Download - Royal Australian Navy

16 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003
problem outside the normal
scope of planned maintenance
has to be referred ashore for an
answer. The exchange of
information and questions
between the embarked flight and
the ashore support can take an
extended period of time due to
the nature of communications
with ships at sea and results in
the aircraft being unserviceable
for long periods. Is this what we
want for our ships? Interestingly,
in 2001 the aviation world trialed
sending an engineer to sea with
the embarked flight in an attempt
to overcome this problem and
also to give the engineer first
hand experience of a flight at sea.
AUSTRALIAN WARSHIPS
Before looking at the value of an
engineer at sea, we must
understand what we want our
ship to be able to do and the
importance of each ship within
our Fleet. A comprehensive
answer to the question of the
roles that can be given to
warships by government is
contained in the Australian
Maritime Doctrine. Chapter 6 lists
the characteristics of maritime
power, of which the following are
relevant to the current discussion:
resilience, poise and persistence,
reach, adaptability and flexibility.
The engineer plays an important
role in each of these
characteristics. An engineer
contributes to the resilience of a
ship through the management of
redundancy within systems and
through the assessment and
repair of damage. The ability of a
ship to remain in the area of
operations without recourse to
shore services relies heavily on
the skills of an engineer. Similarly,
to achieve the normal reach of a
warship is dependent upon the
ability of an engineer to sustain
the operation of the ship for long
periods and at extended
distances from home base.
Adaptability and flexibility will
also provide many challenges to
an engineer, especially in unusual
tasks that may arise at short
notice. CAPT Paul Field in the
Feb 02 edition of the Engineering
Bulletin makes a more detailed
discussion on the role of
engineers in support of Maritime
Doctrine. To ensure that these
characteristics of maritime power
remain available in future
warships, some form of tactical
level engineering is vital.
Another aspect of our Navy that
distinguishes us particularly from
the USN, is the value of each
ship within our order of battle.
Each ship within our Fleet is a
significant element of our
capability to defend Australia. The
RAN is far less able to absorb the
loss of even one ship than larger
navies such as the USN or the
RN. Consequently, the effort we
put into sustaining a ship within
an operational area needs to be
greater than these larger navies. A
larger navy has greater scope to
withdraw a damaged ship from
the area of operation and
allocate another. For the RAN, it
is far more important for us to
engineer a way to keep a
damaged ship operating to
achieve its tasking.
VALUE OF AN ENGINEER
So, what does an engineer have
to offer? LCDR Warren points to
the IEAust to provide an
understanding of what an
engineer does, and proposes that
engineers are primarily involved in
design through improving systems
or maintenance. But if we look at
the competencies for registration
as a Chartered Professional
Engineer, we can see that an
engineer can have a much greater
role within an organisation.
Although there is a heavy
emphasis on design, there are
also competencies related to the
management of engineering
within the business (ie, for
business we can use the ship),
management of engineering
operations, and investigation and
reporting of problems. A
professional engineer therefore
has a much more expansive role
than merely design, they are the
manager of a large and skilled
technical workforce to assess
reports properly and to assist
with particularly complex
problems.
LCDR Warren suggests that
advances in technology will result
in a corresponding reduction in
the requirement for engineering
skills in these areas. The
assertion that advancing
technology leads to greater
reliability does not seem to be
supported by experience. Without
having analysed any data, I do
not believe that anyone would
suggest that ANZAC Class ships
are any more reliable than the
FFGs. In fact, my experiences in
early 2001, would tend to
indicate that they are less
reliable. However, even if this is
the case, new technology has led
to greater flexibility for both plant
operating modes and plant
control. This greater flexibility
offers command more choices in
terms of matching the plant to
the current operational tasking.
Engineering operations
competencies then become even
more important in helping
Command manage the plant to
maximise operational
performance and minimise plant
stresses. As we look forward to
revolutionary engineering plants,
such as the fully electric
propulsion, the degree of system
complexity and flexibility is only
going to increase, resulting in an
equivalent increase in importance
of having an engineer to manage
the plant.
AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE
So, having established why an
engineer is important on a ship
and what an engineer has to
offer, how might our future
warships be manned. Although I
have disagreed with the
suggestion that technology makes
systems easier to support, I do
believe that it makes them easier
to operate. Consequently, we now
need less operators to control
and adjust the ships systems and
machinery, and as technology
develops we could see an even
greater reduction in the number
of operators required to fight the
ship as a whole. In fact, it may be
possible next century to operate
the warfare side of a ship via
satellite from MHQ. Therefore, I
believe that technology will allow
us to reduce the number of
operators in a crew, but for the
reasons stated above, will still
need engineers and maintainers
onboard. Imagine an operations
room with only the captain, a
PWO and a system manager; a
bridge with only an OOW; and a
host of maintainers ready to alter
the ship’s systems to meet the
changing operational demands
and limitations imposed by
damage. We may well only need
one or two engineers in this
scheme rather than the five or six
we have currently, but the
ultimate ability of a ship to fight
and win at sea can only be
achieved with engineers at sea.
1 LCDR Mark Warrens article from
Engineering Bulletin Jun 01.
About the Author LCDR Goldsworthy joined
the RAN in Jan 1986 at ADFA where he
completed a Mechanical Engineering
Degree in Dec 1990. On completion of
junior officer training at HMAS CRESWELL
he joined HMAS DERWENT as an AMEO.
Whilst an AMEO he also spent some time
on HMAS TORRENS and HMNZS WAIKATO
before being awarded an MEOCC. In mid
1993 he took over as one of the Ship
Managers at FIMA Sydney, primarily looking
after IMAV work for FFGs. In late 1995 he
posted onto HMAS CANBERRA to take up
the role of DMEO. Once awarded a MEOCQ,
he was posted to Canberra where he
fulfilled a number of roles working with
minor projects and the initial development
of Certification. In Apr 2000 he assumed
the role of MEO of HMAS ARUNTA before
returning once again to Canberra where he
is now working in the Logisitics Section of
the FFG Upgrade Project."