J Cheetham and I Miller, Lloyd’s Register, UK SUMMARY
The major programme of change in the defence acquisition sector presents real and urgent challenges for navies procuring and maintaining submarines whilst seeking affordable safe capability. The paper focuses on the contribution to the assurance of submarine safety that can be made through continued development of classification rules to specifically address the unique characteristics of submarines and the opportunities offered to navies and suppliers by a different approach to standards and specifications and the verification of compliance, without constraining innovation.
The paper presents an approach to the definition and implementation of an appropriate standards policy throughout the submarine lifecycle, with the benefit of using established practices for demonstrating conformance with requirements and thereby providing an effective contribution to reducing project risks, mitigating hazards and assurance of achieving the required level of submarine safety.
1. INTRODUCTION
At present there is a major programme of change across the defence sector in response to challenges posed by the new and evolving world order and the ever present and increasing pressure on naval procurement and support budgets. The consequential action, in relation to procurement and support practices for submarines is to seek transformational change in pursuit of maintaining the required flexible capability at an affordable cost. For navies which continue to seek to play a leading role in underwater operations there is a concentration on the acquisition of assets which are versatile but also exhibit excellent capability. This creates additional challenges as the rate at which new submarines are procured is reduced and their numbers are reduced, affecting the ability of navies to retain the required domain skills and resources to support their existing and future submarine enterprise.
In this changing environment navies are looking outwards to seek examples of best practice in other parts of industry which could be applied, either wholly or in part or offer learning, which can contribute to the pursuit of a sustainable and affordable capability. As is already evident this has lead to increasing collaboration with industry partners and an examination of how these other sectors manage their business. The result is that the traditional submarine procurement and support practices are being challenged and, in many cases modified in an effort to reduce the overall cost of acquisition and ownership. However, the requirement for a robust safety management system, clearly demonstrating through life assurance of submarine safety, remains undiminished.
One aspect that has been transferred to the naval sector is the concept of classification with the basic philosophy adapted to suit the demands of the naval customer base.
This brings to the naval sector an established commercial sector safety management model which can provide a convenient benchmark standard. It also affords benefits in terms of valuable support to the management of risks which are faced in procurement and upkeep projects through the application of the classification process to
the supply chain. The opportunity offered to navies and suppliers is through a different approach to the selection of standards and specifications and the verification of compliance, without constraining innovation.
The role of classification societies in the merchant shipping sector is complex and central to the development of standards for design, construction, maintenance and verification of compliance with those standards at all stages of the project lifecycle. Whilst it is evident that understanding has increased over the years many naval and defence sector staff remain unfamiliar with the concept of classification, its potential and indeed its inherent limitations. As with any change there will be some unfamiliarity and some associated risks and it is an aim of this paper to provide a background resource for submarine project staff to enable them to realise maximum benefit through intelligent application of the classification process.
The paper therefore presents an approach to the definition and implementation of an appropriate standards policy throughout the submarine lifecycle, with the benefit of using established practices for demonstrating conformance with requirements and thereby providing an effective contribution to assurance of submarine safety and reducing project risk.
2. CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES Although classification has its origins in the coffee houses of London in the eighteenth century when surveyors assigned classes to ships, so that underwriters and charterers could assess their risk exposure, the current position is quite different. The modern classification society is a highly competent technical organisation which operates a system of classification, supported by other certification and verification activities, which in turn provides different parts of industry with an independent assurance of quality and safety.
Warship 2008: Naval Submarines 9, Glasgow, UK
©2008: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects Classification depends on a published set of Rules which
define the requirements and referenced standards set that must be satisfied for the issue of a Certificate of Classification. Rules have been developed by classification societies with the active participation of a wide cross section of industry through their Technical Committees. In the merchant ship sector the Rules are also influenced by agreed Unified Requirements that are adopted by the International Association of Classification Societies, IACS, and implemented by all member societies subject to the approval of each member’s Technical Committee. The merchant ship safety regulatory regime depends also on national maritime legislation, of the respective flag administration for the ship, which enacts the requirements of the International Conventions which have been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation, IMO. Requirements set down in the International Conventions and the classification Rules form a coherent set of standards for maritime safety. In many cases the flag administration will authorise the classification society to act, as a Recognised Organisation, on its behalf to issue the statutory certification in addition to the Certificates of Classification.
Review of standards set for
submarine Review design against selected
standards Approval at manufacturer’s
works Survey at works
during manufacture
Survey at building yard during construction
Witnessing of shop tests and sea
trials Survey during operation and
upkeep
Fig 1 Key elements of the classification process Classification is founded on the development and publication of a set of standards, the Rules, which define the essential minimum safety requirements for design and construction and the uniform implementation of those standards through a regime of survey and independent examinations throughout the project life cycle. The certification of compliance with the requirements of International Conventions and any additional requirements imposed by the National Administration follows a similar process and may also be carried out by the classification society acting on behalf of the National Administration. The process, illustrated in fig 1, involves the following key elements:
x Review of the standards set selected x Review of the design, as indicated on the
designer’s drawings, to ensure that the
submarine satisfies the Rule requirements applicable to design
x Review and approval of key manufacturing works for the manufacture of materials and components
x Survey of key materials, equipment and components during manufacture
x Survey during construction and the installation of machinery and equipment
x The witnessing of testing at manufacturers’
works and of the dock and harbour trials of the completed submarine
x Survey during operation and upkeep
Survey activities during the design and construction phase are defined in scope and manner in the Rules and Regulations and on delivery the Certificate of Classification is issued to indicate that the platform complies with the requirements set out in the Rules, noting exceptions where appropriate. It is not a form of guarantee but it does give independent assurance that the requirements have been satisfied, thus providing confidence in the design and build phase, which then gives confidence that the asset fulfils its materiel function. Once in service classification is maintained, in the same manner as other forms of certification, through a continuous survey regime that is defined in the Regulations.
This process of independent review and assurance is fully transferable to any business sector as has been demonstrated by the adoption of similar schemes in the offshore oil and gas industry and, more recently, the rail industry. The essential message is that classification is not just about the provision of a set of Rules. The Rules are an essential part but classification is a process and adopting this process can produce significant benefits to safety assurance, procurement and reduced through life cost of ownership of submarines.
3. EVOLUTION OF NAVAL CLASSIFICATION During the Second World War the Royal Navy procured a large number of warships, and auxiliary vessels that were constructed in shipyards that usually built merchant ships. It was natural, given the urgent need for these vessels, that they were designed and built to standards that were familiar to the shipyards and Lloyd’s Register of Shipping played a key supporting role to the Admiralty constructors [1, 2]. The ships built were described as following merchant ship practices, some being based on commercial ship designs and although not intended for a long life many of these ships remained in service for the early post-war period with one of the last ships going to the breakers in 1972 after steaming more than 342 000 miles. The evidence, therefore, is that design and construction in accordance with merchant ship practices does not necessarily preclude a long service life in naval use or imply inferior capability.
Warship 2008: Naval Submarines 9, Glasgow, UK
©2008: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Over the last three decades Lloyd’s Register has supported naval underwater operations through classification of submersibles used in submarine rescue operations. These rescue vehicles, manufactured in glass reinforced plastic [3 ] and steel have been maintained in class with satisfactory service using classification rules developed for use in the offshore industry [4 ]. The latest submersible constructed under class is the NATO submarine rescue system which has recently entered service.
Over the last decade, there has been a renewed interest in the application of the classification process to naval ships.
This follows the involvement of Lloyd’s Register over the last six decades, in the procurement and upkeep of naval support ships, such as oilers and auxiliaries. The impetus for Lloyd’s Register to develop a classification regime aimed specifically at naval ships was the recognition that when the merchant ship classification regime was applied to the procurement and upkeep of increasingly warlike ships there were shortcomings.
Difficulties arose not least due to the absence of the equivalent to the merchant ship International Convention requirements. Lack of specific rule requirements relating to key features or hazards which were commonly found on naval ships, of which there is no direct merchant ship equivalent, reduced the value of classification to navies.
The development of the Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships [5] has provided a
comprehensive, yet flexible, set of standards which dealt with these shortcomings and thereby removed a barrier to the adoption of classification for naval ships.
Supplementary guidance for designers and project managers has been extracted from the deliberations of expert focus groups, acting through Lloyd’s Register’s Naval Ship Technical Committee, to capture useful information that supplements the Rules. Although this does not form part of the standards against which a ship would be assessed it is, nevertheless, valuable and it is intended to develop this into a usable format and, if appropriate, to publish this as a supplement.
Lloyd’s Register is further developing the Rules to take account of the experience gained in application to new construction projects and feedback from operations in service. The Rules will also be developed to take account of new and emerging technologies as soon as these have reached sufficient maturity to permit the development of standards. Wherever possible the Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships will replicate the requirements used for merchant ships where these are consistent with the military application, so that the naval community can benefit from the use of standard materials and equipment without attracting a defence premium. To realise the potential benefit the navy must understand the full implications of selecting a particular standard and be certain that the specific naval use is considered.
Following publication of the Rules in 1999 several navies around the world have procured or are in the process of procuring combatant ships to Lloyd’s Register classification.
It is against this background that the Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships are being developed to include submarines. This development will pull through appropriate standards from existing Rule sets to ensure consistency and to maximise the benefits of proven marine technology.
These standards will be supplemented, where required, with submarine specific standards to produce a comprehensive set of standards which will provide an equivalent level of safety to that contained in bespoke naval standards, where these exist, whilst allowing use of commercial or military off the shelf (COTS/MOTS) equipment where this is appropriate.
4. SAFETY REGULATION AND VALUE Safety regulation is sometimes treated, particularly when it is being introduced, as an additional burden on the
“enterprise” and experience with a number of navies which are developing their safety management systems suggests that there is considerable resistance. Conversely, there is very little resistance to the adoption of risk management into projects and operations. The evidence from a wide range of industries is that the management of risk is considered to be a business imperative but regulation imposes an external control which is a constraint, and this constraint becomes more invasive if the Regulator considers the management to be weak or ineffective. Evidence of this is very clear when the financial services sector is studied.
The maritime industries have managed to retain a high level of self-regulation and the classification society is a reflection of this state. Safety regulation can, however, take a number of forms and it is easy to identify the impact of accidents in determining the regulatory response. There is still a culture of compliance, which works on the basis that the prescriptive requirements have been met and that this is enough, The challenge to the safety regulator is to provide an effective regulatory regime which recognises active risk management, provides prescriptive requirements and verification where this is an effective strategy and delivers benefits such as safety and flexibility to the operational managers.
The principles of good safety regulation mean that any requirements must be applicable even to the smallest companies, since the maritime industry depends for many critical components on very small suppliers often located in interesting places. The benefits of the requirements must justify the total costs of implementation. Prescription can be a constraint on innovation and encourage an unquestioning compliance culture, neither of which is desirable, and so performance
Warship 2008: Naval Submarines 9, Glasgow, UK
©2008: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects standards are often an appropriate solution for the
regulator.
The challenge to the safety regulator is to demonstrate that by following the safety management regime there are benefits to the project, over its life cycle, which outweigh the costs. The detractor argues that safety regulation adds visible costs, in terms of the charges made by the verifiers such as classification societies, and bureaucracy. The latter may result in inevitable delays and loss of control by the project managers. From the perspective of the professional individual, responsibilities and competences are challenged.
However, the good safety regulator is able to demonstrate that there are real benefits to the project as the discipline within the verification processes provides an effective approach to active management of the project’s technical risks. The safety regulatory regime will also support the through life safety management and provide a benchmark, in the case of classification, with a civil sector standard. In the remainder of the paper this argument will be developed.
5. PROCESS AND PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT
The desire to provide best value in both procurement and upkeep of submarines brings with it an increased focus on the identification and management of project and programme risks. Of course, there are well-established techniques for project management and this paper will not deal with these, or with the management of the schedule and commercial risks. However, for submarines as complex naval platforms there are sources of risk where it is argued that the application of a well-chosen and clearly identified set of standards and the classification process can be cost-beneficial in managing the project risk profile. This is principally associated with the management of the technical risks which tend to manifest themselves during the concept, design and construction phases and the safety risks, associated with design assumptions, which become more apparent during the operational phases.
The choice of the contractual route will influence the project risks, including those related primarily to technical issues and safety. The wider use of private sector contractors to undertake tasks previously kept under the direct management and fiscal control of the navy offers both opportunities and threats. Changes in the initial procurement process for submarines include the concept of contracting against a capability requirement, allowing a greater possibility for innovation in the response by the contractor. In many cases this is accompanied by the transfer of greater responsibility to the industrial partner. Once in service there is a move towards establishing long-term contracts with support contractors, who may be the platform supplier but more often are not, to provide full logistic support throughout
the operational life. The changes affect not only the commercial contracting practices but also the important working practices and partnering relationships, all of which change the project risk profile.
In this and the following sections of this paper the potential benefits that can accrue from the adoption of a classification approach in terms of reducing the level of risk exposure are described.
Seeking best value is often synonymous with competition for contracts. This may be against well-defined platform specifications but in many cases involves competition between similar concepts that meet most of the capability requirements. Comparison of competing offers is not straightforward unless there is some common baseline.
The use of a suite of standards that underpin design and construction can provide a rational baseline for determining that all competitors do meet an acceptable minimum standard. In this regard the application of Classification Rules and Regulations as the baseline requirement and any critical specific owners’
requirements that must be satisfied could provide a suitable approach to creating a standard which would ensure equality of proposals. The adoption of a standards policy and the selection of an appropriate set of standards for a submarine is a complex task. Lloyd’s Register advocates an approach based on workshops to develop the requirements and to define the scope of classification at a very early stage in the project. It is unlikely that the greatest benefits will be achieved if selection of the standards is not sufficiently thorough and rigorous.
A major technical risk is associated with the introduction of new technologies which are not familiar to the navy. The distinction in technical terms between naval and merchant vessels, at least as far as marine equipment and key systems are concerned, is becoming less distinct. There are, of course, distinctly different requirements on system design and integration for military reasons, such as the shock resistance, weapons fit, duality of systems and the ability to reconfigure and reduce the impact of damage. It is, perhaps, the system that is “military” whereas a lot of the individual equipments can be very similar to those used in the commercial sector. In order to reduce programme risk there is a lot of interest in taking proven technology into the next generation of submarines, which means that more reliance will be placed on marine equipment intended for the larger commercial sector. Successful adoption of COTS equipment, of course, implies a thorough assessment of any critical deltas in the anticipated operational profiles.
Lloyd’s Register has gained considerable experience from the developments in the merchant ship market and the practice is to develop appropriate Rules at an early stage to set out the essential requirements for safe operation. The Rules are developed based on available information and with the active involvement of industry