Standards in Defence News - Iain Macleod Associates

UK Defence Standardization
Standards in Defence
News
October 2007 Issue 206
Defence Equipment & Support
SAFETY & ENGINEERING

Puzzled
about your
next move?
Call the DStan Helpdesk on +44 (0)141 224 2531/2
www.dstan.mod.uk

Director General Safety
& Engineering
UK Defence Standardization
Room 1138
Kentigern House
65 Brown Street
Glasgow G2 8EX
Contacts
Head Standardization Operations
+44 (0)141 224 2521
Business Management and
Development
+44 (0)141 224 2496
Corporate Systems Development
+44 (0)141 224 2526
Standards Programme Management
+44 (0)141 224 2595
Head Standardization Policy
+44 (0)117 91 34186
Standardization Policy
+44 (0)117 91 34186
Head International Standardization
+44 (0)141 224 2504
International Standardization
+44 (0)141 224 2676
Communications and Marketing
+44 (0)141 224 2523
General Enquiries
enquiries@dstan.mod.uk
Request for Standards and SID News
distribution
requests@dstan.mod.uk
SID News Editor
the.editor@dstan.mod.uk
Standards in Defence News is
published by the UK Defence
Standardization Organisation, part of
Defence Safety & Engineering (DS&E).
Letters, articles, news items and other
submissions for this magazine are
welcomed and encouraged.
The publication of advertisements
does not in any way imply
endorsement by the Ministry of
Defence.
For further information contact:
The Editor, SID News
UK Defence Standardization
Room 1138, Kentigern House
65 Brown Street, Glasgow G2 8EX
Email: the.editor@dstan.mod.uk
Helpdesk
Tel: +44 (0)141 224 2531/2
Fax: +44 (0)141 224 2503
Website: www.dstan.mod.uk
For MoD and Industry users on the RLI:
www.dstan.dii.r.mil.uk
The contents of Standards in Defence
News are Crown Copyright and must not
be reproduced without permission. ©Crown
Copyright 2007
Helpdesk Disclaimer - The Authority accepts no liability
for any advice or assistance given, whether for a fee or
not, by any organisation supporting the DStan Helpdesk,
whether the customer is introduced to that organisation
by the Helpdesk or not and whether the said advice or
assistance contributes in any way to any loss occasioned
by the customer.
4
6
8
10
17
18
27
UK Defence Standardization
Standards in Defence News
October 2007 Issue 206
Contents
Editorial
By George McClintock
The European Defence Standards
Information System:
Doing things together
By David Wilkinson and Hans Kopold
Air & Space Interoperability Council
(ASIC) Projects
ASIC Projects confirmed for the next year
Defence Standard 05-10
Now references BS 8888 instead of BS 308 -
Headache or Opportunity?
By Iain Macleod
SIDoku
This Issue’s Puzzle
SAFETY & ENGINEERING
Advances in Development of Future Power
Sources for Military Use
International Power Sources Symposium (IPSS)
Power Overview
By Dstl, Physical Science Dept
Update
Defence Standards and STANAG Information
Designed by TES-TIG-5B4-DES Glasgow 07-008032
©Crown Copyright, images from www.defenceimages.mod.uk
3

4
George McClintock
Head of Communications and
Marketing
Tel: +44 (0)141 224 2523
Fax: +44 (0)141 224 2503
Email: TES-DStan-CM@dpa.mod.uk
Editorial
Welcome to Issue 206 of Standards in Defence News.
In this issue we continue with the next in our series of articles
on power systems. This time the authors focus on advances
in the development of future power sources for military use.
As the demands for power and energy for military applications
rapidly increases, the UK MoD and its allies seek to adopt
mission enabling, cutting-edge electronic technologies. As
a consequence of the volatility of price and supply of fossil
fuel it becomes ever more important to invest in and develop
alternative power sources for the future that meet our growing
energy demands whilst reducing our dependence on imports
of fossil based products. Several technologies are reviewed by
the authors, including advanced battery and fuel cell technology
as well as other electrical storage and power generation
technologies.
We also carry a feature on BS 8888 by Iain Macleod a Senior
Partner with Iain Macleod Associates. Iain is a member of BSI
technical committee TDW/4 and ISO technical committee TC213,
responsible for BS 8888 and related standards and geometrical
product specification and engineering tolerances. Iain gives us
some background information on the genesis of this standard and
his overview on its interpretation and use.
In order to enhance the interoperability of our military equipment
and make the end products more attractive to international
markets, it is becoming increasingly important for the European
Defence Agency’s participating Member States and other
stakeholders to work together on materiel standards to increase
the likelihood of co-operative programmes. In their article on the
European Defence Standards Information System (EDSIS), David
Wilkinson, Head of International Standardization in the UK, and
Hans Kopold from the Federal Office of Defence Technology and
Procurement in Germany, highlight the importance of making
other nations, industry and the civilian standardization bodies
aware of the development of new materiel standards and explain
how the European Defence Standards Information System will be
useful in this process.
Also featured inside is a list of Air and Space Interoperability
Council (ASIC) projects for the next twelve-month period as well
as contact details for the relevant Project Officers. First formed
in 1948, the Air and Space Interoperability Council (previously
known as Air Standardization Coordinating Committee (ASCC))
is an active and productive international organization that works
for the air forces of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom and the United States of America. Its principal objective
is to ensure member nations are able to fight side-by-side as
airmen in joint and combined operations.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

Need help or advice on
Standardization?
Contact the
DStan Helpdesk
for access to a host of free services
We can give you advice on Defence Standards and
NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs), with
latest news on availability, status and development
We can advise you on standards selection and
application and distribute Defence Standards to you
within 24 hours (free to MoD colleagues)
We can identify publication sources for a variety of
other standardization documents
Through our specialist staff we can provide you
with specialist information in selected areas.
Helpdesk Tel: +44 (0)141-224 2531/2
Fax: +44 (0)141-224 2503
E-mail (general enquiries): enquiries@dstan.mod.uk
E-mail (requests for standards): requests@dstan.mod.uk
www.dstan.mod.uk

6
David Wilkinson
Head of International
Standardization
Tel: +44(0)141 224 2504
Email: TES-DStan-Int@dpa.mod.uk
“We needed something
new and transparent”
Hans Kopold
Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik
und Beschaffung (BWB)
Tel: +49(0)261 400 2011
Email: hanskopold@bwb.org
“This is all part of
emerging best practice”
This is an extract from the European
Defence Agency Bulletin July 2007
The European Defence
Standards Information
System:
Doing Things Together
It is becoming increasingly important for participating Member
States and other Stakeholders to work together on materiel
standards to increase the likelihood of cooperative programmes,
enhance the interoperability of our military equipment and make
the end products more attractive to international markets.
David Wilkinson, Head of International Standardization in
the UK, and Hans Kopold from the Federal Office of Defence
Technology and Procurement in Germany, explain how the
idea for a European Defence Standards Information System
(EDSIS) emerged and why it will be so useful in coordinating the
development of new materiel standards.
Where did the idea for EDSIS originate?
D.W - Hans and I have been working in international
standardisation for many years and we realise that it was not
always easy to keep other nations, industry and the civilian
standardisation bodies aware of the development of new materiel
standards.
We would discuss proposals for new standards in or around the
various meetings in the EDA, NATO and other forums, but we
couldn’t always reach the right stakeholders at the right time.
We needed something new, coordinated and transparent, and
somebody to do it. Government standardisation management
experts were already meeting under the umbrella of the EDA
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

where the idea for EDSIS was discussed, matured, and brought
to the EDA Steering Board. It was remarkable just how quickly
EDSIS took shape and became an operational system.
How does EDSIS work?
H.K - Like all good ideas, EDSIS is very simple. A participating
member state (pMS) enters a short summary of the intended
materiel standard to be developed or modified, any attachments,
and the contact details of their nominated standards’ manager.
All registered users of EDSIS then automatically receive
notification of the proposal and are asked to indicate their
interest in participating in the development of the standard. In
most cases the standards manager will wish to ensure that he
is not duplicating ongoing standards development and also that
the right stakeholders are engaged. This is especially important
in the civil sector (industry) as civil standards are now being
selected over equivalent military standards in the specifications
for military products. This is all part of emerging best practice in
the selection and application of standards - another area in which
we are working with the EDA.
How does EDSIS attract these wider stakeholders?
D.W - Visibility to stakeholders such as industry, standardisation
bodies, NATO and nations outside EDA is provided through
the open EDSIS website http://www.eda.europa.eu/edsisweb
where they, too, can express an interest in participating in the
development of the new standard or the major overhaul of
an existing standard. EDSIS allows the standards manager
to continuously monitor who has expressed an interest in his
standardisation project.
After a pre-determined period, he then decides who he wishes to
invite to co-operatively draft the standard. Thus, the overall aim
of EDSIS is to identify, very early on, the right standardisation
management and technical experts and to put them together
- so important if we are to increase the number of multilateral
standards and reduce dependance on national standards.
What next?
H.K - We expect the number of standards projects published in
EDSIS to grow markedly. Plus there are plans to enhance the
level of information contained in EDSIS by including information
on standardisation best practice, news, actors and initiatives,
mostly through website links. EDSIS would then become the
main electronic portal for European defence standardisation
activities.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
7

8
ASIC PROJECTS CONFIRMED
FOR THE NEXT YEAR
Subsequent to the recent National Directors’ meeting of the five-nation (AUS, NZ, CAN, UK, US)
Air and Space Interoperability Council the projects for the next twelve-month period have been
confirmed. The projects reflect the operational involvement of all nations in Afghanistan and are
focused on finding solutions to areas of concern that are common to all the nations’ air forces.
ASIC’s activities are managed through its five Working Groups; Force Application, Agile Combat
Support, C2ISTAR, Force Protection, and Air Mobility. Working Groups and their affiliated Project
Groups will be meeting over the period September-November 2007. The projects and our UK points
of contact are as follows:
Aerospace Medical Working Group
Interchangeability of Aeromedical Equipment.
Options to Mitigate Hypoxia in Unpressurized aircraft/helicopters.
Gp Capt David Bruce, email: david.bruce137@mod.uk.
Force Protection
Open, Operate, Sustain and Close Expeditionary Airbases.
Wg Cdr Rich Freeman, email: Richard.freeman718@mod.uk.
Agile Combat Support
Open, Operate, Sustain and Close Expeditionary Airbases.
Wg Cdr Matt Carlton, email: WITFHQ-DCOS.RAFMAIL@mod.uk
Spares Exchange Policy (C17 and C130-J).
Wg Cdr Mike Moran, email: micheal.moran515@mod.uk.
Air Armaments Licensing Regulations on Deployed Operating Bases.
Gp Capt Malcolm French, email: Malcolm.french884@mod.uk.
Air Mobility
Methods of Loading and Unloading (C130).
Participation in JRTC - Validation of existing standards – Oct 07.
Passenger Dangerous Air Cargo Regulations.
Open, Operate, Sustain and Close Expeditionary Airbases.
Wg Cdr Andy McFarlane, email: andy.mcfarlane403@mod.uk
C2ISTAR
Air Expeditionary Operations – Information Sharing.
Sqn Ldr Daren Williams, email: daren.williams208@mod.uk
Force Application
Wg Cdr John Davies, email: WAD-AWCOpsAPDXDoctrine.RAFMAIL@mod.uk
ROVER (Air/ground video interface) - TTPs
Sqn Ldr Mark Elsey, email: mark-elsey63f@waddington.raf.mod.uk
Fuels Working Group
Mr Jeremy Tucker, email: jerry.tucker137@qcis.mod.uk.
The Group will be meeting in the UK in April 2008 to progress their information exchanges.
If you would like more information on the ASIC projects then get in touch with either the project
officer, (if you are part of the UK MoD), or the UK National Program Manager, Wg Cdr Chris Beckley
at chris.beckley114@mod.uk . ASIC have a private website with their library of Air Standards and
a forum for discussing current projects; access is granted to UK MoD personnel via a link at www.
airstandards.com
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

10
By Iain Macleod BEng AMIMechE
Senior Partner
Iain Macleod Associates
Tel: +44 (0)161 480 7487
Email: iain@mcleod.uk.com
Web: www.g-tol.co.uk
Iain Macleod is a member of the BSI technical
committee TDW/4, which is responsible
for BS 8888 and related standards, and
the ISO technical committee TC213, which
is responsible for ISO standards related
to geometrical product specification and
engineering tolerances.
Def Stan 05-10 now
references BS 8888
instead of BS 308 -
Headache or Opportunity?
Introduction
About seven years ago BS 308, the venerable and much loved
British Standard for engineering drawing, was withdrawn and
replaced by BS 8888. A little over one year ago, Def Stan 05-
10, the MoD standard for Product Definition Information, was
updated, and now normatively* references BS 8888. In other
words, in order to comply with Def Stan 05-10, technical product
specifications (including engineering drawings) must comply with
BS 8888 (unless a supplier has a separate agreement with the
MoD to override this).
*’normative’ references are mandatory references.
The significance of this development is much greater than simply
a change of title. BS 8888 is not a ‘new and improved’ BS 308:
it differs in a number of fundamental ways. To fully understand
these differences, a little historical context is useful.
A bit of History
BS 308 was introduced in 1927 to provide guidance in matters
relating to engineering drawing: it was the first standard of its
kind to be introduced anywhere in the world. Over the course
of the 20th century, BSI developed, extended and updated this
standard, in the early 1970s splitting it into the three parts that
most engineers and draftspersons have been familiar with.
ISO Standards for Engineering Documentation Date
2000
British Standards for Engineering Drawing
International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) founded
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
1972
1950
1947
1927
1901
BS 308: Part 1
BS 308: Part 2
BS 308
BS 308: Part 3
standards
British Standards Institution (BSI) founded

Following the Second World War, the benefits of standardisation
on an international basis were widely recognized, and the national
standards bodies of a number of industrialised nations, including
the British Standards Institution, together founded a federation
known as the International Organization for Standardization
(universally abbreviated to ISO). From its inception, ISO
was concerned with technical standards, which included the
development of standards relating to engineering drawings and
specifications.
Whilst contributing towards the development of ISO standards for
engineering specifications, BSI also maintained its independent
BS 308 standard. Initially, work on BS 308 endeavoured to keep
it up-to-date with parallel developments in ISO standards. From
the 1980s, BSI started to implement ISO standards directly as
British Standards, and where necessary, reference them from
within BS 308.
By the year 2000, a full set of British Standards for engineering
drawing included around thirty ISO standards in addition to
the three parts of BS 308. This British Standard system for
engineering drawing existed in parallel with an ISO system for
engineering drawing, which consisted of perhaps a hundred
interlinked ISO standards.
A bit of a Problem
ISO standards are developed by the same people who develop
national standards. The technical work within ISO is carried
out jointly within the member organisations, such as BSI, DIN,
ANSI, etc. The development of British and ISO standards within
BSI is carried out by technical committees, largely consisting of
volunteers or co-opted experts from industry and academia. The
resources within BSI for developing standards are therefore finite.
development
effort
ISO
Standards
British
Standards
Institution
harmonisation
effort
?
Are they the same or
different?
Which standards
should I be using?
development
effort
British
Standards
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
11

12
By the late 1990s, it was becoming clear that the maintenance
of an independent British Standard to parallel and duplicate ISO
standards (with one or two minor differences) was becoming
increasingly pointless. The effort consumed valuable resources,
and the result was often confusion about which standards applied
in which situations. In the year 2000, BSI made the decision to
adopt, and implement, ISO standards in full for technical product
documentation (including engineering drawings), and to withdraw
BS 308.
BS 8888 – the New Standard for Technical Product
Specification
BS 8888 was drafted to make the transition to the ISO system as
painless as possible. Rather than abandoning engineers to an
extensive catalogue of ISO standards, and leaving them to work
out for themselves which standards they needed to comply with,
BS 8888 was produced as a kind of gateway or interface to the
ISO system.
In drawing up the new standard, BSI recognised that
engineering specifications are no longer restricted to 2D
engineering drawings. 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) files
are increasingly being used within specifications, as are many
other types of document. To reflect this, the subject matter of
the standard is no longer ‘engineering drawing’, but ‘Technical
Product Specification’ (TPS).
BS 8888 performs three principal functions. Firstly, it provides a
unifying identity for the collection of ISO standards which cover
Technical Product Specification. Secondly, it provides an index
to those ISO standards, each clause in BS 8888 covering a
specific aspect of TPS and listing the ISO standards that apply to
that area. Thirdly, the new standard provides a platform for BSI
to provide additional explanation of topics where this is deemed
useful, including an introduction to the concept of Geometrical
Product Specification, which is the driving philosophy behind the
current generation of ISO standards.
UNIFYING IDENTITY
INDEX
BS 8888
So what is different?
ISO standards for drawing sheets
ISO standards for symbols
ISO standards for diagrams
ISO standards for lines
ISO standards for lettering
ISO standards for dimensions
ISO standard for reference temperature
The transition from BS 308 to BS 8888 brings with it some
changes. The first change can almost be described as a
change of tone. BS 308 was a guidance document, making
recommendations about engineering drawing practice. The ISO
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION
etc
etc

system, and hence BS 8888, is far more prescriptive. Altogether,
BS 8888 makes reference to around 200 ISO standards, and
most (over 150) of those references are ‘normative’ – to claim
compliance with BS 8888, compliance with those ISO standards
is mandatory.
Compliance with over 150 separate ISO standards may sound
daunting, but in practice this is quite achievable. The ISO system
is wide ranging in its scope, and most engineers will find that 15
or 20 of those ISO standards cover pretty much everything they
need to be aware of.
Technical Product Specification has two aspects. One aspect
is the means by which component geometry and surface
requirements are defined, and the other is the manner in which
those requirements are documented and presented. The change
to BS 8888 brings with it change in each of these areas.
The Tolerancing Principle
There are two ways in which a size tolerence can be
interpreted, known as the Principle of Dependancy and the
Principle of Independancy, or sometimes simply referred to
as the tolerancing principle. These are not new; they were
documented in BS 308 as well as BS 8888.
A unique aspect of the British Standard system is that it has
always allowed either tolerancing principle to be used. The
ISO system (other than when implemented through BS 8888)
works throughout with the Principle of Independancy, while the
American system (implemented through ASME Y14.5) works
exclusively with the Principle of Dependancy.
BS 308 and early versions of BS 8888 took the Principle of
Dependancy as a default which would apply in the absence of
any indication to the contrary. That default option was removed
in BS 8888:2004, and subsequent revisions, which require all
drawings to state which tolerancing principle is being used.
In most cases, engineers and designers are not even aware
that there are two different ways of interpreting a size
tolerance, so this has been a bit of a rude awakening for those
organisations which have so far addressed the issue.
Presentational changes are mostly straight forward. For instance,
the decimal marker is now a comma rather than a full stop, and
drawing border and title block requirements have been formalized
and changed in some areas. One presentation change, however,
is highly significant, and is forcing organisations to address
an issue they have happily ignored up until now. Since 2004,
BS 8888 has required all drawings to state which tolerancing
principle is being used – the Principle of Independency or the
Principle of Dependency.
The final, and most significant, change that BS 8888 introduces
is the system of Geometrical Product Specification, which is a
change in approach to the way in which work piece geometry is
defined.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
13

14
Geometrical Product Specification
Three trends over the last 30 or 40 years have highlighted
shortcomings in the techniques and tools that have traditionally
been used to define component geometry:-
■ manufacturers are making, and inspecting, components
to higher levels of precision than ever before, so ambiguities
in the interpretation of specifications have assumed a greater
significance than ever before.
■ the development of CAD, Computer Aided Manufacture
(CAM) and Computer Aided Quality (CAQ) systems has
stimulated demand for formal mathematical definitions of
specification and verification operations, which in many cases
have not previously existed.
■ there has been an accelerating trend in the developed
world to focus on design and assembly, subcontracting
component manufacture to suppliers who are often overseas.
This last trend in particular has removed the opportunity for
the informal communication that existed between design and
manufacturing when they were often neighbouring departments
within the same organisation. This informal communication
tended to mask inadequacies and omissions in engineering
documentation. Industry is now more dependent than ever before
on technical specifications being both correct and complete, and
this has highlighted areas where the tools used to produce those
specifications are themselves inadequate and incomplete.
In response to the short-comings of traditional engineering
specifications, ISO initiated a project in the early 1990s with
the aim of developing a coherent, comprehensive and complete
system for the specification of work piece geometry. This system
is called Geometrical Product Specification, or GPS.
As its name suggests, GPS is concerned with the specification
and verification of sizes, shapes and surface characteristics of a
work piece to ensure that functional requirements are met.
GPS has taken the traditional tools for specifying component
geometry – dimensions and tolerances, geometrical tolerances,
datums, surface texture specifications, etc – and placed them
within a systematic framework. It has refined these traditional
tools, extending and adding to them where necessary, and
developing formal mathematical definitions for their application
and interpretation.
GPS does not replace traditional engineering specification
methods, it just explains how to use them properly.
The GPS language is based on a number of interlinked ISO
standards which are available in several different languages.
These form the basis for component specifications in emerging
economies such as India and China, as well as across much of
the industrialised world.
While the GPS system will continue to be developed over the
next few years, and there are a number of standards still at the
development stage to extend its application, it is a complete
system that can be used with immediate effect. Companies that
have started to make use of the system are seeing early benefits.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

What benefits will BS 8888 and GPS bring?
The UK standards committee for Geometrical Product
Specification (BSI’s committee TDW/4) estimates that
manufacturing industry wastes between 15% and 20% of
production costs simply due to problems with the technical
specification of component geometry. This is attributable to a
mixture of poor specification and misinterpretation between the
disciplines of design, manufacture and inspection. Globally, this
adds up to an almost incomprehensible £1.5 trillion every year.
BBS 8888 and GPS address these problems directly. Early
adopters of GPS have reported major reductions in production
costs, claiming savings as high as 20 or 30%. Even if these
claims are exaggerated, the potential to cut manufacturing
costs and improve productivity with this system is clearly huge,
and gains in quality, product reliability and time-to-market can
also be expected. Implementation of GPS requires significant
investment in training if it is to be effective, but few manufacturing
methodologies can offer a return-on-investment on the same
scale.
The consequences of ignoring GPS are equally great.
Poorly toleranced components require perpetual tweaks and
adjustments to try and make them fit for purpose. This is
expensive, and hampers the pace of product development. All
too often poor quality parts find their way into production, and
manufacturers suffer the consequences of products which are
unreliable and functionally inadequate – recalls, warranty claims,
customer dissatisfaction, negative publicity – and in the defence
industry, potentially even more serious consequences.
Headache or Opportunity?
The incorporation of BS 8888 into Def Stan 05-10 means that the
GPS methodology is inexorably being introduced into UK defence
projects. In terms of the ‘headache/opportunity’ question, this
presents a bit of both.
The ‘headache’ is that manufacturers and suppliers are going to
have to address the issue of training engineers and technicians in
the GPS methodology. This is not retraining – an informal survey
of engineers and technicians on current training courses suggests
that no more than 5% or 10% have had any formal training in
the correct specification of engineering components – all too
often training in the use of CAD software has been considered
sufficient, and it clearly is not.
The ‘opportunities’ presented by BS 8888 and GPS, on the other
hand, are considerable. While much investment has been made
into the technology used by designers (CAD), manufacturers
(Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) machinery) and
metrologists (Co-ordinate Measuring Machines (CMMs) etc),
the language by which they communicate with each other has,
until now, received very little attention. The developments in
that language represented in BS 8888 and the GPS system are
necessary if the full potential of that investment in technology is
to be realized.
The UKs engineers should welcome BS 8888 and GPS, as it will
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
15

Six Myths about BS 8888
1. BS 8888 is just the new name for BS 308.
actually make the job of specifying and verifying parts easier. It
provides them with a systematic approach that clarifies many
old uncertainties. For instance, the correct selection and use of
datums becomes more apparent, and geometrical tolerancing, so
long a misused and misunderstood ‘dark art’, actually becomes a
logical system.
Manufacturing organisations should embrace BS 8888 and GPS
with alacrity, for the financial and quality benefits that will follow.
Component suppliers need to familiarise themselves with GPS
as a matter not just of compliance but of survival; extensive
anecdotal evidence suggests that suppliers in India, China and
the Far East frequently understand component specifications and
tolerances better than their UK counterparts.
The British Standards Institution and particularly the industry
nominated technical experts participating in TDW/4, are
committed to encouraging and facilitating the wider application of
GPS, and together with the Institution of Engineering Designers
(IED) are currently developing a GPS ‘Understanding,
Application & Competency (UAC) - Assessment scheme’.
The National Physics Laboratory is taking an interest in this
scheme and the IMechE has also been invited to participate.
It is planned that this will be launched within the next 12 to 18
months, and that it will be supported by an on-line Technical
Product Specification resource that will provide Engineers
(design, production and metrology) with access not only to BS
8888 and all its constituent standards, but also to a range of
other documents, information and links that will enhance their
professional competence and output.
Wrong. BS 8888 is an entirely new standard, and is quite different in nature and content to BS 308
2. The only difference between BS 8888 and BS 308 is that now we have to use a comma instead of a full
stop as the decimal marker
Wrong. Although BS 8888 does specify the comma as the decimal marker (as this is a requirement of the ISO system), this is just
one of a number of presentational changes introduced by the new standard. More important are the fundamental changes brought in
with the system of Geometrical Product Specification.
3. BS 308 was fine as it was, there was no need for a new standard.
Wrong. The developments in the ISO system over the last decade have been driven by technical deficiencies in the traditional
methods of specifying component geometry. If BS 308 had been retained, the technical changes that have been introduced in
the ISO system would also have been introduced into BS 308, and the problem of two parallel sets of standards serving the same
purpose would remain.
4. BS 8888 is just more bureaucracy being imposed from Brussels.
Wrong. BSI does provide a gateway to the ISO system, but the ISO system is nothing to do with the EU. ISO is a global federation of
national standards organisations representing over 150 nations. BSI believes that the adoption of the ISO system has the potential to
bring considerable benefits to industry.
5. To comply with BS 8888, you have to introduce new procedures for document management, system
security, handling of digital data etc, as well as changes to engineering drawing practice.
Not necessarily. If your engineering drawings are ‘drawn in accordance with BS 8888’, this claim only refers to the drawing itself. If
you wish to comply with the requirements of BS 8888 for document management etc, that is a separate issue.
6. If we change to BS 8888, we will have to go through all our drawing archives to bring them all up to date
with the new standard.
Wrong. An explicit requirement of BS 8888 is that drawings are interpreted according to the standards that were in force at their
‘acceptance date’. If a drawing was released on 15th June 1957, correct to the version of BS 308 current on 15th June 1957, it
should be interpreted according to the appropriate version of BS 308 and it does not have to be up-dated.
16 DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

SIDoku
What is SIDoku?
SIDoku is Sid’s very own version of the Sudoku
puzzle, a Japanese logic game.
What are the rules?
There is only one simple rule:
Fill in the grid so that every row, every column, and
every 3x3 box contains the digits 1 through 9.
Sid will give you his solution in the next issue of
Standards in Defence News.
For those who can’t wait that long he will be posting
his solution on the DStan website: www.dstan.mod.uk
at the beginning of October 2007.
Scribble Zone
9 4 7
8 6 1
6 2 5 4
4 1 9 3
9 7 5 2
2 5 9 3
3 8 5
Issue 205 - SIDoku Solution
8 3 1
3 7 5 1 9 2 8 6 4
4 6 2 5 3 8 9 1 7
1 8 9 4 6 7 2 5 3
6 1 7 9 2 5 4 3 8
2 5 8 6 4 3 7 9 1
9 4 3 7 8 1 6 2 5
7 9 1 8 5 6 3 4 2
8 2 6 3 1 4 5 7 9
5 3 4 2 7 9 1 8 6
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
17

N.X. Sifer,
D.J. Browning,
J. B. Lakeman,
K Pointon, &
R Reeve
Dstl, Physical Science
Department
Tel: +44 (0)1980 613704
Advances in
development of future
power sources for
military use
Abstract
The demands for power and energy for military applications are
rapidly increasing as the U.K. MoD and its allies adopt mission-
enabling, cutting-edge electronic technologies. As fossil fuel
supplies have shown price and supply volatility in the recent
past, it is ever more important to invest in and develop power
sources for the future in order to meet growing energy demands
whilst reducing foreign dependencies on fuel. This article aims at
updating a 1999 Journal of Defence Science article that provided
an in-depth discussion of near term future military power sources.
Several technologies will be reviewed, including advanced battery
and fuel cell technology as well as other electrical storage and
power generation technologies.
Introduction
There has been a proliferation of portable electronic devices
within the U.K. military over the past decade as it undergoes
a large transformation to a highly digital force through the
increased usage of Global Positioning System (GPS), wireless
communications and other wireless technologies. In addition to
the emergence of these new technologies, new mission types
and equipment, such as unmanned vehicles, are now deployed
on a much larger scale. These technologies and missions
have placed a massive burden on the military’s logistical supply
of fuel and energy sources and have resulted in increased
life cycle and mission costs whilst also opening a significant
vulnerability to fuel supply and shortages in MoD military
strategy. In addition, older power and energy technologies are
often ill suited, either by performance or cost limitations, for
these new electronic technologies and missions. Thus, there is
a growing demand for new power and energy sources that are
smaller, lighter, more efficient, and more powerful than existing
technologies. Unfortunately, there is no single power source
that is ideally suited for all conceivable applications. However,
there are several near-term technologies that will help alleviate
the immediate need for more power and energy for most military
applications. This article aims at providing an unbiased, detailed
review of these technologies as well as the potential military
payoff and/or drawback of the technologies.
18 DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

Target Military Applications
As it is often cost prohibitive to develop new power and energy
sources for single mission usage, research and development
efforts often, though not always, target classes of applications in
order to maximize military benefit. MoD currently identifies three
broad military application categories in need of new power and
energy source. These include:
a Soldier Power and Remote Sensors
b Portable Battery Charging and
Auxiliary Power Units
c Vehicular and Stationary / Residential
The overarching goal of the Soldier Power and Remote Sensors
effort is to develop lightweight, compact power sources for both
short and long term missions. This effectively reduces the overall
weight that a soldier must carry whilst also minimizing the need
for continuous re-supply. It also allows for the deployment of long
term un-attended sensors that provide valuable data to military
decision makers.
The UKs military predominantly uses rechargeable batteries
for portable electronic systems. As the demand for batteries
increases, it is vital that highly efficient power sources capable of
rapidly recharging high volumes of batteries are developed. Grid
power, large generators, and vehicle export power are currently
used as the preferred means. However, there are currently no
lightweight, stand alone power units in the 250-1000 Watt level
capable of powering the military battery charger units specifically
developed for the more advanced lithium ion batteries used in
large quantities today. In addition to battery charger applications,
there is a variety of general requirements in this power range.
Applications like Silent Watch and small unmanned vehicles are
in need of high efficiency and high power density systems.
On a larger scale, the mandatory usage of logistics fuels
requires that a power generator be compatible with military
fuels such as diesel and JP-8. Traditional diesel and internal
combustion engines are still used for a large number of high
power applications such as vehicle propulsion. However, these
technologies are often used at low efficiency settings, thus
adding to the overall fuel consumption of the armed services.
In addition to better fuel economy and reduced lifecycle costs,
new technologies also offer the potential of creating less
environmental pollutants as well as reduced thermal and acoustic
signatures.
In addition to these applications, there is a growing lists of other
large power consumers, such as large unmanned vehicles,
battlefield tactical operations centres, and remote facility power
generation that could benefit from the development of new
technologies.
Power Sources In Military Use Today
Few new power and energy technologies have transitioned to the
battlefield over the past five years. Instead, optimized versions or
variants of existing systems have been developed and deployed
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
19

Table 1: Gross U.S. Rechargable Battery
Sales [1].
Key:
NiCd: Nickel-cadmium
NiMH: Nickel-metal hydride
Li-ion: Lithium-ion
LIP: Lithium-ion Polymer
with only minor to moderate military gain. Most of the recent
new additions have been in the battery field as new galvanic cell
couples have been used to improve specific power and power
density for portable electronic applications. Currently, there are
a limited variety of power and energy technologies that are in use
by the MoD. These include: rechargeable and non-rechargeable
batteries, capacitors, photovoltaic cells, and fossil fuel based
engines.
As rechargeable batteries reduce both logistical re-supply
burdens and lifecycle cost, they are the preferred battery of the
MoD. Despite the cost savings, traditional rechargeable batteries
typically meant reduced battery performance in terms of capacity
and specific energy. However, the use of lithium as an anode
material has spawned a completely new range of advanced
batteries that have effectively reduced the gap in electrical
performance and storage capacity between rechargeable and
primary battery systems. Indeed, lithium ion is now the dominant
battery technology for commercial and military markets as can be
seen from Table 1.
Total sales of cell suppliers
( US$ Million )
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
However, there are few significant performance advancements
expected in the optimization of existing battery chemistries
within the next few years. The growing demand for portable
power devices at reduced weight has therefore led to greater
interests in high energy systems such as fuel cells, higher energy
lithium based systems, and new metal air batteries, which will be
discussed in further detail.
Photovoltaic or solar cells have taken root in niche military
applications where costs and environments are prohibitive
for other technologies. Several commercial developers have
produced military version photovoltaic systems that generate
electric current from radiation provided by the sun. Modern
photovoltaic cells are more flexible, cheaper, and lighter than
previous rigid systems and are therefore more adaptable to
abusive military environments. These systems are being used as
portable battery chargers and as direct power generators for low
power electronics. The military intends to scale up photovoltaic
systems for usage on medium to large scale military shelters for
higher power applications such as temporary canteens.
Fossil fuel based engines are primarily used for higher power
applications above 1kW. Unlike electrochemical batteries,
these engines rely on combustion of fossil fuels in order to
generate mechanical energy which can then subsequently be
converted into electrical energy. The thermodynamic efficiency
20 DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
0
1985
NiCd NiMH Li-ion LIP
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003

of these systems is limited by the Carnot cycle at around 20-
40%. In addition to the efficiency limitations, fossil fuel engines
release significant quantities of noxious contaminants including
carbon monoxide and NOx gases that contribute to the decline
of our global environment. These systems also create large
thermal and acoustic signatures that are undesirable for tactical
operations [2]. Finally, these engines are often operated at
partial load and are subject to wet stacking [3]. Wet stacking
occurs when non-combusted fuel passes through the engine and
accumulates around various valves and outlets thereby reducing
engine performance.
Near Term Power And Energy Sources For Military
Applications
Whilst fuel cells have received much of the commercial spotlight
and news headlines, they are only one of several promising
technologies for near term military applications. Other
technologies include metal air batteries, Stirling engines, thermo-
photovoltaics, and kinetic energy storage systems. In addition to
these new technologies, new variants of existing technologies,
such as new lithium based batteries, are expected to enhance
performance over current levels. Even classical systems at
much lower size scales, known as Micro-Electro Mechanical
(MEM) and nano devices, will be used within the next 5-10 years.
The following sections provide a brief overview of the specific
technologies whilst also highlighting the potential advantages and
drawbacks for each of the technologies.
Fuel Cell Systems
Fuel cell systems are similar to batteries in that they directly
convert the chemical energy of a fuel to electrical energy via
oxidation-reduction reactions. Unlike batteries, fuel cell systems
use external fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, methanol, etc.,
and an oxidant (usually oxygen from the air) and can therefore
operate continuously as long as fuel is supplied. Fuel cells are
not limited by the Carnot cycle thermodynamic efficiency limits
and can achieve efficiencies ranging from 25-60% for power
generation systems alone. In addition, fuel cells generally
produce low acoustic and thermal signatures and are therefore
ideally situated for Silent Watch applications. Depending on
the fuel, fuel cells also produce less pollutant and greenhouse
gasses compared to fossil fuel engines. In the most basic of
forms, water is the only by-product of a fuel cell system.
There are several classes of fuel cell systems in development for
commercial and military usage. A partial, modern list includes
direct methanol fuel cells (DMFC), reformed methanol fuel cells
(RMFC), proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC), solid
oxide fuel cells (SOFC), molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC), and
phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC).
DMFC, RMFC, and PEMFC systems are all ideally suited for
portable power applications. These fuel cells operated at
relatively low internal temperatures (60-100°C) and can achieve
fuel efficiencies in the range of 20-40% on a system level.
Several advanced prototype units have been developed in the
past three years for military applications including soldier power.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
21

Figure 1: 20W Reformed Methanol Fuel
Cell
The primary advantage is the usage of high energy fuels mated
with lightweight, compact, moderate power density converter
systems. This results in high specific energy and moderate
power densities for multi-day missions at low to moderate power
levels. A recent system developed by the US Army, shown in
Figure 1, has achieved a 72 hour, 20W mission energy density
in the range of 400Wh kg-1 , which is a factor of 200% better than
leading lithium-ion batteries [4]. It is expected that these systems
will achieve 600 Wh kg-1 and a military Technology Readiness
Level 6 within the next two years.
PAFC, MCFC, and SOFC systems are better suited for large
scale power generation as these systems operate at moderate to
higher temperatures (200-900°C). These systems use common
commercial fuels such as natural gas and can provide incredibly
high efficiencies. Fuel to electric efficiency values as high as
50-60% are projected for near term demonstration hardware
whilst long term efficiency goals range from 80-85% when used
as either a fuel cell hybrid or as a combined heat and power
(CHP) system [5]. PAFC and MCFC systems have been used
in past US space programmes and commercially as back-up
stationary power systems (up to 200kW) for the past several
decades. Due to the high temperatures and usually long start-up
times associated with these technologies, they are not heavily
pursued for lower power applications. However, there are some
developers working on specialized micro-tubular solid oxide fuel
cells in the 20-200W range that might offer military benefit in
several years time.
There are several critical technology hurdles that still must
be overcome for all types of fuel cell systems. First, fuel cell
systems are not rugged by nature and can be sensitive to
air contaminants and harsh climates like desert or marine
landscapes. In addition, fuel cells do not operate underwater
unless a separate oxygen source is provided, which typically
reduces specific energy below that of lithium ion batteries for
portable applications.
System costs are also still too expensive for widespread military
adoption. As there is still no large commercial market to help
increase production quantities and reduce unit costs, fuel cells
are prohibitively expensive except for niche applications that
require specialized power sources. Costs are expected to
decrease for the portable power sector as several companies
plan on commercial product launches over the next two years.
Perhaps the largest challenge is the choice of fuel. Whilst
hydrogen has an extremely large specific energy, it has a
relatively poor gravimetric density. Large steel cylinders are
needed to store significant amounts of compressed hydrogen
gas. These cylinders effectively reduce the overall benefits of
hydrogen’s high specific energy. Other fuels, like methanol and
diesel, contain large amounts of hydrogen that can be extracted
using chemical reactors called fuel processors. However, the
use of these processors effectively reduces the net fuel to
electric efficiency to that of an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)
system. In addition, fuel processors create pollutant gasses such
as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, thus eliminating the
environmental benefit of fuel cell technology.
22 DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

Table 2: Lithium Based
Battery Technical
Specifications [6].
Cell Couple OCV
Batteries
Battery systems remain as the ideal choice for portable power
applications. Advancements in lithium based batteries have
led to significant gains in energy capacity at reduced weight
and costs. The commercial and military markets will continue
to heavily rely on lithium based batteries for years to come until
portable micro fuel cells reach full commercial maturation.
The most widely used lithium battery is the rechargeable lithiumion
battery. Lithium-ion batteries can now achieve specific
energies in the 180 Wh kg-1 range whilst also providing peak
power capabilities as high as 400W kg-1 . In addition, lithium-ion
batteries have long cycle lives but are more expensive than other
rechargeable battery chemistries.
Table 2 covers several other noteworthy lithium based batteries.
Energy Density
Wh kg -1 Wh dm -3 Advantages Disadvantages
Primary
Li/FeS 2 1.8 235 425
Li/SO 2
(SAFT D cell)
2.9 255 400
Higher energy and
power than Zn/MnO2 High energy and power
density
Low voltage
Safety, Voltage delay
Li/CF x 3.0 600 900 Safe, High energy Low power
Li/MnO 2
(Ultralife D)
Li/SOCl 2
(SAFT D)
Li/SO 2 Cl 2
(Electrochem D)
3.3 290 600 High energy
3.65 470 870
3.95 465 1030
Rechargeable
Lithium-ion 4.2 180 350
Lithium-ion
polymer
4.2 190 470
High energy and power
density
High energy and power
density
High energy density,
High cycle life
High energy density,
Pouch format, any shape
Poor at low temp, Low
power density
Safety, Cost
In addition to lithium based batteries, new metal air battery
technologies such as carbon-air and zinc-air batteries offer very
high power and energy densities over traditional lithium batteries.
These batteries use ‘free’ oxygen from the air much like a fuel cell
and thus eliminate the need to carry active cathodic materials.
The US Army has developed a zinc air battery, shown in Figure
2, which is currently in use by the US Marines for portable
electronic applications. These batteries can achieve 300Wh kg-1 for a primary battery system but are currently expensive. They
are being targeted as battery recharger systems for long term
missions once price levels reach their projected cost of $50.00
for a 720 Wh system [6]. These batteries are currently developed
as primary systems but could potentially be used in rechargeable
versions in several years as the technology matures.
The MoDs Defence Science and Technology Laboratories
(Dstl) is actively engaged in a carbon air battery development
programme. The carbon air battery could potentially achieve
very high energy densities beyond those of zinc air and would
be scalable to higher power levels due to its unique design.
However, this technology is still at a very low Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) and is not expected to be in use until 2010
and beyond.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
Safety
Cost, Sloping voltage
Cost, Sloping voltage,
Poor at low temp
23

24
Figure 2: BA 8180 Zinc Air Battery
Figure 3: 75W JP-8 Fuelled
Micro-engine
Engine Technology
Most of the recent technological advancements in engine based
technologies for military applications have been in the low to
moderate power ranges. Large scale engines for vehicles and
stationary systems have been through continuous optimization
and re-design over the past few decades and are not anticipated
to alter in the near future although there is growing interest in new
hybrid electric drive trains for vehicle platforms that will require
special integration with re-designed engines.
In order to maintain adequate power density, smaller engines
need to operate at significantly higher operating speeds. This
results in larger frictional losses and rapid component breakdown
and failure. To date, micro-engines in the 10-30W range
have been demonstrated but at very low efficiencies (0-10%).
Reliability and fuel leaks are two of the major technical hurdles
that still need to be addressed before widespread adoption of
these technologies for military utility. Recent and continued
advancements in the fields of micro and nano technologies will
eventually result in smaller, lighter, and more efficient engines.
These systems will have high military payoff for unmanned
vehicles, portable battery charging, and soldier applications since
they can operate on military fuels such as diesel and kerosine.
In the US, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) is heavily supporting several initiatives at improving
reliability whilst reducing the lengthy development time in order to
rapidly transition micro-engines like the one shown in Figure 3 to
the battlefield.
Stirling engines have also received attention in the 20-500 Watt
power range. There are currently few technology options in this
power range due to few past mission requirements at this power
level. The burgeoning growth of new technologies and missions
has led to a high demand for moderate power generation systems
that can serve as battery rechargers and auxiliary power units in
this power range. Stirling engines may fill this niche market in
the near term until high efficiency, high reliability fuel cell systems
are developed.
Stirling engines are heat to power converters that use burning
fuel to drive a compression cycle. They achieve optimal
efficiencies in the low to moderate power scale and are
compatible with essentially any combustible fuel source. Several
global companies such as Sun Power and DEKA have produced
advanced hardware demonstrators. To date, the technology
has not achieved its full potential in terms of size, weight, and
efficiency. However, the technology is maturing at a rapid pace
through government funded efforts and may offer military utility in
the next two to three years as system size, weight, and cost are
reduced.
Hybrids
Hybrid systems using more than one power source allow
for customization of power and energy systems for specific
applications. The use of fuel cells, batteries, capacitors, and
engines in hybrid systems allow for the combination of multiple
desirable characteristics such as high specific energy and
power density or high fuel efficiency and power density. The
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

use of supercapacitors in commercial and military systems
has generated a large number of hybrid systems capable of
powering variable load profiles such as portable wireless radio
communication devices. Hybrids will be used in even greater
numbers as the MoD and commercial sectors plan for the next
generation hybrid electric fleet of vehicles.
Photovoltaics and Thermo- Photovoltaics
Traditional photovoltaic cells were rigid, inflexible systems that
were prone to cracking under light to moderate stress levels.
In addition, the cells were expensive and inefficient. Modern
advances in the design and fabrication materials have resulted
in the development of cheaper, thin film, flexible photovoltaic cell
arrays that can be used for a variety of applications. They are
currently in use in military applications as energy harvesters for
rechargeable batteries and as prime power for remote low power
sensors. Thin film photovoltaics are also being integrated onto
tent fabrics to provide power for small mobile military shelters.
However, the use of these new flexible materials limits the net
efficiency and power density of thin film portable solar systems.
Typical efficiencies fall in the 5-8% range and are even lower for
flexible military systems using camouflage inks to reduce glare
and detection [7]. System cost are also prohibitive at this stage
but are anticipated to decrease to competitive levels in the near
future for portable applications as demand grows amidst rising
fuel, energy, and logistics costs.
Thermo-photovoltaics or TPVs are a variant of standard
photovoltaic cells. TPVs use the emitted flame of a burning fuel
to produce suitable radiation for specialized photovoltaic cells.
The radiation emitted from the high temperature flame is carefully
filtered and projected on to the photovoltaic cell arrays. The
benefit of this technology is the fuel flexibility as any flammable
fuel can be utilized. In addition, TPV systems can achieve
upwards of 250W kg-1 (excluding fuel). However, these systems
typically achieve very low overall efficiencies on the range of
5-10% and generate large thermal signatures. TPV systems for
military applications are in the design and prototype stage.
Other Power and Energy Systems
There are several other technologies that may provide near term
benefit for military power and energy storage applications. Whilst
there is a large list of potential systems, the following list shows
significant potential for MoD applications. It includes: piezoelectric
systems, flywheels, micro-machines, thermo-electric
generators, bio fuel cells, and wind and wave generators. These
technologies exist in various levels of maturity ranging from inservice
equipment to conceptual study phases. The list is meant
to serve as a tool to identify other alternative power and energy
technologies that may provide merit in niche MoD applications.
Conclusions
Few new power and energy technologies have emerged on
the battlefield despite the rapidly growing demand for power.
Optimized and variant versions of lithium based batteries have
supplanted older versions where lifecycle and performance costs
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
25

26
have warranted the capital investment. However, lithium batteries
will not serve as ideal power sources for all MoD applications.
Continued research and development in the power and energy
field is necessary to further increase the available technology
options for future equipment and missions. Fuel cells offer large
military potential but costs and maturity still need to be resolved
before widespread military adoption. Despite this, several
portable fuel cell systems are anticipated to reach the commercial
market in the next two years and several military demonstrations
with portable fuel cells have been planned.
In addition to fuel cells and batteries, significant advances
have been made in the development of micro-engines and
photovoltaics for low to mid power applications. These systems
offer their own unique advantages such as fuel flexibility and
power density but suffer from low system efficiencies and/or
reliability.
Hybrid systems allow for the customization of power and energy
systems by combining different technologies. Hybrids will be
used in even larger numbers in the future as the military and
commercial sectors increase their investments in hybrid electric
vehicle fleets.
There is a large collection of other non-traditional power and
energy sources that warrants attention for MoD consideration.
These technologies are in various states of technical readiness
with some systems, like the piezo-electric based hand crank, in
use today by foreign military organizations.
References
1. Takeshita H, 20th Battery Seminar: IIT Ltd Briefing,
Florida, USA (2003)
2. Knight J, Lakeman B, Green, K, Future Power Sources
for Military Use, J Defence Science Vol.4 No.4 431 (1999)
3. http://www.pm-mep.army.mil/logistics/issues.htm
4. (n.d.) Types of Fuel Cells. Retrieved March 14, 2006,
from U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Web site: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_types.html#oxide
5. Allen N, Sifer N, The XX:25: A 25W Portable Fuel
Cell for Soldier Power, 42nd Power Sources Conference,
Pennsylvania, USA (2006)
6. Browning D, Lakeman B, Pointon K, Rose A, Advances
in batteries for the dismounted soldier, Internal Defence
Science and Technology Laboratories (Dstl) report (2006)
7. http://www.solarbuzz.com/Technologies.htm
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

Update - Defence Standards Information
More detailed information on these Defence
Standards is contained on the DStan website
www.dstan.mod.uk or may be obtained from the
DStan Helpdesk, details on the contents page.
Proposed Cancellation of
Defence Standards
The following Defence Standards have been proposed for cancellation for the
reasons stated.
DEF STAN TITLE REASON FOR CANCELLATION
08-60 Pt 6
Supp 11
09-60 Pt 6
Supp 4
59-60 Pt 90
Supp 127
09-60 Pt 5
Supp 2
08-60 Pt 5
Supp 15
Fixed Frequency Pulsed Magnetron No longer Required
Frequency Agile Pulsed Magnetron No longer Required
Klystron Valve No longer Required
Travelling Wave Tube No longer Required
Travelling Wave Tube No longer Required
80-78 Paint, Finishing, Flame Retardant, Brushing No longer Required
80-198 Paint Remover, Special No longer Required
New Defence Standards
The Defence Standards listed below have been published and are available on
demand.
DEF STAN TITLE
08-209/
Issue 1
61-22/
Issue 1
66-31 (Part 1)/
Issue 1
66-31 (Part 2)/
Issue 1
66-31 (Part 3)/
Issue 1
66-31 (Part 4)/
Issue 1
66-31 (Part 5)/
Issue 1
66-31 (Part 6)/
Issue 1
66-31 (Part 7)/
Issue 1
68-287 (Part 1)/
Issue 1
68-287 (Part 2)/
Issue 1
Adhesive Systems for Attachment of Acoustic Cladding Tiles on HM Submarines
Definition of Modelling Standards - Marine Electrical Power Systems
Basic Requirements & Tests for Electronic & Electrical Test & Measurement Equipment
Part 1: Introduction and Guide to the Specification and Selection of Test and Measurement
Equipment by the Procuring Authority
Basic Requirements & Tests for Electronic & Electrical Test & Measurement Equipment
Part 2: Contractor General Requirements
Basic Requirements & Tests for Electronic & Electrical Test & Measurement Equipment
Part 3: Contractor Requirements - Air Use Application
Basic Requirements & Tests for Electronic & Electrical Test & Measurement Equipment
Part 4: Contractor Requirements - Naval Use Application
Basic Requirements & Tests for Electronic & Electrical Test & Measurement Equipment
Part 5: Contractor Requirements - Land Use Application
Basic Requirements & Tests for Electronic & Electrical Test & Measurement Equipment
Part 6: Requirements for General Purpose TME Application
Basic Requirements & Tests for Electronic & Electrical Test & Measurement Equipment
Part 7: Guidance on the Evaluation of Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) Test and
Measurement Equipment for Air, Land and Naval Applications
Guide to the Compatibility of Materials with Oxygen
Part 1: Guidance
Guide to the Compatibility of Materials with Oxygen
Part 2: Test Data and Data Source
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
27

28
Revised Defence Standards
Following from a review the Defence Standards listed below have been revised
and republished at the issue number shown. These Defence Standards are now
available on demand.
DEF STAN TITLE
00-23/
Issue 4
00-56 (Part 1)/
Issue 4
00-56 (Part 2)/
Issue 4
02-166/
Issue 3
02-167/
Issue 3
02-330/
Issue 2
02-769/
Issue 2
02-862 (Part 1)/
Issue 2
02-862 (Part 2)/
Issue 2
02-862 (Part 3)/
Issue 2
02-862 (Part 4)/
Issue 2
02-862 (Part 5)/
Issue 2
05-18/
Issue 5
05-129/
Issue 2
13-47/
Issue 5
66-2 (Part 2)/
Issue 2
80-69/
Issue 4
80-138/
Issue 3
80-168/
Issue 3
Infra Red Reflective (IRR) Requirements for Painting Military Equipment
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems
Part 1: Requirements
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems
Part 2: Guidance on Establishing a Means of Complying with Part 1
Requirements for Glass Woven Roving Fabrics for Ship Structures
Requirements for Resin for Use in Ships, Boats, Craft and Craft Structures
Requirements for Main Propulsion Plant Condensers in Nuclear Powered Submarines
Approval System for Welding Consumables for Structural Steels
Fasteners
Part 1: General
Fasteners
Part 2: Ferrous
Fasteners
Part 3: Non-Ferrous Fasteners
Fasteners
Part 4: Ferrous (Submarine First Level Quality Assured)
Fasteners
Part 5: Non-Ferrous (Submarine First Level Quality Assured)
Symbol Markings of Servicing and Safety/Hazard Points on Aircraft, ground Support
Equipment and Guided Weapons Systems
Contractors on Deployed Operations (CONDO) Processes and Requirements
Steel for Shell Bodies and Proof Shot
Gauges, Pressure, Dial Indicating (Bourdon Tube Type)
Part 2: Industrial Quality to Commercial Specification
Paint, Paste, Marking
Varnish, Polyurethane, Multi-pack Types: Matt and Gloss
Compound, Protective, for Vehicle Underbodies, Water-based
Amendments to Defence Standards
The Defence Standards listed below have been updated by amendment action
and are available on demand.
DEF STAN TITLE
59-411 (Part 2)/
Issue 1
60-1 (Part 0)/
Issue 2
61-21 Supp 13/
Issue 1
Electromagnetic Compatibility
Part 2: The Electric, Magnetic & Electromagnetic Environment
Cables, Fibre Optic
Part 0: General Requirements and Test Methods
General Specification for Batteries
Supplement 013: Lithium Thionyl Chloride Battery 3.6V, NSN 6135-99-770-2535
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007

61-21 Supp 40/
Issue 1
61-22/
Issue 1
91-86/
Issue 5
91-87/
Issue 5
91-88
General Specification for Batteries
Supplement 040: Lithium Sulfur Dioxide Battery 6V, NSN 6135-99-798-9851
Definition of Modelling Standards Marine Electrical Power Systems
Turbine Fuel, Aviation Kerosine Type: High Flash Type, Containing Fuel Systems Icing
Inhibitor NATO Code: F-44 Joint Service Designation: AVCAT/FSII
Turbine Fuel, Aviation Kerosine Type: Containing Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor NATO Code:
F-34 Joint Service Designation: AVTUR/FSII
Turbine Fuel, Aviation Kerosine Type: Wide Cut Type, Containing Fuel Systems Icing
Inhibitor NATO Code: F-40 Joint Service Designation: AVTAG/FSII
Cancellation of Defence Standards
The Defence Standards listed below are cancelled with immediate effect.
Copies are no longer available for distribution.
DEF STAN TITLE REASON FOR CANCELLATION
02-747 (Part 5)
Issue 1
07-205 (Part 1)/
Issue 1
07-205 (Part 2)/
Issue 1
07-205 (Part 4)/
Issue 1
07-261 (Part 3)/
Issue 1
07-261 (Part 4)/
Issue 1
07-261 (Part 5)/
Issue 1
61-5 (Part 2)
Section 5/
Issue 1
66-31/
Issue 2
68-176/
Issue 1
75-8/
Issue 1
80-48/
Issue 3
80-141/
Issue 1
80-152/
Issue 2
80-173/
Issue 1
91-59/
Issue 2
Requirements for Nickel Aluminium Bronze
Castings and Ingots
Part 5: Design and Manufacture of Nickel
Aluminium Bronze Sand Castings
Requirements for Galleys and Associated Spaces
Part 1: Common Requirements
Requirements for Galleys and Associated Spaces
Part 2: Specific Requirements - Surface Ships
Requirements for Galleys and Associated Spaces
Part 4: Specific Requirements - Nuclear
Submarines
Fasteners
Part 3: Non-Ferrous Fasteners
Fasteners
Part 4: Ferrous (Submarine First Level Quality
Assured)
Fasteners
Part 5: Non-Ferrous (Submarine First Level
Quality Assured)
Electrical Power Supply Systems below 650Volts
Part 2: Ground Generating Set Characteristics
Section 5: Electromagnetic Compatibility
Requirements
Basic Requirements and Tests for Proprietary
Electronic and Electrical Test Equipment
Superseded by MAP 01-102
Superseded by Def Stan 02-121 Pt 1
Superseded by Def Stan 02-121 Pt 2
Superseded by Def Stan 02-121 Pt 4
Superseded by Def Stan 02-862
Pt 3
Superseded by Def Stan 02-862
Pt 4
Superseded by Def Stan 02-862
Pt 5
Superseded by Def Stan 66-31
Pts 1-7
Superseded by Def Stan 66-31
Pts 1-7
Paper, Absorbent Cancelled without replacement
Paper, Printing, Mechanical Wood Free Cancelled without replacement
Paint, Finishing, General Service, Gloss, Stoving,
Spraying
Paint, Finishing, Matt Black, Heat Resisting
Types: Brushing, Spraying
Paint, System, Epoxide, Stoving
Types: Semi-Gloss, Gloss
Waterproofing Compound for Refractory Furnace
Linings
Types: Brushing, Spraying
Lubricating Oil, Extreme Pressure, Grade 75W
NATO Code: 0-186 Joint Service Designation:
OEP-38 Lubricating Oil. Extreme Pressure,
Grade 80 W/90 NATO Code: 0-226 Joint Service
Designation: OEP-220
Cancelled without replacement
Cancelled without replacement
Cancelled without replacement
Cancelled without replacement
Superseded by SAE 75W, APIGL-
5 and SAE 80W-90, APIGL-5
respectively
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
29

30
91-68/
Issue 1
91-104/
Issue 1
Lubricating Oil, Engine, Severe Duty, Diesel, Low
Temperature NATO Code: 0-1178 Joint Service
Designation: OMD-55
Lubricating Oil, Two Stroke, Gasoline Engine
Service Joint Service Designation: OMD-23
Superseded by ACEA E3
Superseded by NMMA TC-W3
Proposed Obsolescence of Defence Standards
The Defence Standard listed below is proposed for obsolescence for the
reason stated.
DEF STAN TITLE REASON FOR OBSOLESCENCE
08-60 Pt 5
Supp 38
Trravelling Wave Tube - NSN 5960-99-758-0386 Supports life time buy
Defence Standards Declared Obsolescent
The Defence Standards listed below have been declared obsolescent with
immediate effect since they are no longer required for new equipment. These
Defence Standards will be retained for maintenance purposes in support of
existing in-service equipment and are available on demand.
DEF STAN TITLE OBSOLESCENCE DATE
21-42/
Issue 1
Requirements for the Quality Assurance of
Microform
Further Update.....
Defence
Standard
01 June 2007
The following Defence Standards have been raised
from Cancelled to Obsolescent status to support legacy
equipment covered by the Tri-Service Cables Contract.
61-12 Pt 14
61-12 Pt 15
61-12 Pt 19
Title Issue
Wires, Cords, and Cables, Electrical - Metric Units: Wires,
Electrical (Enamel Insulated Round Winding Wires and Non-
Insulated Tinned Copper Wires)
Wires, Cords, and Cables, Electrical - Metric Units: Cables,
Electrical (Silicone Rubber Insulated Cables for Electric Power
and Control)
Wires, Cords, and Cables, Electrical - Metric Units: Cables,
Electrical (Single Core Flexible Cables for Welding Circuits)
61-12 Pt 20 Wires, Cords, and Cables, Electrical - Metric Units: Braids, Wire 1
Defence Standard 61-5 Pt 6 has been raised from
Obsolescent to Extant status in support of the ongoing
SPS sponsored DSTL technical revision.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
1
1
1

STANAG Information
Issue arrangements for STANAGs are as follows
Government Departments Industry
NMSt Tel: +44 (0) 207 218 0721 All unclassified STANAGs will be supplied on application
DStan: Tel: +44 (0) 141 224 2532 to an approved document supplier:
UKNC3B Tel: +44 (0) 207 218 2283 TI Ltd. Tel: +44(0)1344 328089 or
ILI Ltd. Tel: +44(0)1344 636300
More information on STANAGs is available on the DStan Website
www.dstan.mod.uk or may be obtained from the DStan Helpdesk.
PROMULGATED NATO STANAGs
The STANAGs listed below have been Promulgated.
STANAG
No & Ed
TITLE FOCAL POINT
AAP-42 NATO Glossary of Standardization Terms
and Definitions
AJP-3(A) Allied Joint Operations - This Supersedes
AJP-3
AOP-48/1 Explosives, Nitrocellulose Based
Propellants, Stability Test Procedures and
Requirements Using Stabilizer Depletion
AQAP-2130/2 NATO Quality Assurance Requirements for
Inspection and Test
DStan
NMSt
DStan
DStan
AQAP-2131/2 NATO Quality Assurance Requirements DStan
ATP-3.3.2.1(A) Tactics, Techniques and Procedures
for Close Air Support Operations This
Supersedes ATP-63
ATP-3.8.1
Vol 2
Specialist NBC Defence Capabilities
(Implementing STANAG now GBR
Ratified with Reservations)
1453/1 Hoisting Arrangements for Sea-Boats on
Board Warships GBR Ratified but Not
Implementing
NMst
NMSt
NMSt
2490/2 Allied Joint Operations - AJP-3(A) NMSt
2522/1 Specialist NBC Defence Capabilities
- ATP-3.8.1 Volume 2
3113/7 Provision of Support to Visiting Personnel,
Aircraft and Vehicles
NMSt
NMSt
3230/7 Emergency Markings on Aircraft NMSt
3531/7 Safety Investigation and Reporting of
Accidents/Incidents Involving Military
Aircraft, Missiles and/or UAVs
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
NMSt
31

32
3726/5 Bail (PORTAL) Lugs for the Suspension of
Aircraft Stores
3820/3 27mm x 145mm Ammunition and Links for
Aircraft Guns
3828/3 Minimum Requirements for Aircrew
Protection Against Hazards of Laser
Systems and Devices
3879/7 Birdstrike Risk/Warning Procedures
(EUROPE) GBR NOT RATIFYING
4119/2 Adoption of a Standard Cannon Artillery
Firing Table Format GBR Now Ratified
(replacing SID 205 comment)
4208/3 The NATO Multi-Channel Tactical digital
Gateway - Signalling Standards GBR
Ratified With Reservations
4249/3 NATO Reference Model for Open Systems
Interconnection GBR Ratified but not
Implementing
4539/1 Technical Standards for Non-Hopping HF
Communications Waveforms
4582/1 Explosives, Nitrocellulose Based
Propellants, Stability Test Procedure and
Requirements using Heat Flow Calorimetry
4587/1 Close-In Landmine Detector Test
Procedures
4599/1 Weapon Launched Grenade Systems,
Design Safety Requirements and Safety
and Suitability for Service Evaluation
4609/2 NATO Digital Motion Imagery Standard
GBR Ratified but not Implementing
4620/1 Explosives, Nitrocellulose Based
Propellants, Stability Test Procedures and
Requirements Using Stabilizer Depletion
- Implementation of AOP-48
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
NMSt
NMSt
NMSt
NMSt
DStan
NC3B
NC3B
NC3B
DStan
DStan
DStan
DStan
DStan
4623/1 Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (HDBT) DStan
7102/1 Environmental Protection Handling
Requirements for Petroleum Handling
Facilities and Equipment. GBR Ratified
with Reservations (doc published
Aug 05)
7139/3 Aircraft Engine Controls, Switches,
Displays, Indicators, Gauges and
Arrangements GBR Ratifying but NOT
IMPLEMENTING
7144/2 Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for
Close Air Support Operations - ATP-
3.3.2.1(A)
7186/1 NATO Glossary of Standardization Terms
and Definitions (English and French)
- AAP-42
7193/1 Incident Command System for Fire and
Emergency Services Responses to
Incidents
NPC
NMSt
DStan
DStan
NMSt
AMENDED NATO STANAGs
The STANAGs listed below have been updated by amendment action.
STANAG
No & Ed
TITLE AMD NO DATE
ADatP-3 NATO Message Text Formatting System
(FORMETS) Concept of Formets
(CONFORMETS)
FOCAL
POINT
4 01/07/06 NC3B

Where do I get Standards Documents ?
Type of Standard Supplier Weblink
European Standards (CEN,
CENELEC)
International Standards (ISO,
IEC)
National Standards Body (eg
British Standards Institution)
National Standards Body (eg
British Standards Institution)
National Standards National Standards Body (eg
British Standards Institution)
Commercial Standards (eg
ASTM Standards and Naval Ship
Rules)
International Military Standards
eg NATO Standardization
Agreements (STANAGs),
ABCA Standards and ASIC Air
Standards
UK Defence Standards including
former Naval Engineering
Standards
UK MoD Departmental
Standards and Specifications
Other Nations’ Military Standards
(eg US MILSTDS and
MILSPECS)
Recognised Industry/
Partnership/Consortiium
Standards (eg AIRBUS, etc)
IP Standard Petroleum Test
Methods (including BS 2000
series parts) are published by
the Energy Institute
Publishing Body.
Some have links from the
DStan Website
NATO STANAGs.
Commercial Sources.
Under the terms of a licence
agreement DStan can only
supply to UK MoD free of
charge.
ABCA Standards.
DStan
ASIC Air Standards
Other Contact
Details
www.bsi-global.com +44(0)20 8996 9001
www.bsi-global.com +44(0)20 8996 9001
www.bsi-global.com
www.energyinstpubs.org.uk
ASTM Standards
www.astm.org
Naval Ship Rules
www.lr.org
www.nato.int
www.abca-armies.org
www.airstandards.com
+44(0)20 8996 9001
Energy Institute
+44(0)20 7467 7100
Use links from DStan
Website
ASTM Standards
+1(610)-832-9555
Naval Ship Rules
Lloyds Register of
Shipping
+44(0)20 7423 1611
Contact the DStan
Helpdesk
+44(0)141 224 2531
Contact the DStan
Helpdesk
+44(0)141 224 2531
National Program
Manager
+44(0)20 7218 0908
UK Defence Standardization www.dstan.mod.uk Contact the DStan
Helpdesk
+44(0)141 224 2531
Various UK MoD Departments www.dstan.mod.uk Contact the DStan
Helpdesk
+44(0)141 224 2531
Publishing nations.
Some have links from the
DStan website.
US MILSTDS and MILSPECS
are available from ASSIST
online
Various Industry, Partnerships/
Consortium Bodies
Use links from DStan website
www.dsp.dla.mil
AIRBUS UK
www.airbus.com
Use links from the DStan
website or contact the
DStan Helpdesk
+44(0)141 224 2531
ASSIST registration
+1(215)-697-6257
Contact the DStan
Helpdesk
+44(0)141 224 2531
Most types of Standards are commercially available at a price from private suppliers who have licence agreements with
the publishing authorities. Documents available from the DStan Website (www.dstan.mod.uk) are free of charge as are
hard copies for use by MoD staff or for use on MoD contracts. Prices for Standards are not standard and vary between
different suppliers. Shop around! Some Standards are available on loan from your local library.
DIRECTOR GENERAL SAFETY & ENGINEERING STANDARDS IN DEFENCE NEWS ISSUE 206 OCTOBER 2007
33

DE&S
Director General Safety & Engineering
UK Defence Standardization
Room 1138
Kentigern House
65 Brown Street
Glasgow
G2 8EX
Telephone: +44 (0) 141 224 2531/2
Fax: +44 (0) 141 224 2503
Email: enquiries@dstan.mod.uk
Web: www.dstan.mod.uk
Design: TES-TIG-5B4-DES Glasgow
©Crown Copyright
07-008032
UK Defence Standardization
SAFETY & ENGINEERING