Download - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002 (Plate 3 - Calibration System EMI/EMC enclosure and amplifiers) (Plate 4 - HF antenna broad band folded monopole and broad band YAGI) HMAS Gawler completed successful Warrlock calibration sea trials using the redesigned calibration system and excellent results were achieved well within Warrlock specified requirements. Calibration trial observations In general the DF system performance is very much dependent on the maintenance of quality signal paths within the ships installation. System degradation results from corrosion in the cables or connectors and the state of RF cleanliness of the vessel. Care must be exercised to minimise parasitic re-radiators such as hydraulic cranes on patrol boats that represent a substantial RADHAZ as well as a mechanism that contributes to bearing error problems. The rubber hoses on cranes are reinforced with steel wire, wire that is insulated due to the rubber from the rest of the ship and acts as an antenna. When acquiring DF systems it is important to understand that bearing accuracy is quoted based on antenna range tests. Once the equipment is fitted on to a ship, performance can be seriously compromised depending on the DF antenna selection, siting and ships structure. Possible future options The current calibration system relies on large signal strength to achieve synchronisation between Calibration System transmitter and DF bearing collection software CSS. This is a hangover from earlier design compromises, and forces us to use high power RF amplifiers. A better technique would be to use GPS pulse per second clocks to achieve synchronisation between Calibration System transmitter and DF collector laptop CSS. A further refinement is possible by using a telemetry link to control the transmitter site and retransmit segments of the calibration sequence to fill bad or missing data. The vessel would be free to manoeuvre as necessary rather than be restricted to a circular track as is currently the case. Ultimately future DF systems will require calibration software and infrastructure to be part of the DF system. Telemetry, timing; automated calibration table generation is all possible and making the calibration process transparent and independent of ship activities. This would raise the level of DF system effectiveness through maintaining calibration. Roll the credits Commanding Officers LCDR Mike Stow and LCDR Chris Tziolis (WARRNAMBOOL and GAWLER respectively) and their crew of cheerful steerage. Andrew Christensen’s (COMAUSNAVPBGRP POCIS) for the marathon run. Mr Nev Funnell (RANTEWS) for articulates support. Mr Geoff Molloy (NEWRS) for a sterling effort in plugging holes where needed. Mr Ashley Bocking (Land Engineering Agency) for an excellent effort and sound advice on EMI/EMC problems encountered. A solution that works first time is a wondrous sight. Messrs Mathew Boorman’s insightful observations, Kevin Townson’s scientific integrity and Stuart Williams’ effortless management. (CMG IT Services Pty Ltd) Mr Derek Forster’s resoundingly good advice and long-suffering (it is finally over), Mr David Burgemeister’s excellent mast work on GAWLER. (CEA Technologies Pty Ltd) Squadron Leader Mick Doerfling’s (Navigation Warfare System Program Office) and Mr Craig Benson’s (Sigma Bravo Pty Ltd) practical mathematics and sound advice on GPS systems. Mr Dave Richards’ and Ms Joyce Taylor’s (DMCP-N) in the thick of it. LEUT Colin Cornwell (RANTEAA) for keeping a critical eye on proceedings. About the author In May 1982, Mr Mateja Petru joined the Australian Public Service at Williamstown Naval Dockyard as a graduate engineer from the then Caulfield Institute of Technology and on joining DNWD in 1984 he expanded his experience in EW. From 1986 to 1994 Mateja took on the Systems Engineer task in SONAR and Electro Optics system development. He left DoD in March 1994 to pursue a private business venture in the electronicsmanufacturing sector but in 1999 returned to DNSIS which became the Naval Electronic Warfare and RADAR Systems (NEWRS) section
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002 67 Development of a Combat System Requirements Set BY LCDR NIGEL SMITH DIRECTOR NAVY WEAPONS SYSTEMS Introduction The Directorate of Navy Weapon Systems (DNWS) has undertaken a task to lead the development of a Combat System Requirement Set (CSRS) as part of the RAN Materiel Requirements Set. This requirement set seeks to address generic non-capability requirements to be considered when acquiring new weapon and combat systems. The requirements set is to be used as the basis for development into specific project materiel requirement documents and specifications, in conjunction with capability requirements derived from the operational concept document. The objective is to have a comprehensive, generic non-capability requirement set for use by the Air Warfare Destroyer Project, and other major projects, by the end of 2002. This article aims to generate discussion on the development of combat system standards and requirements. We would also like to flush out any stakeholders or subject matter expertise that we have not yet identified. Requirement for a CSRS DI (N) LOG 47-3 (Technical Regulation of Navy Materiel) defines the requirement for RAN Materiel Standards: • “The technical regulatory system aims to ensure that RAN vessels are designed, constructed and maintained throughout the entire life cycle to standards that reflect international civilian and military practice and the specific requirements of the RAN.” • “The Chief Naval Engineer, …, is to develop and maintain a set of RAN materiel standards that document all the technical attributes required of vessels, systems and equipment in RAN service. RAN Materiel standards are generic, in that they are intended as the starting point from which all design and construction requirements and specifications for RAN vessels are adopted.” In other words, the safety, environmental compliance and suitability for service of RAN systems is dependent on those systems being built to approved standards or requirements. (see CMDR Horsnell’s article on Technical Regulation – this is the “approved standard” he is talking about) Having materiel standards gives a basis for comparing various designs, and provides a baseline against which designs are certified. This is not to say that they need to be hard and fast, inflexible statements that stifle innovation or tie us to old technology. With some thought it is possible to deliver a standard that delivers compatibility, interoperability and the successful integration of the application functions of a combat system, without specifying the equipment or solution. What is a Combat System? “In this context a Combat System is the composite of those systems of the ship and its personnel which control, coordinate and carry out the warfare mission capabilities of the ship.” ANEP-32A This question could keep discussion going for days at a WEEOs reunion, I’m sure. A model for development of the requirement set has been based on the NATO publication ANEP-32 Combat System Reference Model for Open Shipboard Combat System. The model is used to identify areas for improving standards, and to provide a common reference for maintaining consistency of related standards. It provides the conceptual framework to be referenced by those standards and allows work to proceed productively and independently on the development of standards for the areas that are identified by the model. The ANEP-32A model identifies various elements of a combat system based on the major warfare areas (Air, Surface and Underwater), and three functional areas (Detect, Control and Engage). A Command function overlays the warfare areas. A Support element is added to
Page 1:
NAVY ENGINEERING ISSUE 3 AUGUST 200
Page 4 and 5:
2 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19: 16 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST
show all

Download - Royal Australian Navy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?