u l ted in 

i n ev i table bre a k d ow n s . 1 H ow th e 

d e p a rtment dealt with this wa s 

A fter re a ching a peak at th e 

a ch i evement of OLOC, th e 

p ro ficiency of the Depart m e n t 

i n ev i ta b ly declined during th e 

long and sometimes bori n g 

p a t rols. The opera t i o n a l 

e nv i ronment gre a t ly re st ri c te d 

the ability to conduct exe rc i s e s , 

h owever it was still possible to 

LESSONS LEARNT & 

CONCLUSION 

Engineering in an operational 

environment is the sharp end of 

Naval Engineering, it is what 

Engineers and Techos are trained 

for and ultimately it is why we 

have Greenies at sea. As such, 

Operations Damask – Slipper 

The Australian Government extended ANZAC’s 

deployment thus freeing up vessels such as 

USS John Paul Jones (one of our sister ships) 

that would go on to launch 

some of the first strikes on the ‘war against 

terrorism’. 

BELOW CMDR ROB ELLIOTT, LSET(S) JIMMY 

HENDRICKSE, LSET(S) MORRIS NASH AND 

SBLT JOSH WILKINSON ON THE BRIDGE OF 

AN ARRESTED ILLEGAL OIL SMUGGLER IN 

THE NORTH ARABIAN GULF 

u l t i m a te ly the te st of our 

O p e rational Engineering. The 

c riticality of systems va ried but fo r 

m a ny systems th e re simp ly wa s 

not the option to do without it. 

D e s p i te the high sto res demand 

p ri o rity and excellent logist i c s 

s u p p o rt from Au st ralia and 

RA N LO Bahrain, it was ofte n 

n e c e s s a ry to implement safe 

i n te rim fi xes. This is an imp o rta n t 

moot point – in an AO such as 

the Arabian Gulf th e re is still a 

need to go beyond the concept of 

“ we must wait until the spare s 

t u rn up”. Late ral thinking, syste m s 

e n g i n e e ring and risk manage m e n t 

need to remain as key wo rds in a 

D e p a rtment’s vo c a b u l a ry. 

conduct useful training. One way 

that this was ach i eved wa s 

using training lectures. These 

we re pre p a red and pre s e n ted 

by the Able Seaman of th e 

D e p a rtment on topics that are 

not norm a l ly their speciality. 

As well as providing re f re s h e r 

t raining, these lectures we re 

e xcellent training mediums fo r 

the pre s e n tation skills of th e 

Able Seaman and provided a 

s e m i - regular meeting place to 

discuss the burning issues of 

the day and our ach i eve m e n t s 

in our operational tasking to 

d a te . 

The whole ship was shocked 

by the te rro ri st atta cks of 

S e p tember 11, both by th e 

h o rror and by the unknow n 

i mplications for us. The 

Au st ralian Gove rnment exte n d e d 

A N Z AC’s deployment thus fre e i n g 

up vessels such as USS John 

Paul Jones (one of our siste r 

ships) that would go on to 

l a u n ch some of the fi rst st ri ke s 

on the ‘war aga i n st te rro ri s m ’ . 

E x tending the deployment had a 

number of implications, not th e 

l e a st of which was delaying th e 

ship’s planned docking re fit by 

six months. This re qu i red a 

re n ewed emphasis on 

p reve n ta t i ve maintenance to 

e n s u re that equipment re m a i n e d 

s e rviceable until th e n . 

(Enduring Freedom) was a ver y 

valuable learning experience for 

the entire Department. Although 

a great deal of planning went 

into the deployment, we 

continue to learn from our 

experiences and hopefully feed 

this back into what should be a 

closed loop “control system” 

that we can improve the Class 

and the way we do business at 

sea as Weapons Electrical 

Engineering professionals. 

Note 1. Notwithstanding the occasional 

defect within the Combat Sy stem, the 

overall reliability in the hostile environment 

of the Middle East was outs tanding for the 

duration of the deployment. Availability of 

mission critical equipment remained at 

95–100% at all times using best 

engineering practices.

N AV Y E N G I N E E R I N G B U LL ET I N F E B RU A RY 20 0 2 

4 1 

Battle Fo rce Electronic Mail 

In the past ye a r, Dire c to ra te of Naval Command, Contro l , 

Communications, Comp u te rs Inte l l i gence, Surveillance and Electro n i c 

Wa rfa re (DNC4ISREW) of Navy Systems Command has re c e n t ly 

undertaken the installation, test and set to work of Battle Force 

Electronic Mail (BFEM) on a number of Major Fleet Units (MFUs). 

BFEM allows the transmission and reception of e-mail over High 

Frequency (HF) radio links. It is being used increasingly as a tool for 

interoperability within a taskgroup as it does not rely on expensive 

infrastructure associated with satellite communications. 

BY MR PAUL KENNEDY OF 

DNC4IRSEW 

The system is based on NATO 

standard STANAG 5066, Profile 

for Maritime High Frequency ( H F ) 

Radio Data Communications, and 

is capable of sending e-mail over 

a single 3kHz HF link at data 

rates of up to 9600bps. BFEM 

is currently used by countries 

including USA, UK, France, 

G e rm a ny, Ita ly, Belgium and Japan. 

BFEM, as installed on RAN ships, 

c o mp rises of a laptop comp u te r, 

an encryption device, a HF 

modem and existing ship’s HF 

e quipment. The laptop is situate d 

in the Operations Room to allow 

‘ wa rfi g h ter to wa rfi g h te r ’ 

communication. It is connected to 

the re st of the equipment in th e 

COMCEN via copper or fi b re cable. 

DNC4ISREW has installed BFEM 

on a number of platforms this 

year including HMAS ANZAC and 

HMAS SYDNEY. Installations for 

the more MFUs are planned for 

next year. The system has proved 

to be functional. The only major 

problem has been the lack of use 

by some allied units. 

About the author Paul Kennedy is an 

electronic systems engineer working in 

the Communication Systems section of 

DNC4ISREW. 

As far as the user is concerned, 

BFEM appears like a regular 

MS Outlook 2000 e-mail sy stem. 

Software (Rockwell Collins HF 

Messenger) running in the 

background on the laptop in 

conjunction with the HF Modem 

(Harris RF5710A) provides 

the MIL-STD-110B high speed 

HF waveform.

4 2 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL LE T I N FE B R U A RY 2 0 0 2 

BY MR. BRUCE MCNEICE, N AVY 

SYSTEMS BRANCH 

Seakeeping Characteristics 

of Patrol Boats 

Seakeeping describes the motions and seakindliness of a ship in a 

seaway. Seakeeping performance is a major factor in operational 

effectiveness as good seakeeping qualities allow ships to successfully 

execute their missions in adverse conditions. 

BELOW THE FREMANTLE CLASS EXHIBITS 

THE TYPICAL PERFORMANCE OF A SMALL, 

RELATIVELY FAST MONOHULL 

Excessive ship motions in rough 

weather can have considerable 

effect on: 

• ship speed, 

• crew effectiveness and safety, 

• ability to under take specific 

activities, such as launching and 

recovering boats, 

• weapon and sensor effectiveness, 

• ship serviceability and reliability, 

and 

• fuel consumption. 

Increased operational 

effectiveness requires that 

modern naval ships, with their 

sophisticated systems, be 

designed to known operating 

capabilities in their intended 

operating environment. This 

places a greater emphasis on 

seakeeping performance as an 

essential ship capability that 

must be addressed at an early 

stage in the ship design process. 

The primary peacetime role of 

RAN patrol boats is supporting 

the Civil Surveillance Program. 

This includes surveillance and 

surface response in all but 

Antarctic Regions of the 

Australian EEZ. RAN seakeeping 

requirements for patrol boat 

sized ships have been selected 

to exclude operating in Antarctic 

regions for any significant 

duration as the requirements to 

operate in such zones have a 

dominant effect on size and 

type of ship required. Aside 

from supporting the Civil 

Surveillance Program, RAN patrol 

boats provide support to wider 

Defence Policy as it applies to 

our region. 

To complete these roles 

successfully a certain degree of 

ship performance is required t o 

allow operations to be 

maintained without undue 

interruption. The response of the 

ship in different wave heights will 

determine the operating limits of 

the ship. In the Australian region 

the significant wave heights 

(H1/3) occur with a frequency as 

indicated in Table 1. From this 

table it can be seen that to 

operate uninterrupted 90% of the 

time the ship must be capable of 

operating in seas with a 

significant wave height of 4.0 

metres (Top of Sea State 5). 

E VA LUAT I NG THE FREMANTLE 

C LASS PAT ROL BOAT 

Recent investigations quantifying 

the performance of the current 

RAN patrol boat fleet are nearing 

completion. This has involved 

numerical simulation and sur vey 

of crews. Before discussing the 

characteristics identified by these 

evaluations for the Fremantle 

Class Patrol Boat, three factor s 

should be noted. The fir st is that 

the Fremantle Class Patrol Boat 

(FCPB) is a great improvement on 

the former Attack Class patrol 

boat. Secondly the mission of the 

patrol boat has changed since 

the Fremantles came into service 

in the early 1980s and 

consequently the design was not 

necessarily intended for the role 

it now plays. The third factor to 

be noted is that seakeeping 

evaluation techniques have 

greatly improved in the las t 

decade through ongoing 

international cooperative research 

programs in which the RAN is 

involved. This has allowed a 

greater understanding of 

seakeeping, performance 

specification and evaluation in 

the design stage. 

Seakeeping evaluation in relation 

to crew performance has moved 

away from individual motion 

limits such as roll angle, pitch 

angle and heave to consider 

performance measures. 

Parameters such as Motion 

Induced Interruptions (MII) and 

Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI) 

that are easier to relate to crew 

performance are beginning t o 

replace the more traditional 

limits. MII is defined as the 

number of times in a given 

period that a person would need 

to hold on in order to prevent 

sliding or toppling and MSI is 

defined as the percentage of 

crew likely to vomit when 

continuously subjected to 

motions for a specified period. 

Currently the RAN standard 

materiel requirements for 

Seakeeping (A016464) states 

the limits of these motions to be 

1 MII per minute and 20% of 

crew vomiting when continuously 

exposed to the limiting sea 

condition for 4 hours. DSTO is 

continuing to calibrate a method 

of determining MSI in an 

objective manner with actual 

sickness incidence on RAN ships. 

This may lead to some refinement 

of the requirements in this area. 

Other performance measures for 

a ship include slamming, deck 

wetness and propeller 

emergence.


4 3 

TABLE 1 F R E Q U E NCY OF WAVE HEIGHTS IN AU ST RALIAN WAT E R S 

H1/3 [m] Average Cumulative Sea State 

Occurrence [%] Probability [%] 

6.0 3 100 7 and above 

H OW THE FREMANTLE CLA S S 

P E R F O R M S 

Both the numerical and survey 

results indicated that the 

Fremantle Class exhibits the 

typical performance of a small, 

relatively fast monohull however 

certain areas of the design could 

be improved. The ship is no 

longer able to safely complete a 

full range of tasks in a significant 

wave height of 2.5metres (Top of 

Sea State 4). Moving into Sea 

State 5, tasks such as launch 

and recovery of sea boats 

becomes dangerous and even in 

the higher range of Sea State 4 

some areas of the ship become 

particularly uncomfortable. Both 

the survey and numerical 

analysis indicated junior sailors 

spaces and ships of fice and 

communications centre are are a s 

w h e re many ta s ks become 

d i fficult in modera te seas. 

These areas suffer the most 

f rom ship motions and the 

result is increased difficulty when 

wo rking in these areas. It is not 

s u rp rising to note that th e s e 

a reas are fo rwa rd in the ship 

w h e re higher acceleration leve l s 

a re encounte re d . 

From a seakeeping pers p e c t i ve 

t ravelling in fo l l owing seas re s u l t s 

in the lowe st motions, howeve r, 

dynamic stability considera t i o n s 

s u ch as avoidance of bro a ch and 

s u rf riding must then be 

c o n s i d e red. The survey 

responses from the commanding 

o ffi c e rs indicated that opera t i n g 

in modera te beam seas wa s 

u n d e s i rable due to the MII 

caused by considerable roll. 

For this reason bow or ste rn 

qu a rte ring is often a bette r 

heading. Despite the imp l i c a t i o n s 

for slamming and deck we t n e s s 

the commanding offi c e rs of th e 

FCPB have indicated head seas 

is often the most desira b l e 

heading as far as crew safety 

is concern e d . 

The commanding officers have 

indicated that when selecting any 

heading, crew safety is the 

highest priority. Following this, 

in head seas, equipment damage 

and slamming were of concern, 

in beam seas roll and equipment 

damage and in following seas, 

broaching and surf riding were 

in the top three concerns. 

The dilemma facing the FCPB is 

that roll is the gre a te st concern 

when considering the ta s ks to be 

c o mp l e ted on board but pitch 

and heave motions become 

s i g n i ficant for crew during ‘re st ’ 

p e riods. The result of inadequ a te 

re st is increased fatigue and 

motion sickness. It was re p o rte d 

that a combination of roll, pitch 

and heave in bow and ste rn 

qu a rte ring seas (which can cre a te 

a cork screw effect) will ofte n 

reduce the magnitude of any one 

c o mponent but usually will gre a t ly 

i n c rease sickness incidence. 

EFFECT OF SHIP MOT I O N S 

The survey, completed by 138 

crewmembers from eight of the 

RAN FCPB fleet, asked the 

usual degree of seasickness 

experienced. The categories 

included: 

• Never; 

• Mild (headache, more than usual 

tiredness); 

• Moderate (Sleeplessness, more 

than usual irritability, nausea); 

and 

• Extreme (actual vomiting and 

general sea sickness enough to 

prevent you from performing your 

normal duties). 

In response 30% claimed never 

to suffer seasickness, 26% mild 

doses, 28% moderate and 16% 

extreme sea sickness when 

seasick on the FCPB. 

Frequency of seasickness was 

questioned with responses 

sought for calm (0-1.25m seas), 

moderate (1.25-2.5m seas), 

rough (2.5-4.0m seas) and ver y 

rough seas (4.0-6.0m seas). 

The response could be; not at all, 

occasionally, frequently, nearly 

always or always. 

In calm conditions 6% indicated 

they have some degree of 

seasickness either occasionally or 

frequently whilst the remaining 

94% never get seasick. This 

decreases to 67% never getting 

seasick in moderate seas, 44% 

in rough seas and 35% in very 

rough seas. In rough conditions 

31% frequently to always suffer 

seasickness and this increases 

to 39% in very rough seas. 

Apart from these statistics two 

other clear trends came from 

the survey. They were that in 

moderate seas (Sea State 4) 

73% of respondents believed 

they took longer to complete 

tasks and 76% used more 

caution to complete tasks. 

These results clearly indicate 

that adverse seakeeping 

characteristics have a significant 

influence over operating 

efficiency. In the operating 

environment that can be 

expected 36% of the time 

(ie. Sea State 4), one third of 

the crew could be expected to 

be suffering some degree of 

seasickness and most of the crew 

are taking additional time and 

caution to complete tasks.

4 4 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T I N F E B R U A RY 2 0 0 2 

BELOW FREMANTLE CLASS PATROL BOAT 

HMAS GEELONG 

The impact of seakeeping on the 

mission of these patrol boats can 

therefore be significant. 

It should be noted that one of 

the requirements for the new 

patrol boats has been stated to 

be that the seakeeping 

characteristics are to be better 

than the FCPB. So how would a 

new patrol boat dif fer from the 

FCPB to improve seakeeping? 

I M P ROV I NG SEAKEEPING 

P E R F O R M A NCE THRO U G H 

D E S I G N 

The following 13 attributes 

lead to good seakeeping 

characteristics. These are not 

the only way of achieving good 

seakeeping performance but are 

some of the more significant and 

simple ways to improve a ship at 

the design stage. 

1. A larger displacement. 

2. A greater waterline length 

(within the constraints of the 

design) although slamming can 

become a problem for some ship 

length, speed and wave 

combinations. 

3. Increased waterplane area 

particularly forward is very 

beneficial. 

4. V shaped sections for ward that 

minimise slamming at the keel 

and bow flare. 

5. An absence of flat sections aft 

that causes stern slamming in 

relatively small seas. 

6. Adequate freeboard to 

minimise deck wetness. 

Especially forward. There is good 

reason for a forecastle and deck 

shear! 

7. Ensure adequate propeller 

submergence to avoid emergence 

in waves. This will also increase 

propulsive efficiency. 

8. Keep manned spaces away 

from forward and aft extremities 

of ship and preferably as close to 

midships (or a little aft of it) as 

possible. 

9. Keep GM low enough that roll 

motions are not too rapid but 

stability is maintained. A large 

GM will contribute to high lateral 

accelerations and motion 

induced interruptions. 

10. If possible fit roll damping or 

stabilisation systems (starting 

with bilge keels, then tanks if 

maximum operating speed is low 

(say 16 knots) and fins if usual 

operating speed is high). 

11. Flared hull sides can have an 

advantage in that beam can be 

reduced to minimise powering or 

roll stiffness while stability is 

maintained at larger heel angles. 

12. Motion Induced Interruptions 

(MII) increases the higher up in 

the ship you are. If possible, have 

manned spaces low in the ship 

(although this may be contrary to 

safety considerations in the case 

of collision etc). 

to be made early in the design 

stage so that the hull can be 

defined. If sufficient attention is 

not given to this area then 

considerable effort may be 

required to address problems 

during sea trials or befor e 

Acceptance Into Naval Service. 

Acknowledgements The author takes this 

opportunity to thank the cr ew of the RAN 

FCPB fleet who participated in the 

seakeeping survey. Such feedback should 

help to ensure that future RAN patrol craft 

are designed with greater attention to 

seakeeping performance. This will be 

appreciated by future crews and those 

planning naval operations. 

References 1. A016608, “Seakeeping 

Analysis of the Fremantle Class Patrol 

Boat”, Revision 1, RAN, August 2001 

2. “Seakeeping Survey of the Fremantle 

Class Patrol Boat”, Unpublished 

3. A016464, “Standard Materiel 

Requirements for RAN Ships and 

Submarines , Volume 3: Hull System 

Requirements, Part 6: Seakeeping”, 

Revision 0, RAN, December 2000 

4. Hogben, N. et al, “Global Wave 

Statistics”, compiled and edited by British 

Maritime Technology Limited, Unwin 

Brothers Ltd, 1986. 

5. Lloyd, A. R. J. M., “Seakeeping – Ship 

Behaviour in rough weather”, Ellis Hor wood 

Limited, 1989. 

6. Kehoe, Capt J. W. et al, “Seakeeping 

and Combat System Performance – The 

Operators’ Assessment”, Naval Engineers 

Journal, May 1983. 

7. Bales, N. K., Cieslowski, D. S., “A Guide 

to Generic Seakeeping Performance 

Assessment”, Naval Engineers Journal, 

April 1981. 

About the author Bruce McNeice works for 

the Director of Navy Platform Systems 

within Navy Systems Branch. He is the 

Hydrodynamics Technology Manager and is 

responsible for the defining N avy’s 

requirements and providing advice on 

seakeeping, manoeuvring, propellers, range 

calculation and the sea environment. 

13. Ensure that rudders and 

skegs are adequately sized such 

that good directional control of 

the boat can be maintained in 

following seas and the risk of 

broaching may be reduced. 

It is recognised that other tradeoffs 

may make some of these 

aspects to be virtually impossible 

to meet. A decision on the 

importance of seakeeping needs


4 5 

What is a Hydrographic 

Ship? 


DAVE ROBERTSON 

Since joining HS Red Crew (formerly posted as NUSHIP LEEUWIN) in 

March 1999 I have been asked the question many times: What is a HS? 

Sometimes it is asked in a different way; “HS – aren’t they those 

catamarans?” or “LEEUWIN – that’s a bit like FLINDERS isn’t it?” 

It seems clear to me that most 

people in the fleet really don’t 

have a clue who we are and what 

we do. The purpose of this article 

is to provide a brief introduction 

to the HS. Af ter all, I intend to 

re-join the ‘grey’ Navy some and I 

am sick of explaining what HS 

Red Crew is. 

HMA Ships LEEUWIN and 

MELVILLE were constructed to 

replace the aging Moresby and 

Flinders. Those who have seen 

Moresby and Flinders will know 

that they were substantially 

different in size. In many aspects, 

the HS are similar to Moresby, 

the HS being only slightly smaller 

(HS approx 2200 tonnes 

although much shorter), diesel 

electric (although a completely 

different system is employed in 

the HS), air capable, carry three 

Survey Motor Boats (SMBs – 

although these have been 

upgraded) and are painted white. 

The similarities with Flinders are 

fewer; a similar profile (standfast 

the flight deck), similar crew size 

(48 vice 46) and painted white. 

All in all, it is easy to see why 

people are confused! 

days/year within the current 

personnel tempo restrictions 

(which limit each crew to 

approximately 150 days per 

year). Each ship theoretically 

does 225 days at sea per year. 

So if you ask me today where 

am I posted to I will answer 

“HS Red Crew currently borne in 

HMAS MELVILLE”. The CO HS Red 

is the Leeuwin Class Coordinator 

as the senior CO will always be in 

that crew. 

THE HS TECH N I CA L 

D E PA RT M E N T 

The HS has a Technical 

Department of 14. It is headed 

by the Engineer Of ficer (LEUT ME 

Q) (although there has always 

been a WEEO in HS White crew), 

a CPOMT (M or E) as DMEO, a 

POET (AUXSENS) (CPOET in HS 

Red) as I/C Systems, a POMT 

(E or M) (opposite stream to 

DMEO), four LS (a MT(M), MT(E), 

ET(AUXSENS) and ET(GENCOM)) 

and six ABs (3 x MT(M), an 

MT(E), ET(AUXSENS) and 

ET(GENCOM)). The technical 

department can be reduced by 

up to three sailors for long 

periods if the SMBs are deployed 

to a boat camp, leaving a 

relatively large ship being 

operated and maintained by a 

technical department of only 

11 personnel. 

How do we do it? Well for a start 

we utilise the technology inherent 

in the ship, and only have one 

BELOW HMAS LEEUWIN AT CAIRNS 

The other aspect of the HS that 

causes confusion (even for us) 

is the fact that there are three 

crews for the two ships. The 

crews are HS Red, White and 

Blue. We rotate between the 

ships and ashore; approximately 

six months on a ship, 3 months 

off watch (working in the HS Crew 

Facility in Cairns). The reason for 

this is to utilise the ship’s 

availability for sea of 300


watch keeper on watch at any 

one time. All machinery can be 

monitored from the bridge via the 

Integrated Control System (ICS), 

which leaves the watch keeper to 

conduct compartment rounds 

knowing the bridge staff (and 

ICS) are watching over the 

machinery whilst he is away. 

The reduction in watch keeping 

personnel leaves the rest of the 

department as day workers to 

complete preventative and 

corrective maintenance. 

an auxiliary propulsion unit 

should the main moto rs be 

u n ava i l a b l e . 

The ICS is capable of monito ri n g 

and controlling the main 

p ropulsion system and most 

a u x i l i a ry systems re m o te ly. 

This includes systems such as; 

ventilation, fi re main, closure of 

wa te rtight doors and hatch e s , 

toxic hazard sensors, bilge 

s e n s o rs, the perfo rmance of all 

DGs etc. The ICS will ensure th a t 

s u fficient ge n e ra to rs are on load, 

O rganisation (IHO) guidelines 

(when used in conjunction with 

the TLWSSS for fe a t u re detection). 

The three primary and numerous 

other sensors (such as 

positioning, platform motion and 

water conductivity and 

temperature) are fed into a 

system known as the 

Hydrographic Survey System 

which allows the raw data 

collected to be processed into a 

format that can be exported to 

the Hydrographic Office. 

The ICS is capable of 

m o n i to ring and contro l l i n g 

the main propulsion syste m 

and most auxiliary syste m s 

re m o te ly. 

P RO P U LSION AND INTEGRAT E D 

CO N T ROL SY ST E M S 

The HS has a fully integrated 

electric propulsion system. It has 

six generators; four Main DGs 

(Ruston 6RK215 800kW/ 

1000kVA/660v/50Hz), a Harbour 

DG (Caterpillar 3412, 350kW/ 

440kVA/415v/50 Hz) and an 

Emergency DG (Caterpillar 3306, 

160kW/200kVA//415v/50 Hz). 

At sea only the Main DGs are 

used, ships services being 

supplied by transformers off the 

main switchboard. The Harbour 

or Emergency DGs do not supply 

the main propulsion motors or 

bow thruster. 

The main moto rs are opera te d 

by a va riable speed dri ve (VS D ) 

w h i ch is able to va ry main 

m o tor speed from 0 to 12 0 0 

rpm (0 to 209 shaft rpm). The 

main moto rs are each coupled 

to a single reduction ge a r b ox , 

w h i ch dri ve the port and 

sta r b o a rd shafts re s p e c t i ve ly. 

The ships are also fi t ted with a 

p u mp-jet bow th ru ster which 

also has a va riable fre qu e n c y 

d ri ve (VFD). The bow th ru ste r ’ s 

th ru st can be slewed in any 

d i rection, so it could be used as 

and all mach i n e ry is opera t i n g 

w i thin pre - d e te rmined guidelines. 

Think of the ICS as a ve ry 

reliable wa tch ke e p e r. There are 

t wo consoles located on th e 

b ri d ge, which are consoles 

p ri m a ri ly used at sea, and two 

consoles in the MCR (DCC), 

w h i ch are used pri m a ri ly fo r 

E m e rgency Station, SSD and 

d u ring engineering casualties. 

S U RVEY SY ST E M 

The survey system has three 

primary sensors, these are; an 

Atlas Fansweep 20 Multibeam 

Echo Sounder (MBES), an Atlas 

DESO 25 Single Beam Echo 

Sounder (SBES) and a Klein 

T2000 Towed Light Weight Side 

Scan Sonar (TLWSSS). 

W h i l st the SBES and TLWSSS do 

not re p resent any great leap 

fo rwa rd in survey te ch n o l o g y, th e 

MBES does. The MBES allows th e 

ship to sound not only dire c t ly 

b e l ow the ship, but also to sound 

p e rpendicular to the direction of 

the ship, out to a maximum of 

12 times wa ter depth. This allows 

for full cove ra ge of bottom and 

meets incre a s i n gly st ri n ge n t 

I n te rnational Hydro gra p h i c 

The three SMBs also have a 

similar but ‘lite’ version of the 

survey system fitted to the ship, 

unfortunately this system has not 

met contracted (and IHO) 

requirements so is currently not 

being used for the gathering of 

bathometric data used in charts. 

AV I ATION FAC I L I T I E S 

The HS has similar aviation 

facilities to the majority of air 

capable fleet units. To date 

FOCFT have been conducted and 

SHOL developed for the AS 350 

(Squirrel) and Bell 206 (Kio wa). 

The flight deck is capable of 

accommodating up to medium 

sized helicopters. 

SO WHAT IS A HS? 

I hope I have given a suffi c i e n t 

d e s c ription of the HS so that yo u 

can answer that qu e stion. More 

‘in depth’ articles will fo l l ow on th e 

s p e c i fics of the va rious syste m s . 

About the author LCDR David Robertson 

joined the RAN as an undergraduate in 

1991, graduating from Queensland 

University in 1992. He completed his 

AMEO time in HMAS TORRENS befor e 

being posted as PNR-Cairns. He ser ved as 

DMEO HMAS PERTH gaining his Char ge 

Qualification in Nov 1998. He was then 

posted as EO in NUSHIP LEEUWIN/HS RED 

CREW. Following a posting as the Anzac 

Class Certification Manager at DNCS-SS, 

he is now Staff Officer to DGNAVSYS.


4 7 

Maritime Systems Division 

Contract Quality Assurance 

P ro gram and the Inte gra te d 

QA Contract Support 

Database 

BY MR RAY MAJEWSKI, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR PROCESS 

ASSURANCE 

This article addresses the Contract Quality Assurance (CQA) 

development of the CQA Program and the integrated QA Contract 

Support Database, with the development of a two-pronged strategy 

for implementing CQA across Navy Maritime Systems Division (MSD) 

Business Units. It is a fact that the quality of performance of contract 

deliverables begins well before a contract is signed, and the quality 

cycle does not end with the delivery of the contracted item. There are 

many CQA activities and improved CQA methodologies that can be 

applied throughout the duration of the contract to ensure that the 

Commonwealth obtains value for money. 

BACKG RO U N D 

CQA surveillance and auditing 

activities within Navy have 

h i sto ri c a l ly been focused on 

p roduct compliance and th e 

c o mpliance of the suppliers ’ 

quality management syste m . 

Supplier comp e tencies and th e 

m a n a gement of supplier 

p e rfo rmance have not been 

a d e qu a te ly addressed in the past . 

Also, th e re has been a dist i n c t 

l a ck of disciplined manage m e n t 

of the quality loop. Fe e d b a ck 

i n fo rmation to contract manage rs 

on supplier perfo rm a n c e , 

including contract fi e l d 

p e rfo rmance data as noted by 

D e fence CQA opera t i ves, has not 

a l ways been managed and used 

e ffi c i e n t ly in fo l l ow on contra c t s . 

M u ch of the supplier comp e te n c y 

and perfo rmance info rmation wa s 

out of date, fra g m e n ted and not 

available for wide spread use. 

The Navy has not had the 

b e n e fits of a consiste n t 

application of the quality cycle 

in its business pro c e s s e s . 

Comparing the per formance of 

suppliers prior to awarding a 

contract was not always 

undertaken with full visibility of 

the supplier’s capability. That 

information was not always 

available to a contract manager. 

Any qualitative performance 

evaluations were subjective in the 

main and not always fully 

representative of the supplier’s 

competency or performance. 

The CQA Pro gram began ga th e ri n g 

momentum with the Defe n c e 

E fficiency Rev i ew (DER) and 

CO M LOG(N) Vision 2001. As a 

result of the pro j e c ted sav i n g s 

i d e n t i fied in the DER, a rev i ew wa s 

i n i t i a ted to address the Defe n c e 

Quality Assurance (DQA) issues 

h i g h l i g h ted in the DER re p o rt. The 

th ree main options that the DQA 

Rev i ew Team addressed we re: 

• that customers be totally 

responsible and accountable for 

QA expenditure; 

• that customers’ unique 

requirements be specifically 

addressed, ie, that the level, 

prioritisation, allocation and 

tasking of QA activities be 

controlled by customers; and 

• that CQA services be integrated 

into project management/ 

procurement and repair 

processes. 

Fo l l owing the WEST RALIA Board 

of Inqu i ry, which identifi e d 

d e ficient CQA practices, Mr John 

Bishop conducted a rev i ew into 

c o n t racting, and fo l l owing on 

f rom the recommendations fro m 

that rev i ew, a CQA Cell wa s 

e stablished within the Logist i c 

M a n a gement Group. The initial 

activities of the CQA Cell 

a ffe c ted all business units in 

f u l filling its re fined and fo c u s e d 

functions and roles. These 

activities included baseline 

essentials such as comp e te n c y 

and training issues, imp rove m e n t 

to quality clauses and opening 

the path to imp roved CQA 

m a n a gement in contracting in a 

team env i ro n m e n t .


These activities expanded into the 

established areas of managing 

the competency and per formance 

of suppliers where it seemed 

obvious that a measurement 

system was required urgently. 

The first development/application 

of the measurement system of 

c o n t ra c tor comp e tency wa s 

i n c o rp o ra ted into the QA 

C o n t ract Support Database in 

a round 19 9 5 . 

While the concept of improved 

supplier performance and data 

collection began in the middle 

1990s, it was not until 1999 that 

the opportunity was provided to 

implement the CQA Program into 

the Collins Class Logistic Office. 

This direction provided 

implementation of CQA into the 

Collins CLO at the time and also 

paved the way for the (Phase 2) 

QA Contract Support Database 

development. To establish the 

baselines from which the follow 

on development stages could be 

built, development teams were 

established and managed from 

inside the original Repair 

Management Support 

Organisation where clear thinking 

could be exercised and concepts 

for improved CQA management 

could be developed. 

Q UA L I TY ASSURA NCE AND 

CO N T RAC T I NG 

The approach to CQA activities to 

provide quality outcomes in 

support contracts must be 

considered in relation to the 

required and necessary level of 

auditing and quality suppor t 

activities. This approach is 

necessary to obtain a satisfactory 

confidence level of conformance 

and to minimise the risk that 

every Contract Authority is 

susceptible to. Each contract 

manager must apply their own 

CQA techniques to provide for 

themselves and be satisfy wit h 

the desired level of confidence 

that the requirements of the 

contract are being met and that 

the level of risk acquired is 

mitigated to a minimum or a 

tolerable level. 

One of the prime ingredients for 

efficient contract management is 

to ensure that a pro-active 

environment for contract 

managers is established. In this 

environment supplier capability, 

performance and capacity are 

known well in advance, where all 

contributory elements such as 

technical supporting s taff and 

quality assurance staff are able 

to provide timely support in order 

that the contract managers can 

make professional judgements. 

Suppliers also apply control 

techniques throughout their 

management processes to 

control the processes they use to 

achieve desired outcomes. 

They also apply CQA techniques 

to external processes 

(subcontracts). Normal 

commercial business practices 

dictate that these practices are 

kept to a minimum thus 

potentially increasing risk to 

quality, cost or schedule. 

Quality Auditing techniques are 

aimed at providing confidence 

that both the primary supplier 

and their sub suppliers are 

competent and capable of 

performing the requirements of 

the contract. These activities 

must also provide an auditable 

trail of objective evidence as 

required by the Technical 

Regulation of Navy Materiel DI(N) 

LOG 47-3. As stated in both the 

Risk Management standard AS 

4360 and the ISO 9000 series 

standards, the amount of 

monitoring and reviewing applied 

to a contract is directly related to 

the level of risk the contracting 

authority is willing to accept and 

the level of confidence that will 

be gained for conformance t o 

contract requirements. 

CQA PRO G RAM ST RAT E GY AND 

D E V E LOPMENT 

In order to establish an improved 

CQA methodology in MSD, a high 

level strategy for CQA was 

required. The traditional CQA 

processes and the associated 

CQA management processes 

required improvement, 

particularly if we wanted to keep 

pace with the new initiatives and 

reforms within Defence and DMO. 

We needed to transition from a 

paradigm-riddled environment to 

one focused on contract 

compliance and supplier 

competency and performance 

with improved supplier 

relationships. This high level 

strategy aligns with the strategic 

direction as set by Defence and 

the reform strategies within DMO, 

particularly with improving 

customer/supplier relationships, 

and, the processes based on 

commercial approaches and best 

practice by the adoption of a 

strategic approach to 

relationships with industry. 

The first sub strategy was to 

i mplement the outcomes of th e 

Bishop Rev i ew and the dire c t i o n 

set by the Quality Assura n c e 

I mp l e m e n tation Team, and th e 

second allied sub st ra tegy was to 

c o n c e p t u a l ly set the direction fo r 

i mp roving CQA perfo rmance ove r 

and above the traditional CQA 

m e th o d o l o g y. This would enhance 

the management of CQA and dri ve 

it into an env i ronment of bette r 

p ractice for the benefit of th e 

c o n t ract manager and th e 

s u p p l i e r, and herew i th imp rove th e 

c u stomer/supplier re l a t i o n s h i p . 

Underpinning the second sub 

strategy is the fact that the 

quality of performance of the 

contract deliverables begins well 

before the contract is signed and 

the quality cycle not ending with 

the delivery of the contracted 

item. This includes the realisation 

that the focus should be on the 

supplier management controls in 

the first instance rather than as it 

has been in the traditional sense, 

on the product. From this flowed 

the development of two separate 

entities, viz investment in 

improved CQA management 

methodology and improved 

management of supplier 

performance data. The elements 

of the strategy are given in the 

table below in the form of the 

changes necessary, managed 

and subsequently implemented:


4 9 

TABLE 1 CO N T RACT QA PRO G RAM ST RAT E GY IMPLEMENTAT I O N 

FROM 

Adversarial based relationships between customer and supplier 

Punitive auditing environment 

Competency based on historical performance in terms 

of the deliverables 

Fragmented Supplier performance info 

Predominant in-contract auditing of product 

Isolated & pocketed information on supplier performance 

Entrenched product focused auditing paradygms 

Supplier performance comparison difficult 

Performance evaluation over time difficult 

High degree of subjectivity 

Non automated environment 

Feedback of data non disciplined 

CQA Operatives working in isolation from contract managers 

TO 

Imp roved Supplier Relationships between the customer by sharing of mutual outc o m e s 

Mutual Benefits for customer & supplier with a focus on the positives 

Qualitative Competency evaluated against the management processes delivering 

outcomes required 

Quality environment where supplier per formance data is dynamically used 

Supplier competency evaluation and Contract focussed auditing 

Sharing of supplier per formance information 

Top down contract focused auditing of the suppliers management processes 

E stablishment of imp roved and auto m a ted supplier perfo rmance comp a rison capability 

Trend analysis over time availability 

Objective evidence of data optimised 

Automatic analysis of data and ready access 

Feedback of data disciplined and database updated for instant and timely national 

access 

CQA Operatives working in a team environment with contract managers in a pro-active 

environment 

SUPPLIER CO M P E T E NC Y 

E VA LUAT I O N S 

We define supplier competency 

as the application of the 

management process controls to 

processes to produce the 

required contracted outcomes. 

If this can be measured then we 

will have the ability to set 

standards, apply comparisons 

between suppliers and determine 

trends of improvement. Ideally, 

the competency evaluations of a 

supplier are best carried out precontract 

but can also be carried 

out at as part of an ongoing audit 

program. 

Recommendations that have 

been provided to suppliers on 

ways to imp rove th e i r 

m a n a gement processes have 

been re c e i ved positive ly to date . 

The comp e tency eva l u a t i o n 

p rocess provides a win-win fo r 

c u stomer and supplier. 

Accentuating the positives also 

aids in the custo m e r / s u p p l i e r 

relationship by imp roving tru st 

and communication, and prov i d e s 

the supplier with free adve rt i s i n g . 

The supplier is provided with a 

report comprising a description of 

his competency plus a 

description of areas of potential 

improvements to the supplier’s 

management processes as 

observed by the evaluation team. 

The completed evaluations, being 

largely objective in the scoring 

metrics, are processed into the 

QA Contract Support Database 

and scores with per formance and 

risk levels automatically 

calculated and displayed. This 

visibility of the supplier’s 

competency, performance, 

capabilities and associated risk 

levels then becomes an essential 

working tool for contract 

managers. 

Trend analysis allows for 

comparisons between any 

number of suppliers and enables 

contract managers to analyse 

and compare suppliers’ 

performance over a given time 

period. The contracting processes 

are made more ef ficient and 

effective due to better selection 

and utilisation of the more 

competent suppliers 

The developed process is working 

well, however there are trade 

offs. The range of competency 

elements, currently being approx 

200, requires a fair amount of 

time to evaluate and clearly is 

not ideal for all occasions. 

Evaluating and maintaining an 

information base on small 

suppliers under the cur rent 

arrangements requires a larger 

than necessary investment in 

resource and time. 

For the next stage in the 

evolution cycle we need to raise 

development to where the final 

result is proportionate to the 

investment in evaluation time. 

This is a continuing part of our 

development agenda. 

A DVA N TAGES OF THE QA 

CO N T RACT SUPPORT DATA BA S E 

The database provides visibility to 

contract managers and CQA 

Operatives of detailed supplier 

competency, performance and 

related risk levels within a 

business unit. Listed here are 

some of the more specific 

features of the (Phase 2) QA 

Contract Support Database 

available to operators: 

• Designed as CQA operative and 

contract manager supplier 

information tool.

5 0 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T I N F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 

A good outcome of the 

contract is to achieve what 

both the supplier and the 

customer want, with 

schedule, cost and quality. 

• Provides supplier performance 

and risk identification information 

plus audit planning and an 

Audit Diary. 

• Provides full supplier details and 

or equipment search and 

maintenance capabilities 

• Provides Performance Metrics 

capability and supplier trend 

analysis profiles/comparisons, 

• Facilitates Supplier’s Corrective 

Action Requests (CAR) and 

History Reports, 

• Links to supplier capability 

information, capacity data, 

competency elements, scoring, 

templates, forms, trend analysis, 

contract auditing information, 

standards, business unit 

procedures, MSD procedures and 

policies, Certification (QMS), and 

Specialisations. 

• Provides for Security and the 

management by Classes of 

supplies, groups and criteria 

National access to a common 

database is the ideal, and once 

achieved, the sharing of known 

supplier performance information 

will provide all business unit 

contract managers with visibility 

and accessibility to the same 

supplier competency and 

performance information. This will 

also improve the management of 

suppliers across MSD and 

improve the efficient and 

effective use of CQA resources 

across business units. 

DMO CO M PANY SCO R E CA R D 

Within the DMO Company 

Scorecard there are nine 

categories comprising 

Performance, Cost, Earned Value; 

Schedule, Australian Industr y 

Involvement (AII), Contracting, 

Intellectual property (IP), Sub/ 

Prime Relationship, Def/Cont 

Relationship, and Quality 

The DMO Company Scorecard 

database and the QA Contract 

Support Database are 

fundamentally complementary 

tools. The CQA Contract Support 

Database provides information 

on quality and performance. 

This data will be eventually be 

linked automatically to the 

DMO Company Scorecard. 

Currently that data can only be 

transferred manually. 

CO N T RACT FOCUSED AU D I T I NG 

A good outcome of the contract is 

to ach i eve what both the supplier 

and the customer want, with 

s chedule, cost and qu a l i t y. 

T h roughout the duration of a 

c o n t ract the most common 

m e thod to obtain confidence in 

supplier process manage m e n t 

p e rfo rmance is to underta ke 

audits focussed in the fi rst 

i n stance at the upper level of 

c o n t racting, unless other CQA 

actions are found necessary and 

a p p ro p ri a te. This means th a t 

audits are focused on obta i n i n g 

c o n fidence of contract comp l i a n c e 

at the appro p ri a te level and are 

based upon documented objective 

evidence. The appro p ri a te meth o d 

used here is, in the fi rst insta n c e , 

that the supplier provides all th e 

o b j e c t i ve evidence in accord a n c e 

w i th the agreed quality plan and 

that he has control over all th e 

m a n a gement process including his 

sub suppliers in the delive ry of th e 

re qu i red contra c ted outc o m e s . 

CO N T RACT MANAGER BENEFITS 

The aim of any tool is to prov i d e 

the user with the knowl e d ge and 

p ower that the suppliers are 

c o mp e tent and perfo rming in 

a c c o rdance with contra c t 

re qu i rements to meet contra c t 

o b j e c t i ves and outcomes. 

The contract manager re qu i res 

the confidence that the supplier 

has complied with all contra c t u a l 

re qu i rements in relation to his 

d e l i ve rables. The appro p ri a te 

utilisation of Quality Assura n c e 

O p e ra t i ves in a team env i ro n m e n t 

to ge ther with planned re g u l a r 

c o n t ract auditing, the provision of 

advice and fe e d b a ck can and will 

reduce many problems associate d 

w i th contract outcomes. This must 

then lead to the establishment of 

c o n fidence that the product and 

or service is “fit for purpose” and 

d e l i ve red confo rming to 

c o n t ra c ted specifi c a t i o n s . 

CURRENT STAT U S 

Approximately 50% of SPO 

Business Units are now operating 

the CQA Program at different 

levels of maturity. Currently 

implementation is complete in 

SSMO and PBSMO and is 

ongoing in SRCO-WA, SRCO-EA, 

AAS SMO, FFGSMO, ACLO and 

NSC SMO. Given the cur rent LMG 

refinement of the Targeted 

Assurance and the current 

reshaping of the CQA Program 

activities, it is expected that MSD 

wide implementation will be 

completed by the end of 2002. 

Acknowledgements I would like to give 

special thanks to RADM K. Scarce, RAN, 

for having the foresight to promote the 

total CQA Program and to Mr John Bishop, 

for setting the objectives realised from his 

review into contracting in N avy plus his 

contribution to the Quality Assurance 

Implementation Team. Thanks also to the 

RMS CQA Development Team which I had 

the privilege of leading, in particular 

Mr. Frank Carabott and Mr. Andrew 

Presland who were the main team 

contributors, with Mr. Serge Busato, 

Mr. Rhod Grey and Mr. Ian Granshaw 

adding support at various times. The 

contribution by Mr. Charles Galea, CAPT 

Tony Jenkinson, RAN, LCDR Derek Buxton, 

RAN, Mr Simon Lee and Mr Peter W right 

cannot be understated as their persistence 

leadership and continued support of the 

CQA program is critical to its ongoing 

success. 

About the author Ray Majewski is the 

Deputy Director Quality Assurance, which is 

part of the Logistic Management Group 

within MSD. He previously worked in the 

COMLOG(N) organisation as the national 

manager of the Repair Management 

Services organisation, and prior to that he 

wo rked in the Munitions Fa c to ry at St. Marys 

as a senior Engineer, managing the FDZC, 

Shell & Bomb and Pyrotechnic Production 

Sections.


5 1 

Why is the Workforce 

Upside Down? 

BY CAPTAIN CRAIG KERR, RAN 

DIRECTOR NAVY PROFESSIONAL 

REQUIREMENTS (ENGINEERING 

AND LOGISTICS) 

Prior to coming to Canberra to work as DNPR(E&L) I really didn’t pay 

too much attention to workforce structure and the seemingly mystical 

workings of the Manpower Planners. I guess I was just too busy coping 

with the realities of personnel shortfalls at the coalface on a day to day 

basis to concern myself with the wondrous machinations of “TBIC” 

(Those Bastards In Canberra). Well, guess what? Now I am one of 

those “Bastards”! 

The main focus of DNPR (E&L) is 

on Category Sponsorship of the 

Technical and Supply Primary 

Qualifications and Categories. 

A big part of that focus is on 

getting the shape of the 

workforce structure cor rect within 

each individual sub-stream, 

because it is the shape of the 

workforce structure that forms the 

basis of, and is a key factor in 

determining the viability of our 

workforce systems. 

There are a few premises to the 

architecture of our current 

workforce structures and perhaps 

some of these need to be further 

challenged: 

• Invariably we “grow” our entire 

workforce from the bottom up. 

That is, if you want to be in the 

Navy you either start at the 

recruit school or CRESWELL and 

work your way up through the 

ranks from there. 

• There is currently minimal scope 

for lateral recruiting, except, 

perhaps, from other Navies. 

• Over time, personnel leave the 

RAN. As length of time in the 

Navy generally equates to 

progression in rank, it follows 

that we need a workforce that 

has less Warrant Officers than 

Chief Petty Officers, less Chief 

Petty Officers than Petty Officers, 

less Petty Officers than Leading 

Seaman and so on down the 

ranks. This premise also applies 

to the Officer ranks. You end up 

with what may be described as a 

workforce pyramid. These 

“pyramids” generally give you a 

sustainable workforce and work 

best when there is a large 

population in the workforce. 

• For technical personnel in the 

past, our ships have been 

manpower intensive to operate 

and to maintain. This has 

naturally required a larger 

proportion of our workforce to be 

at the junior level and a lesser 

proportion at the senior level. It 

tended to suit the workforce 

pyramid requirements fairly well. 

The realities of today’s Navy, 

unfortunately, do not match the 

above premises. 

• There is a wide range of 

educational standards held by 

prospective recruits, generally 

ranging from Year 10 through to 

Bachelor Degree. Having an all-in 

grow from the bottom up 

workforce does not mat ch this 

range of educational qualification 

at all and is a clear dis-incentive 

for the high achievers. 

• Demographic studies tell us that 

today’s population are much 

more job-mobile than in the past. 

Generally, they will change jobs a 

number of times in their lifetime. 

There is not an expectation of life 

long employment in the one 

company. Our current inability to 

take on experienced people from 

the civilian workforce and quickly 

employ them in our mid to senior 

ranks does not match the 

demographic profile of 

Australians today. This is denying 

the RAN a wide sector of 

potential (lateral) recruits. 

• For techos, HMAS Brisbane was 

probably the last Ship in the RAN 

that was manpower intensive 

enough at the junior rank level to 

support a viable workforce 

pyramid . . . Cof fee Bean sniffing 

time guys . . . She has just paid 

off!! Virtually all current 

platforms in the RAN employ 

technology and automation that 

has greatly reduced the 

requirement for “hands-on” 

operation. Further, matching 

personnel skill sets to the 

maintenance requirements has 

driven us to require a much 

higher proportion of ver y 

experienced, specialised 

technical senior sailors and a 

lesser proportion of junior sailors 

with generic skills. This trend is 

expected to continue with the 

future on going acquisition of 

“modern” platforms. ANZAC 

actually has more POMTs than 

LSMTs in the Scheme of 

Complement, which is quite 

definitely an “upside down” 

workforce structure, and, by the 

way, inherently unsustainable. 

• The level of technology used 

today pushes us towards 

specialisation rather than multi 

skilling. Unfortunately, when you 

generate larger numbers of 

BELOW CAPTAIN CRAIG KERR


Our current inability to take on experienced 

people from the civilian workforce and 

quickly employ them in our mid to senior 

ranks does not match the demographic 

profile of Australians today. 

individual specialisations, the 

actual number of people in those 

individual specialisations gets 

smaller. This is not conducive to 

the highly populated, sustainable 

workforce pyramids I was talking 

about before and is a problem 

particularly evident in the ET 

world. The current trend in ET 

structures in some of our newer 

platforms, for example, has 

2 x ABETXX, 1 x LSETYY and 

1 x POETXX which tells me you 

cannot grow either the LSETYY or 

the POETXX uniquely from within 

that platform. Under current 

arrangements we will have to 

employ multi skilling and out-ofsub-stream 

employment to 

develop the skills and experience 

we need at the more senior levels 

within that platform. 

In conjunction with the workforce 

planners, part of the job of 

DNPR(E&L) has been to examine 

the Engineering sub-stream 

workforce structures in detail to 

identify problem 

areas and then set about 

rectifying them. It is complex 

business. We cannot simply 

change the workforce structure 

so it “looks good”. There are 

many flow on effects, including 

training: when, where and how; 

billet pre-requisites; time-in-rank; 

maintenance requirements; 

operating procedural paradigms 

(why do we do rounds so often 

on fully monitored, automated 

equipment?); competencies and 

civil recognition of qualifications 

to name a few. 

In the past year and a half there 

has been improvement in our 

recruiting and retention 

achievements stemming from 

“Project Action” and this is 

particularly encouraging and 

should help us “Staff the Navy”. 

We need to ensure, however, 

that we have the systems in 

place that enable our people 

to be effective in the workplace 

and bring to it valued skills. 

Getting the workforce structure 

the right way up I believe is 

essential to ensuring the long 

term viability of the RAN, but 

it is only part of the puzzle. 

The tricky thing about Category 

Sponsorship is you need to see 

the entire “picture” in order to 

manage it properly. The problem 

is the picture is continually 

changing and often ill defined. 

I look forward to playing a role in 

designing and implementing the 

workforce for our a future 

platforms . . . mmm, if only 

anyone knew what that workforce 

looked like!! 

In subsequent editions of the 

NEB DNPR(E&L) will aim to give 

you an update on progress in 

addressing the challenges I have 

alluded to in this article. 

It is not all doom and gloom. 

There is scope for some good 

improvements out there and we 

have a number of projects 

running now. 

. . . and I thought being one of 

TBICs was going to be a doddle!!! 

P.S. One of the critical tools that 

my team uses in evaluating 

workforce structures as part of 

our role as category sponsor is 

the Duty Statement. At the 

moment Duty Statements can be 

printed from NPEMS and the 

data is presented as a completed 

Form PE239. Sadly, most Duty 

Statements are out of date, 

which means that the data that 

has already been migrated to 

PMKEYS is also out of date. 

I implore all managers of Navy 

personnel in all areas of Defence 

to review the Duty Statements of 

the billets under their control and 

submit proposed amendments on 

Form PE239 (available on Web 

Forms) in accordance with DI(N) 

ADMIN 4-3. 

About the author CAPT Craig Kerr joined 

the Royal Australian Navy on the UVEN 

scheme from Monash University in 1979. 

He has served in numerous RAN warships 

and was MEO of HMA Ships DARWIN and 

PERTH. His shore postings have covered a 

range of areas including Ship repair, refit 

and material support, quality assurance 

and training delivery. In the training role he 

served on the staff at CERBERUS and 

RNEC Manadon. Twice on the engineering 

staff of MHQ, he more recently served as 

FMEO. CAPT Kerr is currently the Director 

Navy Professional Requirements 

(Engineering and Logistics). He eager ly 

awaits the opportunity to undertake a 

“staff” course. (Hint, hint!!)


5 3 

An Engineer’s Lament 

Now each of us from time to time has gazed upon the sea, 

and watched the mighty warships pulling out to keep this country free. 

And most of us have read a book or heard a lusty tale, 

about these men who sail these ships through lightning, wind and hail. 

But there’s a place within each ship that legends fail to teach. 

it’s down below the water line and it takes a living toll 

-- a hot metal living hell, that sailors call the “Hole”. 

It houses engines, run with steam that makes the shafts go round. 

A place of fire, noise and heat that beats your spirits down. 

Where boilers are a hellish heart, with blood of angry steam, 

are moulded gods without remorse, are nightmares in a dream. 

Whose threat from the fire’s roar, is like a living doubt, 

that at any moment with such scorn, might escape and crush you out. 

Where turbines scream like tortured souls, alone and lost in Hell, 

are ordered from above somewhere, they answer every bell. 

The men who keep the fires lit and make the engines run, 

Are strangers to the light of day and rarely see the sun. 

They have no time for man or God, no tolerance for fear, 

their aspect pays no living thing a tribute of a tear. 

For there’s not much that men can do that these men haven’t done, 

beneath the decks, deep in the hole, to make the engines run. 

And every hour of every day they keep the watch in Hell, 

for if the fires ever fail their ship’s a useless shell. 

When ships converge to have a war upon the angry sea, 

the men below just grimly smile at what their fate will be. 

They’re locked below like men foredoomed, who hear no battle cry, 

it’s well assumed that if they’re hit men below will die. 

For every day’s a war down there when gauges all read red, 

twelve hundred pounds of heated steam can kill you mighty dead. 

So if you ever write their song or try to tell their tale, 

the very words would make you hear a fired furnace’s wail. 

And people as a general rule don’t hear of these men of steel, 

so little heard of this place that sailors call the “Hole”. 

But I can sing about this place and try to make you see, 

the hardened life of the men down there, ’cause one of them is me. 

I’ve seen these sweat soaked heroes fight in superheated air, 

to keep their ship alive and right, though no one knows they’re there. 

And thus they’ll fight for the ages on till warships sail no more, 

amid the boiler’s mighty heat and the turbine’s hellish roar. 

So when you see a ship pull out to meet a war-like foe, 

remember faintly if you can, “The Men Who Sail Below”. 

A n o ny m o u s 

LEFT FLAME FROM THE BOILER OF THE 

RAN’S LAST STEAMSHIP – HMAS 

BRISBANE DDG 41


BY MR. ROB ALLARD 

STAFF OFFICER – ENGINEERING 

EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING, 

DNPR(E&L) 

Qualifications and 

Licenses – aren’t they 

the same thing? 

O R THE QUA L I F I CATIONS NAVY GIVES ME DON’T ALLOW ME TO BE AN ELECTRICIAN OR CIVILIAN SHIPS ENG I N E E R 

One of the many things DNPR(E&L) is involved in as the ET and MT 

Category Sponsor, is the Civil Accreditation of the training you receive 

and the qualifications that you may obtain during your time in the Navy. 

DNPR(E&L) does not obtain the accreditation for the training; that’s 

the job of NPTC-C. However, we do keep abreast of the changes in the 

civilian world so that we can advise and request NPTC-C to pursue 

accreditation on your and our behalf. 

As Category Sponsor we get 

many enquires and questions 

like: ‘Why doesn’t Navy train me 

to get my A Grade Electrical 

License?’, or ‘Why doesn’t AMSA 

recognise my Engineroom 

Certificate?’. The answers to 

these questions are two fold. 

1. There is a dif ference between 

a Qualification and a License; 

and 

2. The qualification you hold 

does not mean you are entitled 

to a license. 

I will endeavour to explain these 

two issues and what this means 

to you. 

So, what is the difference 

between a qualification and a 

license? 

Q UA L I F I CATIONS 

A qualification can be obtained 

in a few ways, but in general it is 

achieved by undertaking a 

prescribed course of study 

and/or, in the current National 

Competency Based Training 

regime, by being assessed as 

competent. That is, as having 

attained a level of skill and 

knowledge to meet a defined 

competency or suite of 

competency standards. 

Once a person has been 

assessed as competent to a 

defined suite of competency 

standards they are entitled 

to a Qualification. 

LICENSES 

A license is generally issued 

to a person once they have 

met the criteria against a 

specific regulation. Regulations 

are a product of legislation or 

an ‘Act of Parliament’. Usually 

regulations are generated by an 

industry, government body or 

community’s concern about 

some aspect of one or more 

industry’s operations. 

Frequently, regulation will relate 

to safety issues in areas such 

as transport, manufacturing, 

health etc. However, it can 

apply to other issues such as 

financial institutions, protection 

of the environment and fair 

trade practices. 

The ‘Act’ or legislation will 

generally establish an authority 

or body to administer the 

regulations, including the 

licensing of any persons or 

business to operate within the 

regulations. Anyone operating 

outside the regulations is 

obviously breaking the law. 

The ‘Act’ can be either at the 

Federal or State level, which then 

poses another set of problems. 

SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? 

A frequent misconception is that 

training and licensing are the 

same thing as most regulatory 

bodies issue licences to confirm 

a person has been assessed as 

having the skills and knowledge 

to operate safely. Similarly, 

education or training institutions 

issue qualifications that also 

confirm that a person has been 

assessed as having attained a 

level of skill, and knowledge. 

This then poses the following 

question ‘Will a person who has 

completed a qualification be 

recognised as meeting the needs 

of an individual to acquire an 

industry license within the 

relevant jurisdiction?’ 

The short answer is ‘no’ as the 

licensing and the issuing of 

educational qualifications are 

serving different although related 

purposes. Often regulatory 

authorities require additional 

requirements beyond a 

qualification such as time served 

in a particular work context. 

While education and training may 

have a role in achieving statutory


5 5 

regulations, there are other 

aspects of licensing which are 

covered by the regulator y 

authority that are not relevant to 

education and training 

organisations. For example; 

design attributes, preventative 

measures, mandatory operational 

procedures, length of time 

served, period of time since last 

audit, the provision of protective 

clothing and equipment, 

restrictions on the use of 

materials and chemicals, etc. 

Similarly, educational 

qualifications may address other 

aspects of competence beyond 

that specifically needed for a 

license for example; life skills, 

management techniques both 

personnel and economic and 

aspects of quality which go 

beyond safety. 

The objectives of education and 

training and regulatory authorities 

overlap but are not totally 

shared. This can be summarised 

in Figure 1. 

The diagram shows that some 

areas of competence overlap. 

Those areas of education that do 

not overlap would be the skills 

and knowledge required by an 

organisation, such as Navy, to do 

a specific job, ie be an MT(E) or 

MT(M). Similarly those areas of 

licensing that do not overlap 

would be items required of the 

licensing body ie 12 months 

electrical wiring installation work 

in residential situations, or in the 

case of Marine qualifications 

Sea time. 

SO HOW CAN I GET MY 

E L E C T R I CAL LICENSE? 

The answer to this question is 

simply that you will have to do 

some work off your own bat, but 

with a little help from the Navy. 

To get your license involves a few 

steps, but the steps depend on 

some factors like what 

qualification you have and which 

State you live in. What ever your 

circumstances, the following 

steps may help you: 

1. Go and see the regulatory 

authority in the State in which 

you reside to determine where 

your shortfalls are and what you 

need to do to obtain a license. 

Take a copy of all your 

qualifications with you. 

2. Enrol in TAFE and do (fo r 

e xa mple) the AS/NZS 3000: 

2000 wiring rules, and any oth e r 

c o u rses that may be re qu i re d 

a fter you have spoken to th e 

re g u l a to ry body. Don’t fo rget to 

a p p ly for Defence Assisted St u d y 

S cheme (DASS) to help you with 

the fees (DI(N) PERS 20-5 re fe rs ) . 

3. Depending on the Regulator y 

bodies requirements you may 

have to work with a contractor for 

12 months. If this is the case 

then my personal advice is to 

approach a civvy contractor and 

offer to work for him on 

weekends, evenings and whilst 

on leave. 

4. As part of the licensing, 

and due to the introduction of a 

National Uniform Electrical 

Licensing framework, you may 

have to undergo a comprehensive 

examination comprising both 

practical skill and knowledge 

assessment. 

SO WHY CA N ’T NAVY TEACH 

ME THE WIRING RULES? 

S i mp ly Navy does not re qu i re 

you to know the AS/NZS 3000: 

2000 wiring rules. As an MT(E) 

you are not re qu i red to wire up a 

house, shop or fa c to ry. The 

same applies for other ite m s 

w h i ch a licensing auth o rity may 

need and Navy does not. 

H oweve r, the qu a l i fications yo u 

re c e i ve cover a substa n t i a l 

p ro p o rtion of what is needed fo r 

you to gain your license. Use th e 

DASS system to make up th e 

s h o rt falls in tra i n i n g . 

W H AT ABOUT ENG I N E RO O M 

T I CK E TS AND RECOGNITION 

BY AMSA ? 

Again we are talking about a 

re g u l a to ry auth o ri t y. The Au st ra l i a n 

M a ritime Safety Au th o rity (AMSA ) 

is a national auth o rity and is 

responsible, on behalf of th e 

C o m m o nwe a l th Gove rnment, fo r 

the regulation and safety ove rs i g h t 

of Au st ralia’s shipping fleet and 

m a n a gement of Au st ra l i a ’ s 

i n te rnational maritime obliga t i o n s . 

One of its roles is to enhance 

s a fety th rough the administe ri n g 

of the cert i fication (licensing) 

of seafa re rs . 

The certification of civilian 

seafarers is governed by the 

Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping 

for Seafarers 1995 (STCW95) 

which is a convention 

administered by the International 

Maritime Organisation, of which 

Australia is a member. STCW95 

has been enacted in Australia b y 

an Act of Federal Parliament. 

Work is currently being conducted 

between AMSA and DNPR(E&L) 

to identify exactly where Navy 

sailors meet the requirements of 

STCW95. This is not a simple 

task because Navy operates 

ships very differently from those 

in the civilian world. We have 

more people onboard, we 

watchkeep in the machinery 

space or in a central location 

(ie CCS, MCR or on the bridge) 

we generally don’t load cargo 

on and off the ship (there are 

some exceptions here) and we 

don’t log our seatime. 

Part of the ‘licensing’ of a 

seafarer is a specific amount of 

time at sea, as we don’t log this 

very accurately, we know when 

we post on a ship and when we 

post off, but their may be a lot of 

time alongside in that period. As 

a result AMSA halve our seatime. 

Another area we fall short of is in 

the educational area. AMSA 

require, for example, an Engineer 

Class 2 to have completed a 

Diploma of Marine Engineering 

from an AMSA approved Training 

Provider. Navy’s training does not 

cover everything in this Diploma 

as Navy does not require every 

MT to know thermodynamics, 

stability and other subjects to the 

level of a Diploma.


The above can appear to be all 

doom and gloom, but this is not 

the case, AMSA will and do give 

a level of recognition, but it is 

dependent on what you have 

accomplished during your time in 

the Navy. They treat the 

recognition on a case by case 

basis. As mentioned earlier, 

DNPR(E&L) is working with AMSA 

to simplify and streamline the 

recognition process. 

DNPR(E&L) may be successful in 

gaining a streamlined process 

but one factor will always remain; 

and that is the sitting of an AMSA 

oral examination. Even those 

people who obtain a Diploma or 

Advanced Diploma from an AMSA 

approved Training provider still 

have to sit an oral examination, 

it is part of the license regime. 

SO WHAT RECOGNITION 

DO I GET FOR AN OPERATO R 

Q UA L I F I CATION? 

At the AMSA or National level you 

could expect to gain recognition 

for half your sea time, your 

civilian trade qualification should 

be recognised, whether it is a 

NSW Tradesman’s Certificate or a 

MERS Certificate III. They may 

recognise aspects of First aid, 

Firefighting and Survival at Sea. 

AMSA would then expect you to 

complete an approved course at 

an approved Training Provider 

before they would allow you to sit 

an oral examination. 

If however you wished to apply 

for a State based ‘Certificate of 

Competence’ then the process is 

a lot better. DNPR(E&L) gained a 

level of recognition with the 

National Marine Safety 

Committee (NMSC) last 

November. The NMSC consists of 

representatives from each of the 

State and Territory Marine 

Authorities and AMSA. The NMSC 

produced a ‘Guideline for 

Recognition of Australian Defence 

Force Marine Qualifications’. This 

publication is available at the 

NMSC we b s i te (www. n m s c . g ov. a u ) . 

The guideline gives the examiner 

in each State or Territory 

guidance on how much 

Recognition of Prior Learning they 

should give sailors who hold an 

AMOC, MWC or EWC. The 

guideline gives almost equivalent 

recognition as follows: 

• AMOC – Marine Engine Driver 

Class 3 

• MWC – Marine Engine Driver 

Class 2 

• EWC – Marine Engine Driver 

Class 1 

T h e re may be some short falls in 

some areas for exa mple Math s 

at the Marine Engine Dri ve r 

Class 1 level. The guideline also 

accepts that you would have 

a t tained the re qu i red seatime, 

a fter all you would have had to 

been at sea to gain an AMOC, 

M WC or EWC. It also assumes 

you have comp l e ted Fi rst Aid, 

Fi re Fighting and Surv i val at Sea 

t raining. You will, howeve r, have 

to sit an oral examination pri o r 

to being awa rded the re l eva n t 

C e rt i fi c a te of Comp e te n c y. 

This will satisfy the Licensing 

re qu i re m e n t . 

If the examiner is not confident 

with your abilities, he will not 

award you with the Certificate of 

Competence, he will advise you 

on the short falls and how you 

can address them before sitting 

the oral examination again. 

Remember he is taking 

responsibility for ensuring you 

meet a regulation of an Act of 

Parliament. 

As you will be sitting an oral 

assessment I would suggest you 

check out the Uniform Shipping 

Laws (USL) Code, Section 2/3. 

It is expensive to purchase in its 

entirety, but you would only need 

sections 1, 2 and/or 3. They are 

available from Government 

Information Shops. Section 1 

covers Introduction, Definitions 

and General Requirements and 

costs $4.00, Section 2 covers 

Qualifications and Manning, 

Trading Vessels and costs 

$6.95, and section 3 covers 

Qualifications and Manning, 

Fishing Vessels and its cost 

is $9.50. 

Please be aware that there is 

change afoot to the USL Code by 

the introduction of the National 

Standard for Commercial Vessels 

(NSCV). Part D of this covers 

Crew Competencies. The NSCV 

has yet to be passed into 

legislation by an ‘Act’ of each and 

every State, so this may take a 

while. 

CO NC LUSION 

As you can see from the above, 

gaining a license, whether it be 

for an A Grade Electrician or 

Marine Engine Driver, is no mere 

formality. It is not something the 

Navy can do for you, as Navy 

cannot give the license, as Navy 

is not the regulatory body. 

The qu a l i fications Navy does 

awa rd you are a step towa rd s 

these licenses, but may not cove r 

all aspects of what you need. 

T h e re fo re, use the DASS system to 

‘ top-up’ on the education aspects. 

DNPR(E&L) is working towards 

making the processes of gaining 

licenses as easy as possible, but 

when each State licenses in a 

different way this makes things 

very difficult. Changes are 

happening, with things like the 

introduction of National Electrical 

Licensing but they usually have to 

be brought into legislation by an 

‘Act’ of State Parliament, and we 

all know how long politics takes. 

If you would like to discuss any 

details of this article then I can 

be contacted by email at 

rob.allard@defence.gov.au or by 

phone on (02) 6266 4110. 

About the author Rob Allard spent 

22 years in the Navy as a MTP and MT, 

he paid off in January 1997 as a Warrant 

Officer, his last posting was as the DMEO 

on HMAS Melbourne, which he regards 

as the ultimate job for a sailor. He has 

worked in DNPR(E&L) since its inception, 

and in DEP(N) before that. He has been 

involved with training and employment 

issues since he started in DEP(N) in June 

1997 and his ultimate goal is to gain as 

much recognition for the MT operator 

qualifications as possible, as he never got 

any when he paid off.


5 7 

Signature Aspects of 

Marine Gas Turbine 

Propulsion 

BY MR. PETER CLARK 

This article is intended to cover recent developments in propulsion 

exhaust suppression and propulsion relevant to any future RAN 

Surface Combatant. 

There is now considerable 

investigation of Infra-Red (IR) 

signature being carried out by our 

Defence Science and Technology 

Organisation, and we expect that 

our future ships will have to 

perform better in respect of 

exhaust temperature. 

A simple demonstration of this 

need is contained in Figure 1. 

The MEKO 200 propulsion 

exhaust system is basically 

similar to the unmodified “Tribal” 

class shown in the illustration (at 

least on the port side where the 

single turbine exhaust emerges). 

It is clear that with improving IR 

seeker technology becoming 

available to nations in our region, 

that this is no longer acceptable. 

The Canadian “Tribal” class was 

rebuilt with a modified exhaust 

system up to the standard of 

the “Halifax”. 

The RAN FFG class also has no 

e d u c to rs for IR suppression, 

but in this case, the sta b i l i t y 

i mplications of the additional to p 

weight may milita te aga i n st th e 

adoption of this particular syste m . 

The RAN should now consider 

the adoption of effective IR 

suppression on future Sur face 

Combatant designs, since other 

pressures might prevent the 

subsequent addition of these 

features to an existing design, 

which lacked these 

characteristics as originally built. 

It would be possible to add 

stacks with these features to 

both the ANZAC and FFG class 

vessels, assuming that the 

additional top weight would be 

acceptable, or that appropriate 

compensation could be arranged. 

The stealth characteristics for 

radar could also be improved at 

the same time by the substitution 

of a sloping flat-sided stack in 

place of the cur ved and conical 

surfaces used in the present 

stacks on these vessels. 

It is assumed that the mesh over 

the stack openings is sized to act 

as a flat radar reflector or 

perhaps as an absorber for the 

expected range of frequencies. 

The most basic problem is the 

high exhaust gas temperatures 

from the gas turbines used for 

sprint propulsion. The type of 

stack used on the MEKO 200 

provides no means of reducing 

the excellent infra-red targeting 

provided by the exhaust plume, 

and the stack itself becomes a 

target during turbine operation. 

CA NADIAN AND AMERICA N 

SY ST E M S 

An early user of the stack 

arrangement used by the MEKO 

200 was the Royal Canadian 

Navy on their “Tribal” class 

destroyers. The Canadians 

noticed the problem, and 

developed a system of ejector 

nozzles to combine ambient air 

with the hot turbine exhaust to 

reduce the temperature of the 

FIGURE 1 A MODELLED COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL CANADIAN “TRIBAL” CLASS 

WITHOUT IR SUPPRESSION AND A “HALIFAX CLASS FITTED WITH THE “DRES BALL” SYSTEM. 

HMCS CHARLOTTETOWN, A HALIFAX CLASS FRIG ATE, AT SEA. THE DRES BALL EXHAUST 

SYSTEMS ARE JUST VISIBLE THROUGH THE MESH ON THE UPPER FORWARD STACK SURFACE.


FIGURE 2 THE CANADIAN “DRES BALL” 

TYPE OF INFRA-RED EXHAUST 

SUPPRESSION SYSTEM. 

exhaust plume. The Canadian 

design is known as the “DRES 

Ball” after the research 

organisation that produced it and 

its overall shape. The Canadian 

stack design includes an external 

shield separated from the ducting 

to further reduce its temperature 

and hence its visibility in the 

IR spectrum. 

On the Tribal class themselves, 

a different solution was chosen, 

possibly to reduce weight, and 

the rebuilt vessels have heat 

absorbent tiles mounted to the 

funnel surface to reduce the 

IR signature. 

US Navy ships of th e 

“Ti c o n d e ro ga” and “A rleigh Burke ” 

classes use a similar but simp l e r 

s ystem of ejector nozzles, with less 

s e p a ration of the outer casing. 

vessels of the DD963 “Spruance” 

class, the DDG993 “Kidd” class 

the CG47 “Ticonderoga” class 

and the DDG51 “Arleigh Burke” 

class are all fitted with eductor 

diffuser systems similar to that 

illustrated here. This operates 

by entraining air through the 

diffuser rings, as illustrated, and 

cools the exhaust from the outer 

edge inward. 

This provides a cooler exhaust 

plume and considerable 

reduction in the detection 

probability of the turbine exhaust. 

It is effective only to about 70 

degrees from the horizon, leaving 

a vulnerable area above where 

the vessel could be tar geted by a 

high flying patrol aircraft, or a 

missile programmed to climb 

and dive as part of its approach 

manoeuvres. 

is achieved by injecting seawater 

into the exhaust stream. There 

are two points of injection, the 

first just aft of the turbine itself, 

and another in the exit pipe just 

before the exhaust reaches the 

atmosphere. The second set of 

injectors is triggered by 

temperature sensors in the 

exhaust pipe between the tw o 

sets of injectors, and the second 

spray is only triggered when 

required to maintain the 

appropriate temperature at 

the exit. 

The exhaust is, in this case, 

directed sharply downward into 

the wake, which should fur ther 

reduce any remaining heat and 

effectively prevents any “sighting” 

of the hot gases in the exhaust 

system by an IR seeker or search 

and track system. 

FIGURE 3 A CANADIAN VERSION OF THE 

EDUCTOR/DIFFUSER SYSTEM USED BY THE 

USN IN CG AND DDG CLASS SHIPS 

The “DRES Ball” diffuser was 

developed for the Canadian 

Armed Forces, and is used on 

the “Halifax” class Frigates. Its 

construction can clearly be seen 

in the adjacent diagram, from 

Davis Engineering of Canada. 

A reduction of 95% in the IR 

detection of the Gas Turbine 

exhaust is claimed for this 

pattern of diffuser, and it has 

the additional advantage over 

conventional eductors of a 

reduction in the temperature of 

the central core of the exhaust 

plume. This results from the 

induction of air into the centre 

of the stack through the central 

“ball” and the hollow struts. 

With a conventional eductor, 

the core of the exhaust plume 

is not cooled, and the ship 

can be detected by IR sensors 

from above. 

The manufacturers, who are also 

responsible for the Infra-Red 

modelling system NTCS used by 

the RAN, claim the DRES Ball to 

be the most advanced 

suppression system available for 

marine gas turbine engines. 

Although the USN did not fit any 

form of Infra-Red suppression to 

their FFG class ships, their larger 

The Canadians, much of whose 

c o a stline is located towa rd and 

b eyond the Arctic Circle, have a 

c o n s i d e rable incentive to consider 

IR emission ve ry seri o u s ly. Curre n t 

te chnical developments in IR 

s e e ker head design mean th a t 

Navies in wa rmer climates need 

to make the same ch a n ges as 

h ave the Canadians. 

A EUROPEAN SY ST E M 

A more complex system of IR 

suppression has been developed 

by the Norwegian company 

MECMAR, for use on the Swedish 

“Visby” class frigates and also on 

the South African A200 class 

frigates. 

This involves the use of stainless 

steel manifolds and titanium 

exhaust ducting, into which salt 

water is sprayed to reduce the 

exhaust temperature. The 

remaining exhaust is ducted t o 

the stern and directed at the 

wake to further reduce its IR 

signature. 

The Norwegian manufacturers of 

this system, Mecmar, claim a 

reduction to 60 degrees Celcius 

from the approximate 1000 

degrees Celcius expected from a 

gas turbine like an LM2500. This 

The major part of the exhaust 

system is made from titanium, 

certainly all of it downstream of 

the water injectors. The upstream 

section is stainless steel. 

It is clear that the some very 

corrosive chemicals will be 

formed in the cooling process by 

reaction with the water at the 

primary injector, and while the 

titanium ducting will resist these, 

they are disposed of through a 

drain into the sea. The 

manufacturers indicate that they 

have had no problems with 

corrosion at the drains, which 

suggests that the majority of 

corrosive products are entrained 

in the exhaust plume. This does 

suggest to the author that the 

temperature reduction at the first 

injector is not quite as g reat as 

claimed by the manufacturer. 

These exhausts are to be 

m a n u fa c t u red locally by Mari n e 

& Engineering Indust ri e s , 

p ro b a b ly for fa st cata m a ra n 

fe rries intended for No rth e rn 

E u ropean markets, where th i s 

s ystem is used to re d u c e 

a t m o s p h e ric pollution fro m 

diesel and gas turbine exhaust s , 

ra ther than as an infra - re d 

s u p p ression syste m .


5 9 

FIGURE 4 THE MECMAR EXHAUST SYSTEM INSTALLED IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN A200 FRIGATE 

However, being able to claim 

improved emissions will help the 

public relations aspect should the 

RAN equip any surface vessels 

with this system. 

South Africa has been the first to 

obtain the Blohm&Voss A200 

class Frigate, a development of 

the MEKO 200, which in its 

200ANZ version forms the RAN 

ANZAC class. Since the ships are 

still under construction, there has 

been little publicity regarding the 

details of its novel propulsion 

arrangements, discussed 

elsewhere in this report. However, 

from these drawings, it can be 

seen that the LM2500 gas 

turbine has been moved aft of 

the cruise diesel engines, since it 

drives a water jet directly rather 

than using the propeller shafts. 

The arra n gement is inte re sting in 

that a secondary ve rtical turbine 

e x h a u st is provided in the aft port 

qu a rter of the superst ru c t u re, next 

to the hanga r. This could be to 

a l l ow use of the turbine fo r 

m a n o e u v ring in harbour, where 

a transom exhaust might be 

re ga rded as unsuita b l e . 

The South African Blohm und Vo s s 

A200 fri ga te uses conve n t i o n a l 

s h a fts and controllable pitch 

p ro p e l l e rs, dri ven dire c t ly by th e 

c ruise diesels. 

While generally similar to the 

ANZAC, the Blohm & Voss MEKO 

A 200 has an entirely different 

means of getting the gas turbine 

“sprint” power into the water. 

Instead of using the shafts and 

controllable pitch propellers still 

used by the diesel engines for 

cruise, a separate water jet, 

mounted on the transom, is 

used. In particular, this allows the 

diesel and gas turbines to run at 

the same time, allowing a 

(slightly) higher top speed, 

estimated at 29 knots. 

. . . being able to claim imp rove d 

emissions will help the public re l a t i o n s 

aspect should the RAN equip any 

s u rface vessels with this syste m .

6 0 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL LE T I N FE B R U A RY 2 0 0 2 

AN ALT E R NATIVE APPROACH 

An alternative approach to 

reducing the temperature of 

exhaust gases is shown in the 

Northrop Grumman/Rolls Royce 

WR21 gas turbine. This uses an 

approach vaguely analogous to 

the addition of a turbochar ger to 

a diesel engine, or a superheater 

in a marine boiler, in that 

otherwise waste energy is 

recovered for use in the engine. 

In this case the heat energy is 

re c ove red from the exhaust 

st ream as it is passed th rough a 

heat exch a n ger arra n ged above 

the power turbine, which is used 

to heat air already comp ressed by 

the gas ge n e ra tor immediate ly 

b e fo re the combustion ch a m b e r 

w h e re fuel is added and burn t . 

Since the gas turbine cycle is 

m a i n ly dependent on th e 

d i ffe rence in te mp e ra t u re betwe e n 

inlet and outlet, this re c ove re d 

e n e rgy can signifi c a n t ly incre a s e 

e ffi c i e n c y, part i c u l a rly at lowe r 

p owe rs where the specific fuel 

c o n s u mption of a turbine is wo rst . 

The manufacturers claim that the 

temperature reduction involved at 

full power (400 deg.F, about 200 

deg C) compared to a simple 

cycle turbine is sufficient that no 

eductors, of the type illustrated 

earlier, would be required. The 

temperatures quoted are a 

significant reduction, but 

continuing improvement in IR 

technology would suggest that 

some form of exhaust cooling 

be maintained. 

T h e re is a considerable we i g h t 

i n c rease due to the re c u p e ra to r, 

about 50 tonnes, but this is fa i rly 

l ow in the ship. It is claimed th a t 

the fuel consumption imp rove m e n t 

would allow the elimination of 

c ruise diesel engines, which are 

even heav i e r, but this perfo rm a n c e 

is so far th e o re t i c a l . 

The Royal Navy Type 45 is the 

first vessel currently proposed to 

use the WR21, but the USN is 

interested in using them in the 

DD-X Prototype Destroyer. 

About the author Peter Clark works for the 

Directorate of Naval Platform Systems 

within Navy Systems Branch, and is the 

Project Liaison Officer for Amphibious and 

Afloat Support Projects He has previously 

worked with Naval Aviation Engineering, the 

RAAF Tactical Fighter Project and the 

Guided Missile Frigate Project. 

TOP THE COMBINED CONTROLLABLE PITCH 

PROPELLER AND WATER JET DRIVE OF THE 

A200. THE GAS TURBINE EXHAUST IS JUST 

ABOVE THE WATER JET. 

BOTTOM THIS SCALE MODEL OF THE WR21 

CLEARLY SHOWS THE ADDITIONAL VOLUME 

REQUIRED BY THE “RECUPERATOR”, AND 

THE DUCTING TO TAKE THE COMPRESSED 

AIR FROM THE COMPRESSOR TO THE HEAT 

EXCHANGER AND BACK TO THE 

COMBUSTION CHAMBER. SHOULD A FAULT 

DEVELOP, THE RECUPERATOR CAN BE 

ISOLATED AND THE TURBINE WILL 

OPERATE AS A CONVENTIONAL OPEN 

CYCLE TURBINE.


6 1 

Navy Engineering 

Professional Development 

Program 

BY CMDR DARRYL VARCOE, 

RAN (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

NAVY PROFESSIONAL 

REQUIREMENTS – AVIATION 

ENGINEERING) 

Implementation of the ADF Aerospace Engineers Professional 

Development Program, announced in the June 2001 edition of the 

Naval Engineering Bulletin, is progressing very well with over 70% of 

currently serving Navy Aerospace Engineer Officers (AEOs) registering 

with IEAust on the Graduate Development Program (GDP). Several 

senior AEOs have already achieved Chartered Professional Engineer 

[CPEng, (Degree qualified)], status with IEAust under the GDP and 

Chief Naval Engineer (CNE) – CDRE Ken Joseph has been awarded 

‘Fellow’ membership of the Institution. 

Beginning January 2002, 

re g i st ration for the GDP will be 

c o mp u l s o ry for gra d u a te AEOs 

commencing AEO Application 

C o u rse at NAS Now ra. On joining 

the course, gra d u a te AEOs will 

c o mp l e te the re g i st ration fo rm 

and be issued their Comp e te n c y 

J o u rnal containing both the IEAu st 

and Navy specific comp e te n c i e s . 

The journal will then become th e 

gra d u a te’s wo rk histo ry log fo r 

re c o rding experience and 

c o mp e tency comp l e t i o n 

th roughout their Naval care e r. Two 

of the six IEAu st re qu i red units of 

c o mp e te n c y, and most of th e 

Navy specific comp e tencies, will 

need to be comp l e ted prior to th e 

gra d u a te AEO being eligible to 

a t tend a Cert i fi c a te of 

C o mp e tency (C of C) Board. All 

remaining comp e te n c i e s 

c o n tained in the journal should 

be comp l e ted prior to an AEO 

qualifying to attend the AEO 

C h a rge Qualification (CQ) Board . 

This career milestone should 

occur about the same time as 

CPEng or Charte red Engineeri n g 

O fficer [CengO, Ad va n c e d 

Diploma (Te chnical) qu a l i fi e d ] 

status is ach i eved with IEAu st . 

A D FA has comp l e te d 

d evelopment of a series of short 

c o u rses that contri b u te towa rd s 

a Maste rs Degree and RAAF has 

p ro m u l ga ted a list of those short 

c o u rses to be conducted duri n g 

2002, with the fi rst cours e 

commencing in Fe b ru a ry. 

All short courses comp rise about 

10 hours pre - c o u rse wo rk, one 

week of residence at ADFA 

u n d e rtaking lectures, followed 

by an assessed assignment. 

Two positions have been made 

available for Navy AEOs on each 

course and of the twelve subjects 

available through the program, 

eight have to be completed to 

qualify for a Masters. 

DNPR(E&L) is currently in 

negotiations with IEAust for the 

development of a similar prog ram 

for ME and WE of ficers and it is 

expected that a program should 

commence early in 2002. 

Further work is prog ressing within 

DNPR(E&L) on other retention 

and professional development 

initiatives for Navy engineering 

officers to ensure wor thwhile 

and rewarding careers are 

available to our personnel, 

together with professional 

recognition within the wider 

ADF and civilian community. 

DNPR (E&L) points of contact on 

these matters are: 

• for AEOs: CMDR Chris Fealy on 

(02) 6266 2097 or Email: 

chris.fealy@defence.gov.au; 

• for MEOs: CMDR Andy Hamilton 

on (02) 6266 4793 or Email: 

andy.hamilton@defence.gov.au; 

and, 

• for WEEOs: CMDR Richard Jones 

on (02) 6266 3048 or Email: 

richard.jones@defence.gov.au 

STOP PRESS: 

On February 2002 CNE signed 

an agreement with IEAust for 

the Professional Development 

Program for ME and WE 

personnel. The agreement was 

announced by signal DGNAVSYS 

WBS/W3Y/W31 120650Z 

FEB 02. Further details are 

available from LCDR Tom 

Munneke at DNPR(E&L) on 

(02) 6266 3443 or email 

Tom.Munneke@defence.gov.au 

We will continue to provide 

updates in future issues of the 

Navy Engineering Bulletin.


BY CMDR RICHARD JONES, RAN 

(ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NAVY 

PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

– WEAPONS ELECTRICAL 

ENGINEERING) 

The Electronic Technical 

Certificate of Competence 

The Electronic Te chnical Cert i fi c a te of Comp e tence (ETCC) was endors e d 

in March, and Defence Inst ruction (Navy) – Pe rsonnel 75-43 wa s 

released on 18 October 2001. The function of the ETCC is to provide 

a vehicle for Navy to assess the ability of ET Senior Sailors across th e 

ra n ge of maintenance, administ ration and management re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 

re qu i red to assume the duties of a Senior Te chnical Manager in the RA N. 

BELOW HANDS-ON MAINTENANCE WILL 

EVENTUALLY GIVE WAY TO THE NEED FOR 

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SKILLS, 

AS A SAILOR BECOMES MORE SENIOR 

The ETCC performs a similar 

function for the ET category to 

that performed by the Marine 

Technical Charge Certificate 

(MTCC) and Aircraft Maintenance 

Charge Certificate (AMCC) for the 

MT and AT categories. It provides 

assurance that the sailor is 

prepared for and has the 

knowledge to perform the duties 

of a senior technical manger in 

the operational environment 

required in the rank of CPOET. 

The ETCC (EDP 420285) is a 

prerequisite for the CPOATT 

course and for promotion to the 

rank of Chief Petty Of ficer 

Electronic Technician (CPOET). 

Candidates for the ETCC are to 

have a minimum of two years 

six months seniority as a Petty 

Officer. They must have 

completed their POATT 

Competency Log (EDP 420171) 

and all other discretionar y 

qualifications for promotion to 

Chief Petty Officer, prior to any 

recommendation being made to 

sit an ETCC board. They must 

also be recommended by a 

charge qualified WEEO. 

As a discretionary qualification, 

the onus is on the sailor to 

prepare him/herself to sit the 

board, although WEEOs are 

required to hold a dummy boar d 

prior to the candidate presenting 

at the ETCC board. The syllabus 

is published as an Annex to DI(N) 

PERS 75-43, and the candidate’s 

knowledge is assessed by a 

board consisting of two char ge 

experienced WEEOs and a 

Warrant or Chief Petty Of ficer 

from the same employment 

stream as the candidate. 

The board will assess the 

application of an individual 

sailor’s knowledge to a range of 

scenarios and problems based 

on the syllabus. To ensure 

consistency of the boards, one 

member of the board will be from 

Fleet Staff. 

Differing cognitive skills are 

applied to the ETCC syllabus, 

depending on the impor tance of 

the area to the performance of a 

CPOET. For example all CPOETs 

need an excellent understanding 

of areas such as RADHAZ and 

magazine safety, but the level of 

systems knowledge required will 

depend on the sailor’s 

employment stream. 

The ETCC will not be awa rd e d 

re t ro s p e c t i ve ly. To permit an 

o rd e rly introduction, the ETC C 

becomes a discre t i o n a ry 

qu a l i fication for promotion to 

CPOET for sailors with seniority as 

a POET of 30 March 2001 and 

l a te r. All POET sailors with seniori t y 

p rior to 30 March 2001 and all 

CPO and WO ET sailors are 

e xe mp ted from the re qu i rement to 

o b tain the ETCC. Sailors wishing


6 3 

to become commissioned via th e 

Ad vanced Diploma of Te ch n o l o g y 

[AD(T)] scheme for st u d i e s 

commencing on 1 January 2003 

or later are re qu i red to obtain th e 

E TCC prior to attending th e i r 

o ffi cer selection board. 

The official policy document for 

the ETCC is DI(N) PERS 75-43. 

This should be the initial 

reference for all queries 

concerning the ETCC. 

F R E Q U E N T LY ASKED QUEST I O N S 

My promotion seniority is befo re 

30 March 2001, can I obtain 

an ETCC? 

Yes, members who were 

promoted to PO prior to 30 

March 2001 will be able to sit 

ETCC boards subject to the 

capacity for a board to convene. 

I haven’t been able to sit an 

E TCC board for service re a s o n s ; 

will my promotion be 

d i s a d va n ta ged? 

No, where a member has been 

unable to sit for the ETCC for 

service reasons, they can apply 

to DNPR(E&L) and DSCM for 

a waiver. 

Is th e re any civil accre d i tation? 

No, the ETCC has no dire c t 

c o mp a rison with civil qu a l i fi c a t i o n s 

( Ne i ther does the MTCC. The 

AMCC leads to, and fo rms part of, 

l a ter civil recognition, but has no 

a c c re d i tation or direct civil 

e qu i va l e n t ) . 

What incentive is th e re to obta i n 

an ETCC? 

The ETCC is a discre t i o n a ry 

qu a l i fication for promotion to 

C P O E T. Wi thout the ETCC, you will 

not have access to the pro m o t i o n 

ro ste r. For sailors aspiring to 

commissioned rank as a WE 

o ffi c e r, the ETCC is a pre - re qu i s i te 

for pursuing this via the Ad va n c e d 

Diploma of Te chnology sch e m e , 

a l though the degree avenue of 

e n t ry remains open to all 

p e rsonnel with or without an ETC C . 

What happens if I fail the board? 

The sta n d a rd RAN policy of 

p e rmitting th ree atte mpts to 

o b tain a qu a l i fication applies. 

The FWEEO or DFWEEO will be 

m e m b e rs of the ETCC board 

for candidates who are sitting 

the ETCC for the second or 

th i rd time. 

H ow long is the board? 

The board will last for 

approximately 90 minutes. 

What happens if the board 

m e m b e rs disagree? 

The board has three members. 

In the event that the board 

members disagree about the 

COMIC RELIEF 

An Engineering Appro a ch – 

The Right Tool for the Right Job 

A guy walks into a pet store and 

asks to buy a canary. The 

proprietor replies, “I’m fresh out, 

but I DO have a parakeet.” 

The customer insists on a canar y, 

until the shop owner informs him 

that a parakeet can be made to 

sound like a canary if one files 

the beak just so. 

“Be careful not to file too much 

off or the parakeet will drown 

when he goes to take a drink of 

water.” 

The potential customer decides 

that this is complete bullshit, but 

thanks the shop owner politely 

and leaves, sans parakeet. He 

goes into another pet shop and 

asks for a canar y; no luck. 

“But”, says the shop owner, “I do 

have a parakeet and if you file 

the beak just so, it can be made 

to sound just like a canary.” 

He goes on to explain that filing 

off too much beak will jeopardise 

the bird’s life, due to the 

potential for drowning when he 

takes a drink. The fellow finally 

decides that there is some merit 

to these claims and buys the 

parakeet. “Besides”, he thinks to 

himself, “parakeets are much 

cheaper.” 

result of the board, the board 

President is the final arbiter. 

Do submari n e rs have to sit 

the ETCC? 

Yes, the ETCC is common to both 

general and submarine service. 

Can I sit a dummy board? 

The DI(N) requires that a dummy 

board be sat prior to attempting 

the ETCC board. This should be 

arranged with your WEEO. 

His next stop is a hardware s tore, 

where he wanders into the file 

section, holding his recently 

purchased bird. 

The owner wanders by and asks 

of he needs some help. The new 

bird owner sheepishly explains 

how he intends to make his 

parakeet sing like a canar y. 

The hardware storeowner 

knowingly picks up a file and 

hands it to him. “Here, a Nichols 

#2 bastard file. Be careful not to 

file too much off, or the poor 

beastie might drown.” The bird 

and file owner thanks the 

hardware storeowner and leaves 

for home. 

A few weeks later, the bird owner 

wanders into the hardware store. 

The owner, recognising him, asks 

how he made out with the 

parakeet. 

The fellow looks down and sadly 

reports, “Bird’s dead.” 

The hardware store owner shares 

his sorrow and asks, “Filed of f 

too much beak and he 

drowned?” 

To which the former bird owner 

replies, “Nah, he was dead when 

I took him out of the vice.”

6 4 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T IN F E B RU A RY 2 0 0 2 

The Maintenance 

Engineering Society 

of Australia Inc. 

A TECH N I CAL SOCIETY OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AU ST RA L I A 

AU ST RALIAN BUSINESS NO. 870 756 181 38, INCO R P O RATION REGIST RATION NO. A0032527 A 

The Maintenance Engineering 

Society of Australia (MESA) is 

the peak professional body for 

reliability, maintenance 

engineering and asset 

management in Australia. MESA 

is a Technical Society of the 

Institution of Engineers Australia 

(IEAust). MESA is a Learned 

Society of like-minded people 

who share in the vision of MESA 

through the Royal Charter of the 

IEAust. As such, MESA is a not 

aligned with any commercial 

activity and does not engage in 

any commercial or consultancy 

activities. 

Membership of MESA is open to 

any person who has an interest 

in both asset maintenance and 

the objectives of MESA and who 

agrees to abide by the Code of 

Ethics and Rules of the Society. 

For membership, simply 

download the Application Form 

at www.mesa.org.au or call 

+61 1300 365 855 or email 

the Societies Secretariat at 

Societies@ieaust.org.au 

The Mission of MESA is to 

promote and advance all facets 

of the science and practice of 

reliability and maintenance 

engineering and the engineering 

management of assets, and to 

facilitate the exchange of 

information and ideas related 

thereto. The MESA objectives ar e 

pursued through the following 

action: 

• MESA provides most of all a 

facility for local, national and 

international networking for all 

members and to worldwide 

Maintenance practitioners, 

information and developments, 

• All members receive the quarterly 

professional engineering journal 

– The New Engineer Journal, 

• Active MESA Chapter 

programmes of meetings, visits, 

seminars and lectures, 

• The annual International 

Conference of Maintenance 

Societies (ICOMS®), widely 

acknowledged by leading 

international visitors as one of 

the finest of its type in the world, 

• Annual Eminent Speaker 

Programmes, in which MESA 

selects international speakers of 

renown for Australian speaking 

tours, 

• The development of a dynamic 

internationally recognised 

Capability Assurance 

Maintenance Model. This Model 

is used as the basis for the 

accreditation of courses at 

Australian educational 

institutions, for the Australian 

Maintenance Engineering 

Excellence Award and for 

benchmarking Maintenance 

Audits, 

• Active participation in the 

development of Standards and 

Specific Areas of Practice under 

the National Engineers and 

Technologists Registration System 

(NPER and NETR) for use in 

Australian industry, 

• The conduct of annual awards 

for Maintenance Excellence, 

Maintenance Leadership and 

Maintenance Innovation. 

• Development of formal reciprocal 

membership links with 

international societies with 

similar interests. 

Currently MESA has some 

1250 individual and corporate 

members across a range of 

engineering and related 

disciplines, located in 11 

Chapters spread across Australia, 

all having international links. 

MESA evolved from the IEAust 

National Panel (later National 

Committee) for Maintenance in 

1994. Since the creation of 

Maintenance Engineering Society 

of Australia as a Technical 

Society of IEAust, MESA has 

strived vigorously to enhance 

the practice, science and 

management of reliability, 

maintenance engineering and 

asset management as the key 

determinants of the prosperity 

of Australian enterprises. 

The Society Objectives are: 

• To enhance the character, status 

and interests of asset and 

maintenance engineering and 

those who practice therein, 

• To represent the science and 

practice of asset and 

maintenance engineering to the 

community and all its bodies and 

to forge links with kindred 

organisations, 

• To lead and fos ter cooperation 

and a strategic approach to asset 

and maintenance engineering 

through industrial, commercial, 

academic, research and public 

organisations, 

• To engender and promote world 

class excellence and standards in 

the science and practice of asset 

and maintenance engineering, 

• To disseminate best practice asset 

and maintenance engineeri n g 

i n fo rmation, knowl e d ge, skills and 

capabilities, and 

• To recognise contributions and 

achievements in asset and 

maintenance engineering.

ENGINEERING - Royal Australian Navy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?