ENGINEERING - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B U L L E TI N F E B R U A RY 2 00 2 5 A Word from the Editor’s Desk BY LIEUTENANT COMMANDER RAY CAIRNEY Well folks, the first issue is a tough act to follow. Tom and Angela’s efforts resulted in a very good publication. As you can see below, we have had some feedback with a couple of Letters to the Editor. Continue to let me know how we are going: good, bad or indifferent. To reiterate, one of the aims of the bulletin is to provide an avenue to all areas of the Navy Engineering community to be enlightened on a range of engineering and related issues. It also provides the opportunity for engineers and technicians, both service and civilian, to put their thoughts and good ideas on paper and have them published. So keep the submissions coming. Thankfully, with this issue of the Bulletin I faced a similar problem to that of the previous Editor with more articles than I could fit into the limited space. Once again there is a need for balance and several articles missed out on that score. More articles from sailors across all disciplines are needed, and more from fleet units. Also important is brevity. A twelve-page article won’t make it. A seven-page article (including graphics) will struggle. In the second half of 2001, a lot of work went on in various areas aimed at reinvigorating Navy Engineering. In this vein, the first part of this issue is somewhat dedicated to articulating the direction that Navy Engineering is headed wit h several articles centred around, or the result of the engineering gatherings that took place when a number of Fleet units were in Darwin in July 2001. It appears that the future of Navy Engineering could be bright if we take charge of it. I have also included in this issue a brief flier on the Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia (MESA) as a way of highlighting the existence of engineering interest groups. I intend making such adds a regular feature of the bulletin. Lieutenant Commander Ray Cairney Editor L E T T E R STO THE EDITO R I would like to congratulate you, your editorial team and all who contributed to the renewed Naval Engineering Bulletin. Well done. I enjoyed reading the whole magazine and think it adds considerably to our subs tance and identity as an engineering body. I would part i c u l a rly like to c o n gra t u l a te LCDR Mark Wa rre n on his th o u g h t - p rovoking paper, ‘The Impending Extinction of th e Naval Engineer’. His line of logic is sound, we are on a cours e that will incre a s i n gly te st th e value of our contribution and I am not convinced we have a sound case in re b u t tal. But, I would conte st Mark’s line of logic along another line of logic that says Naval Engineer Offi c e rs who apply engineering skills do m a ke a real, defining diffe re n c e to our ability to opera te our s ystems at optimum p e rfo rmance at sea, and th e s e a re people who will always be valued and never discarded. If you are uncertain about what e n g i n e e ring skills means, sta rt by looking at the IEAu st d e s c ription qu o ted by Mark and think about what the te rm applied-science means. I have no doubt th e re is the opport u n i t y and need for applied-science e n g i n e e ring at sea. I would also congratulate Mark on striking at the false belief that more complex technology requires more complex technical training. He is quite right, the reverse is actually more correct, and few people around Navy have thought this through and understood the relationship. Leaving aside what it might mean for operators, in the technical world it means for sophisticated systems we require fewer people, but those few people require different skills, they need systems-performance and diagnosis type technical skills. There are many complex matters involved in deciding our future as engineers and technicians, but we might start with the question: do we as a Navy want to ‘fight and win at sea’ or do we want to ‘fight, fix and win at sea’? Andrew Cawley CAPT, RAN I was greatly impressed by the content of the first issue of the Naval Engineering Bulletin. As an instructor with Scientific Management Associates delivering training to Navy personnel, the material presented in your publication provides very valuable assistance in making linkages between training material and the workplace. A good example of the above is the article by Mr Peter Clark (Electric Propulsion for Sur face Combatants). This provided very useful contextual information on the relevance of DC motor theor y in the module on DC Machines and for the comparison of the various propulsion systems. Mark Burt Shoal Water, WA
6 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B UL L E T I N F E B RU A RY 2 00 2 BY CDRE KEN JOSEPH Navy Engineering – A Vision for the Future Our Challenges and Opportunities CNE PRESENTATION TO ENG I N E E R I NG SEMINAR – DA RWIN JULY 2001 I want to tell you a fairy story. Once upon a time, The year is 2013. The new Air Wa rfa re Dest royer HMAS AU ST RALIA has just been commissioned, on time and on b u d get. (I told you this was a fa i ry sto ry ! ) The Chief of Nav y has just left the Commissioning fe stivities and is enjoying a quiet brandy in the back of his limo on the way to the airp o rt . Vice Ad m i ral Paul Field, th e n ewly appointed Chief of Nav y and the fi rst to be an Engineer, is re flecting. Engineering had come a long way since we lost the Engineering Ad m i ral in 2000, when engineers we re p e rc e i ved to be too narrow, ri s k ave rse and not adding value. It had been a concerted effo rt by the Engineering Community to think st ra te g i c a l ly and re fo c u s th e m s e lves on the future, to adapt to ch a n ge and in fact to d ri ve it so that the opport u n i t i e s of ch a n ge we re realised. To not j u st continue on as th ey had a l ways done and let ch a n ge ru n right over them. The Chief of D e fence Fo rce and the Ministe r n ow understood that an Engineer was ideal for th e L e a d e rship and Capability M a n a gement role of Chief of Nav y. He re fl e c ted on th e Commissioning. HMAS AU ST RALIA was a marvel of a u tomation, all electri c p ropulsion, multiple re d u n d a n c y, Au st ralian phased array ra d a r, and large ly Au st ralian Command and Control system. It virt u a l ly ran itself, but the people we re n e c e s s a ry. The flexibility of th e s u rface combatant was vital and the addition of people in th e s ystem was found essential to this task. A mista ke Air Fo rc e had learned in AIR 6000 when th ey went for the pilot-less air combat Unmanned Areal Ve h i c l e . In full battle confi g u ration the Air Wa rfa re Dest royer could opera te w i th as little as 60 people, I mean why send more people into h a rm’s way than you have to. Yo u see most of the crew was an i n s u rance item, for when human j u d gement and initiative we re re qu i red. It was realised ye a rs ago that the hard engineeri n g wasn’t done on board, but a s h o re. Howeve r, the experi e n c e gained by going to sea wa s recognised so she usually carri e d over 100 most of the time. And just like the now fully capable Collins class, Australia was the parent Navy for the Air Warfare Destroyer. Sure it had American weapons and other equipment, that weren’t cost effective to be developed in Australia, but these were built and supported in Australia. The change from the fully imported Guided Missile Destroyers (DDGs) and Guided Missile Frigates (FFGs) had been hard on the Engineering Community. They had been used to just maintaining the configuration, keeping them going, with most of the effort needed to enhance the configuration coming from overseas. Now as a parent Navy, most of Navy’s engineering effort was going into improving the performance of our ships. And the people, they were a good bunch. For sailors, the critical rank was still Petty Officer – the Supertechs as they were known, and they were highly sought after jobs. These were the guys who could make the ship’s systems sing and were vital in a crisis. They were educated to advanced Diploma level, well trained with extensive sea and shore experience, and the job at sea paid really well, and then there was the possibility of making Chief and really raking it in, with maybe even a Bachelor’s Degree in the offering. Navy had learned that if you trained a little, experienced a little, provided job satisfaction and always maintained the incentive to keep developing, then you didn’t need a huge bunch of juniors and so could af ford to pay people more. For officers, well their primar y job was not at sea. Sure there was the Chief Engineer on HMAS AUSTRALIA.She was responsible for optimising her systems and providing the engineering judgement, and it was a great job highly sor t after, but the sea job wasn’t the focus of her career. In a parent Navy, an engineer could contribute far more ashore, but the sea going experience was essential. That was the real difference between her and the public service and industr y engineers. And thinking of Defence Industry. The partnership with Industry had really paid off. No
Page 1 and 2: NAVY ENGINEERING ISSUE 2 FEBRUARY 2
Page 3 and 4: 2 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B U L
Page 5: 4 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B UL
Page 9 and 10: 8 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B UL
Page 11 and 12: 1 0 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B U
Page 13 and 14: 1 2 N AVY E N G I N E E R I N G B U
Page 17 and 18: 1 6 N AVY E N G I N E E R I N G B U
Page 19 and 20: 1 8 N AV Y E N G I N E E R I N G B
Page 21 and 22: 2 0 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B
Page 25 and 26: 2 4 N AV Y EN G I N E E R I N G B U
Page 57 and 58:
5 6 N A VY EN G I N E E R I N G B U
Page 59 and 60:
5 8 N AVY E N G I N E E R I N G B U
Page 61 and 62:
6 0 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B
Page 63 and 64:
6 2 N AVY E N G I N E E R I N G B U
Page 65:
6 4 N A VY E N G I N E E R I N G B
show all

ENGINEERING - Royal Australian Navy

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

Delete template?

Save as template?