Significant investment in computer technology has been made to support the detailed design and production of the Type 26 frigate. Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems have been in use for many years but Virtual Reality software is now core to the design process.
The complete design story of the Type 26 is long and convoluted but here we will focus on the use of new technology in the detailed design work during the “Demonstration Phase” which ran between April 2015 and June 2017. Although the design is now very mature, work continues to fine tune some aspects and support the manufacturing phase. There is also a significant task for the design teams to adapt the Type 26 for Australian and Canadian requirements.
Visionary Render
Industries around the world use a system created by Virtalis called Visionary Render 2 (VR2) which takes CAD files and brings them to life in three-dimensional virtual reality (VR). BAE Systems started using VR2 for warship design in January 2015 and has now embedded the system into their design process for Type 26. The batch II OPV design was nearly complete when BAES adopted VR2 but it was used in the later stages which has served as a learning experience. The more complex and Type 26 frigate, which has over 800 separate compartments, will take the potential of VR-assisted design further and be fully integrated in the design process. The capabilities of VR2 continue to improve with a programme of incremental software updates. The technologies used are not entirely new but this is the first time immersive VR has been used as a comprehensive design verification tool in UK warship design.
Immersive design
In the development of previous generations of warships and submarines, full-scale plywood mockups were sometimes constructed to help refine the design, test the ergonomics and familiarise the commissioning crew with compartment layouts. This was a laborious process and any changes required had to be manually fed back to the designers and new drawings produced. CAD systems started to replace physical drawings in the 1980s and by the 21st century, 3D viewing software linked to CAD systems was starting to be used in a small way. Although adopted more quickly in other industries, VR2 is now in daily use and fundamental to the development of the Type 26.
Using VR it is now possible to walk around the entire virtual ship and examine it in minute detail. Design changes can be quickly fed back and the computer models updated. The ability to perform digital ‘prove-out’ ahead of any commitment to physically building saves time and money. The system also allows compartments to achieve safety sign off before construction. Features that might present a danger to the crew and evacuation routes can be evaluated before construction. As a specific example of the benefits, using CAD data it took 2 days to analyse the proposed configuration of HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning) equipment in one compartment, the same task can now be done in 45 minutes using VR2.
A dispersed team
The complete Type 26 frigate CAD model runs to many terabytes of data but the VR2 system is able to use a lightweight version that requires just 3 gigabytes. This allows the system to be run on affordable high-end desktop computers and it only takes about an hour to train an operator in the basics of using the system. VR is now being taken a step further than just a design tool. Up to 500 design and systems engineers are employed on the Type 26 project and VR provides a powerful means of collaboration. A secure network allows the design teams to work in real time with suppliers and manufacturers at dispersed locations to view and develop the design and manufacture together processing together.
The digital shipyard
After the design is signed off, the VR2 system also informs the manufacturing stage. Data from the design can be used to decide quantities and specifications for materials. This improves the ability to generate exacting and timely orders for placing with the extensive supplier base. Once complex and mission-critical parts of the ship have been constructed, it is also now possible using cameras and laser-measuring tools to compare the compartment with the original design to check for anomalies and that it meets the specified tolerances. The computer model will be updated throughout the life of the ships and can be used to de-risk potential upgrades and design changes before they are made. This is especially important as technology and naval threats are evolving faster which demands affordable and flexible means to accelerate the upgrade process.
Training and sales
The VR computer model of the ship can also continue to support the ship in service as a tool to train the crew and rehearse equipment installation or maintenance procedures before work is done for real. Virtalis has a long-standing relationship with BAES, VR2 is also used by other parts of BAES business. The company developed and VR-based training aids for Type 45 destroyer crews as far back as 2006. A similar tool was developed to help sailors learn their way around the vast interior of HMS Queen Elizabeth long before she resembled a completed ship. In a training scenario, the students are confronted with decision points where they can select from different paths or click on any part in the ship to see additional information and images in pop-up windows. The digital shipyard concept and the VR tools also give BAES an obvious sales and marketing edge. The prospective Australian and Canadian customers were shown around the ship virtually before they decided to buy. This may also have helped to deflect some of the criticism that the Type 26 candidate was ‘not mature’ in comparison with other designs that were already at sea.
The price tag of a Type 26 frigate would not lead to the immediate conclusion that VR-based design has delivered big savings. The real benefits of this new technique are more likely to be seen in the quality of HMS Glasgow and her sisters, reduced through-life costs and more rapid deployment of new capabilities and upgrades.
In 1985 I was working in the Ministry of Defence and provided support to GODDESS (GOvernment Defence DEsign System for Ships) . That was the future then although I think the whole thing was privatised after the MOD had poured millions into it.
Read more at: https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/it-takes-a-legend-to-father-a-goddess-1-5282841
Read about it in D K Brown Book, used a brilliant system at VT’s Woolston as a kid in open day in 1987, the computer power was immense and graphics I had never seen before, even now it’s incredible what I think it could produce. Love CAD CIM CAM etc and any automated system and drawing production stuff as a kid, knew it was the way forward. So ahead of its time and I was allowed to use it. So much more to come and can aid the UK shipbuilding sector to level the field.
I remember David Brown well, he was deputy chief naval architect when I was there. It was an innovative project but as I mentioned earlier it got sold off. Another example of selling the family silver.
Must have been exciting times but all too typical of UK government’s shooting the UK in the foot. 1986, not 1987 was the year.
The should have used Game engines like Unreal already heavily used in automotive industry.
I watched a TV programme called ‘Warship’ (a Type45) the other day. When the ship was ordered to take part in military action against Syria, there was a palpable tension amongst the crew. This tension increased when the crew was called to action stations. At this point, all the budgetary issues about defence and affordability of equipping our naval vessels with only the best kit, came starkly into focus at such a moment. Those men and women (some of which are still just twenty years old) out there on the lonely seas and oceans deserve nothing less.
Which is why I’m concerned about the Type 31’s budget ceiling. I’m reminded of all the comments about Ocean and her commercial kit that wore out fast, resulting in her being considered an old and maintenance intensive ship after barely 10 years of service.
MSR, I too am a bit concerned about Type31’s. At £250.000.000 a pop that could mean suppliers are being asked to supply at a fixed cost between 2023 – 2028. If they can’t guarantee to maintain their costs over the programme period, something has to go? I can’t get the faces of the Duncan crew out of my mind. Maybe it’s time to deliver fewer new ships, but those we do end up operating can do the best job without compromise?
you guys are already at 19 warships. do you really want to go below that?. the government etheir needs to pony up the dough or cut the navy commitments in half.
‘The price tag of a Type 26 frigate would not lead to the immediate conclusion that VR-based design has delivered big savings. The real benefits of this new technique are more likely to be seen in the quality of HMS Glasgow and her sisters, reduced through-life costs and more rapid deployment of new capabilities and upgrades.’
VR-based design, but is there real VR based manufacturing in which the build stages are mapped each hour day etc more so than mentioned here? Any problems red flagged and learnt about. We have offline welding etc. But also in ordering material from UK suppliers who are fully integrated with the assembly place (the Shipyard) in delivering plate that is prepared cut to shape even down to edge prep, profile and pipe, with little need or maybe a small ability/redundancy at the shipyard to deal with any unforeseen issues? The ship build process would really then begin at British Steel and Liberty Steelworks.
A Virtual shipyard in which the hull is being built digitally as well as in real life but also a shipyard that has a twin online self that can see the mistakes, connect to suppliers, see new technology that benefits itself and can update and modernise itself?
The other thing. You can be efficient as you like in building these ships, but it is the systems that can cost so much money and reduce hull numbers. Could it be those system suppliers who happen to own some yards are quite happy to see reduced hull numbers, as it’s the systems that make them the larger profits? Can we source better or the same from abroad, say Canada? Maybe it’s the systems that need to be looked at as the big expense rather than the ship hull? Can we miniaturize ourselves to walk through these systems that are installed in ships yet, to make them more efficient or cheaper? Ship hull may use more labour and have less profit in building them, so why do we speak of reducing hull numbers, if that is the case? Just trying to ook at this from a different angle.
Canada is the last place we would be able to buy hulls cheaper than in an domestic yard! They have even more problems with backhanders, old boy networks and political interference/delays/procrastination than the UK does!
Agree that the major cost component is and always has been systems. First in terms of development, initial installation and bug fixing, and second in terms of aftermarket costs. Aftermarket is also a huge earner for the suppliers, which makes them relatively agnostic regarding the number of hulls that actually get built. They want a fat, profitable spares contract for bespoke equipment that locks their primary customer into buying from them, alone – there is to be no shopping around for OEM stuff, thank you very much!
It was ever thus. There were only 8 Sea Slug destroyers because Sea Slug was such an expensive and complicated system to build, deploy and maintain. The small number of hulls was not primarily because Sea Slug turned out to be a technological deadend as most history texts enjoy claiming. It was primarily equipment and manpower costs. Looking back for inspiration at the original concept behind T26, when we were going to get a C1 and a C2 based on the same hull, but with C2 FFBNW, you can imagine if this idea had occurred in the 1960s. It would have made perfect sense to built another few County class destroyers without Sea Slug and perhaps fit them as helicopter destroyers (would have been better than the Blakes), or general purpose ships (with lots of room for interesting upgrades – imagine a Bristol-style sea dart launcher installed aft on a County class variant). The hulls were not the major cost component… at least not until the RN decided to stop building steam powered ships, of course.
Certain systems. Not the Hulls!