In a recent presentation, BAE Systems unveiled a raft of innovative advancements in fire safety and damage control for warship design, taking into account lessons learned from the Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) Aircraft Carriers.

The developments focus on bolstering the performance of pipe systems, refining software systems, and evolving the design of gaseous systems.

Initially, several issues were identified in the QEC Aircraft Carriers:

  • Pipe system performance:
    • Spray systems suffered from low pressure due to extensive pipework runs.
    • Local modifications were necessary during the integration process.
    • Nozzle locations were decided through an iterative process during the build.
  • Software systems:
    • There were concerns regarding system hardware speed at the user interface.
    • PLCs needed to be more robust in withstanding power fluctuations.
    • A more rigorous software configuration control was necessary.
  • Gaseous system design:
    • There was a need to build confidence for early adoption of the new system by the navies.
    • Compartment pressurisation needed improvement.
    • Greater control was needed over backup discharges.

Addressing these issues, BAE Systems employed innovative approaches to optimise the performance of the pipe systems.

  • Pipe system performance:
    • All small bore pipework is now fully 3D modelled in CAD, including nozzle locations.
    • Full sets of hydraulic calculations are performed based on as-built geometry.
    • Nozzle locations are reviewed iteratively with relevant authorities.
    • Detailed build handbooks have been issued to building yards.
  • Software systems:
    • Architectural changes have been made to enhance the Fire Protection Network (FPN).
    • The Generic Control System (GCS) utilises twin redundant Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) with local Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) in place of a server-based system.
    • Full system factory acceptance tests are completed in a facility off-ship, allowing for efficient issue identification and resolution.
  • Gaseous system design:
    • The testing regime on the Aircraft Carriers has been increased to gain empirical evidence.
    • Pipework material was changed to facilitate installation and testing.
    • Software interlocks have been incorporated for manual control of the second discharge.

Full system factory acceptance tests are now conducted off-ship, making the identification and resolution of issues more streamlined.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

44 COMMENTS

  1. I missed the section on the remedies proposed to prevent the future release of a vessel with a known prime mover / power train defect to the customer, thank goodness reactors are built by RR&A.

      • LOL – I know, I used to run a factory that built the largest parts of the prime movers. My (too subtle) comment was aimed at the slack practices at Govan and thanking the good Lord that they don’t also supply reactors……………………… epoxy cooling circuit joints? Wooden cooling rods? Plexi glass?

  2. Headline seems to bear little relevance to story, are we going tabloid George. “BAE reveals new innovations in ship safety would be more accurate”.

    • Or maybe

      ‘BAE reveals a surprisingly amateurish approach to the initial hydraulic design of QEC’s fire systems’

      Calculating hydraulic pressure loss to end of line is hardly new or rocket science.

      Although the way some other warship fire systems were built was also very suck-it-and-see….

      • I was thinking that, amazing how negatives can be portrayed as positives, or maybe I just have a cynical mind. In their defence I guess producing a ship of this size with no direct experience of systems in place will present Challenges I guess it’s just difficult with their massaging to determine which should have been avoided, which improved though real time experience (as they present) and which are putting right those errors that should have been avoided.

        • Yes you have a cynical mind😀Any new design has issues – the more complex the greater the likihood of issues.You can’t just scrap the first few like you might a car. That said the hardware & software will be easily changed and the pipework etc. is not an insoluable problem. I’m sure the designers were focused on issues that that could not afford to get wrong and so far there appears to be none of those.

        • Exactly, we have a multi billion dollar carrier sat an its ass because of a defect known to the supplier (and possibly the customer at some level) and nobody says a word….. (You would have thought if the defect was known, somebody would have pre ordered the corrected components….at the supplier’s expense possibly?
          The elephant in the room is that they are supposed to be identical sisters (acknowledging that sisters are never exactly identical).
          So:-
          Option 1, The lead vessel is ok and BAE decided to do something different on the second vessel….WHY?
          Option 2, There really is a design error (it happens, it is a vast collection of sub systems etc) and so:-
          Option 2a Is that it was remedied in the first vessel but not the second ….WHY NOT?
          OR
          Option 2b, It is present in the first vessel and just hasn’t happened yet.
          OR
          Option 2c, Something happened on the vessel that caused the shaft to be stressed (and thus the thrust block) to a point where it operated outside of spec and failed, unlikely in Portsmouth harbor where vessels rarely operate anywhere near their design horsepower, so it happened before that day………..and nobody said a word.
          But instead they talk about a line loss calculation with a constant viscosity liquid that a 1st year Eng’ student should be able to do. If that is the best good news they have to talk about, after 3 years of playing with live systems, I am somewhat disappointed / disbelieving. Perhaps the truth may upset a delicate inclusivity or diversity calculation.

      • Or tech moves on, we have better simulations and more powerful computers. If you’d like a real laugh you should read up on the Ford and their plumbing troubles.

        • There are qualified people who calculate fire mains in building and marine environments for a living.

          In the US it is big business certifying fire sprinkler systems to code.

          This is stuff that was looked at long and hard in the 1980-90’s post Corporate. Not new news.

          • Are you saying the travails of the Ford and her plumbing are not news or that new systems that use AI to simulate systems performance is not new news?

          • I’m saying that calculating plumbing systems properly is not new news.

            There are a lot of good data tables on this in libraries…..all over the world…..

          • I have no firm view on wether AI can make a useful contribution…..to that kind of system….

      • It does seem quite late in the day to be discovering that basic fire suppression flaw. Good job there’s no Russian smokers on board.

      • I completely agree, in the early 90s I worked for my father with a positive displacement pump company, even then I could use a program (probably an app these days) to select pipe diameters, elbows, T joints and viscosity to give me a good idea of the output at the end of a pipe run, the “magic” bit at the time was that you could use a variety of viscosities and temperatures which made working out the line loss on a heavy fuel oil line on a cold day north of Hadrian’s wall a doddle……let me guess….viscosity of water…:-(.

  3. The importance of ship safety can not be overstated, but these vessels are also hugely under-protected from hostile action. Okay, I know the network that is in place to protect at sea but two or three phalanx is too little. All the enemy has to do is be lucky, HMS Royal Oak, Sir Galahad to name but two. In this rapidly developing world of drones, the RN needs to install close-in drone defence as a matter of urgency.

    • hopefully phalanx will tackle air drones close in, wondering if could tackle swarming surface drones or small boat attack

      • They can still add some extra 30-40mm RWS’, SEA decoy launchers, plus anti torpedo defences and maybe CAMM/RAM/Star Streak HVM. Too much reliance on just three phalanx’s. And add Dragonfire, when it’s ready.

      • The QE Class are huge targets and the traditional methods of attack are rapidly changing in the face of technology. Drone developments pose a substantial threat when in port and at sea. Surface swarms are becoming an increasing concern due to their relatively low costs. The total ship system safety outlined in this piece must ensure system hacking is constantly reviewed to protect vital networks as this is another facet of risk.

        • You mean missile and drone attacks that the Ukraine missile defence systems have been successfully defeating with hand me down systems. Guys wake up, smell the coffee, stop repeating Russian nonsense propaganda.

    • Under arming our major warships makes most navies feel it could be their lucky day. Even with a RN escort, most with little anti ship capability(Gapped/obsolete/awaiting arrival of interim NSM), enemies could get through & attack our carriers.

  4. Extensive pipe runs result in pressure loss? Erm, yeah. No shit Baz.

    It blows my mind that this isn’t obvious from the outset. Was it work experience day in the office when the plans were drawn up?

    As ever, ‘amateur hour’ at BAES (and Babcock are no better) seems to be 40 hours per week, 48 weeks a year.

    Worked with both for some years. Dog sh*t really.

    • I wonder to what extent this reflects upon Thales too mind, or were they never involved in the more intimate design work in what was their original overall design proposal.

    • Babcock seems to have mastered the art of cost cutting down to a fine art.They don’t even like replacing broken specialist tools, you have beg and borrow from some other department. Spare parts is like raffle order 10 items get six on time if you are lucky !

  5. Nothing about QE being years overdue on a routine drydock visit. Probably going to be a year before she can. That’s assuming the other one ever gets to sea and completes trials and gains operational status.

  6. Whenever a ship sinking is in the news, I wonder if airbags fitted to the top of the hull, could be triggered to tow the ship to port, or at least keep it afloat long enough to get everybody off.

      • Would that involve considerable compressed air cylinders, something else that could also go “Bang!” if hit. Mind you c.f. all the fuel, aviation fuel & munitions, it wouldn’t add much more hazard.

  7. So BAE failed to do the job properly in the first place, or are looking to make lots more money from yet another zillion £ contract?

    Frankly, my guess is the latter. Software ‘enhancements’ are a given, as technology changes rapidly, and those with it, ‘leak’ it out ever so slowly, so they can update programme’s, and guarantee a ‘loyal customer base’, who they can keep going back to, and keep earning money from.

    BAE make me sick. Capitalism at it very worse. They need to drop the ‘B’ritish from their name, as they really couldn’t give a fig about Britain’s armed forces, otherwise they wouldn’t keep extorting money from BRITISH tax payers.

    Moving forward, I would much rather have our ships, subs, carriers… tanks and whatever else made elsewhere, other than by BAE systems.

    They were primarily responsible for stripping the RAF of its fixers, fitters, airframe engineers, mechanics etc and soforth, which then resulted in all and every major type of work on airframes and aircraft being ‘turned over’ to them.

    • Gosh someone’s living in the past! BAE not one of the most successful defence contractors on the planet then!

      • Living in the past? Try to keep up, and focus on the point here! BAE is a company who’s success is entirely attributable to the buying out and swallowing up all their competitors to the point, they are now a monopoly.

        So, where is the competition? where is the Taxpayers value for money?

        • Sorry but this answer is so silly 🙃 don’t know where to begin! So on planet earth we have multinationals right. Big companies can take more risk than little companies right. All large economies have big multinationals right. Presumably you didn’t do well in economics.

    • I wonder if we should have a dnc-naval design dept again if only for surface escorts. I can see trouble between design compatability of T26 and T31/ 32.

  8. As an ex-RN Engineer and with 20+ Years Small Bore Tubing experience, Ive been banging on about these issues for years. Do it cheap on Build and upgrade Reliability & Capability,In Service. Come on, "Do It Right First Time". Engage with the SMEs at Pre-Feed stage and avoid the disastrous impact on Ships Cos welfare and well being. Ultimately, Jack will vote with his feet leading to further deepening of the Retention crisis

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here