THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL ARCHITECT Volume 6 Number 3 August 2002 The Australian Naval Architect 2 THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL ARCHITECT Journal of The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (Australian Division) Volume 6 Number 3 August 2002 Cover Photo: CONTENTS The fourth Anzac Class frigate to enter service — 4 From the Division President HMAS Stuart during sea trials. Stuart, which was 4 Editorial launched by Mrs Maxine Barrie on 17 April 1999, 5 Letter to the Editor was handed over to the RAN on 31 May 2002 (Photograph courtesy Tenix) 6 News from the Sections 12 Coming Events 14 General News The Australian Naval Architect is published four 23 Assisting Nottingham — an Engineer’s times per year. All correspondence and advertis- Perspective — Giles W. Rinckes ing should be sent to: 25 Setting a Course for Australia’s Naval The Editor Shipbuilding Industry The Australian Naval Architect 27 Wave Generation of High-speed Ships — c/o RINA Lawrence J. Doctors PO Box No. 976 EPPING, NSW 1710 33 Education News AUSTRALIA 35 Industry News email: [email protected] 36 The Internet The deadline for the next edition of The Austral- 38 From the Crows Nest ian Naval Architect (Vol. 6 No. 4, November 2002) 38 Professional Notes is Friday 25 October 2002. 40 By Design Group (BDG) Spitfire 12 Opinions expressed in this journal are not neces- Sailing Hydrofoil Catamaran sarily those of the Institution. 43 Certificate of Recognition for Charles Sparrow 46 Naval Architects on the Move 47 Membership Notes The Australian Naval Architect ISSN 1441-0125 51 From the Archives © Royal Institution of Naval Architects 2002 Editor in Chief: John Jeremy Technical Editor: Phil Helmore RINA Australian Division Print Post Approved PP 606811/00009 on the Printed by B E E Printmail World Wide Web Telephone (02) 9437 6917 www.rina.org.uk August 2002 3 From the Division President Editorial My discussion of the Division’s finances a few months ago One of the features of life that makes it interesting is the (Where Does the Money Go?, The Australian Naval unexpected. Until the evening of 7 July, a suggestion that a Architect, February 2002) triggered off a fairly strong major British warship would be seriously damaged, and response from one member who felt that it demonstrated almost sunk, off the coast of Australia would have been just how cock-eyed the Division’s financial affairs really dismissed as fanciful. The collision between HMS were. This was followed by what is often called ‘a frank Nottingham and Wolf Rock off Lord Howe Island is a exchange of views,’ culminating in a letter from the member reminder that that the inconceivable sometimes happens. suggesting that the Division had an image problem and Two interesting accounts will emerge from the Nottingham proposing some ways to address this. incident. One is how the ship could possibly have hit the I took this as fair criticism. One proposal by the member rock with so much available sea room. The second, and of was that each of the various Division groups and sub- more interest to naval architects, is the story of the damage committees (Safety, Membership, et al.) should provide a control that saved the ship, the recovery of the ship from report on its activities in each issue of The Australian Naval Lord Howe Island, and (hopefully) the eventual repair of Architect. This is being implemented and the first of such the ship. From information made public so far, I cannot have reports will appear in the next issue. The member also anything but the greatest admiration for the professionalism, proposed several other actions and these will be implemented training and discipline of Nottingham’s ship’s company and at the earliest opportunity. the work they did to save that ship in the hours following the I’m grateful to the member concerned for his comments. incident. The ship could so easily have been lost. Like most people I don’t like receiving criticism but I’ve HMS Nottingham will be returned to Britain, but this event been around long enough to know that constructive criticism, has highlighted the importance of the Australian which tells me not only where I’ve gone wrong but what Government’s current strategic review of the naval might be done to improve, is one of the best ways to improve shipbuilding and ship repair industry. The RAN is busier my performance. today than it has been for many decades. Had the unfortunate A topic of some concern at the moment is that of Professional ship been ours, we would now been faced with the challenge Indemnity (PI) insurance, about which I have heard a number of returning her to service in the least possible time. It is to horror stories. These include individuals with faultless respond to that type of challenge that we need an industry records who have been unable to obtain cover, others who with the knowledge of naval ships and ship repair, and have had untenable conditions imposed on them and others resources that can be concentrated and, if necessary, who have had their premiums increased to seemingly expanded quickly. ridiculous levels (increases of the order of 300% have been The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has published a reported). report that discusses the future strategies for the Australian For those of us who are employees, which is almost certainly naval shipbuilding and repair industry. It is a thoughtful and the majority of those in the workforce, PI may not be an interesting report, the executive summary of which is issue because of the principles of vicarious liability which reproduced in this edition of The ANA. The subject is normally apply — the risk is accepted by the employer, who immensely complex, as I found when I chaired the Defence indemnifies the employee. However for those who operate Industry Committee sub-committee that produced a similar in a sole trader or partnership environment, or are directors report in 1995. The ASPI report is a most useful contribution of small companies, it is a very serious issue. to the debate, and its recommendations have much to The Institution is working at both the Division and parent commend them. body level with brokers and with companion bodies including In the report, the authors state: IMarEST and IEAust. to address this issue which is by no ‘There is in fact no strong strategic reason to build the Navy’s means limited to naval architects. It is dealt with in more warships here in Australia. It makes sense to do so if the detail elsewhere in this edition and I hope to be able to premium is not too high, because there are economic benefits arrange a more general contribution to the whole subject in and some advantages in developing the skills for repair and a subsequent edition. maintenance. But the real strategic priority is to have the On a final note, during the most recent meeting of the ability to repair and maintain our ships, including the ability (London) Council the new President, Professor William to keep them in operation during a conflict.’ Price, announced his intention of reviewing RINA’s future strategy and asked Council members for their thoughts. In I entirely endorse the last sentence, but must disagree with line with that, I would very much like to hear from members the remainder of the paragraph. I believe that there is a of the Division what they think about the future of RINA. compelling strategic reason to build a significant proportion Where do you think it should be going? What do you think of our naval ships in Australia. It is that high-profile activity it should be doing that it currently is not, and what do you that can provide a relatively long-term and stable workload think it is doing which it should cease doing? The Councils to develop the infrastructure and resources we need to can’t cover all the ground themselves and need feedback achieve the primary strategic aim. We must be able to attract from the members. Please direct your written comments, the best young Australians to work in an industry that employs by e-mail, mail or fax to me at the Division’s address. I look the best engineering and technology to learn how ships work forward to hearing from you. and develop the skills needed to manage the unexpected. That industry needs to have the size and mass to survive in a Bryan Chapman The Australian Naval Architect 4 competitive world marketplace. Mere maintenance and refit, transport dock ships with Northrop Grumman and all DDG51 important though it is, is not enough. destroyers with General Dynamics (Bath Iron Works). This Perhaps the most difficult question facing the Government sole-source arrangement for each class is expected to produce is that of industry rationalisation, including the future of the significant cost savings for the Navy and increased Australian Submarine Corporation. Should the Government productivity for both companies. intervene in this process or leave it to market forces? Time will tell, of course, but changes in the form of the Governments have shown in the past that intervention by Australian industry appear inevitable in coming years. What them into the commercial world is not always accompanied we must achieve is at least one major, profitable and by success, and I lean towards the ASPI recommendation competitive organisation with sufficient size to maintain and that market forces should be left to decide the outcome. develop the skills we need to satisfy our strategic needs. If it The ASPI report expresses a concern held by many, namely turns out that there is to be only one such organisation, the the risks associated with the development of an industry Government must develop the means to work with that monopoly.