THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL ARCHITECT Volume 4 Number 3 August 2000 THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL ARCHITECT Journal of The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (Australian Division) Volume 4 Number 3 August 2000 Cover Photo: 4 From the Division President Solar Sailor in Wollongong Harbour during her 5 Editorial delivery voyage to Sydney (Photo Solar Sailor 6 Letters to the Editor Ltd) 10 News from the Sections 15 Coming Events 17 General News The Australian Naval Architect is published four times per year. All correspondence and advertis- 30 Education News ing should be sent to: 33 From the Crow’s Nest The Editor 35 Prevention of pollution from oil tankers The Australian Naval Architect — can we improve on double hulls? — c/o RINA Robin Gehling PO Box No. 976 46 Stability Data: a Master’s View — EPPING, NSW 1710 Captain J. Lewis AUSTRALIA email: [email protected] 50 Professional Notes The deadline for the next edition of The Austral- 53 Industry News ian Naval Architect (Vol. 4 No. 4, November 54 The Internet 2000) is Friday 20 October 2000. 55 Membership Notes Opinions expressed in this journal are not nec- 56 Naval Architects on the move essarily those of the Institution. 59 Some marine casualties — Exercises in Forensic Naval Architecture (Part 6) — R. J. Herd The Australian Naval Architect ISSN 1441-0125 63 From the Archives © Royal Institution of Naval Architects 2000 Editor in Chief: John Jeremy Technical Editor: Phil Helmore RINA Australian Division on the Print Post Approved PP 606811/00009 World Wide Web Printed by B E E Printmail Telephone (02) 9437 6917 www.rina.org.uk/au August 2000 3 Paper gives defence industry in general minimal From the Division President exposure. It is not mentioned at all in the Ex- A major issue of the moment, particularly for ecutive Summary, and its exposure in the paper those who work in the defence industry, is the itself is not worth talking about. Government’s Defence Review 2000. As the Government itself points out in its Discussion The case for naval shipbuilding in Australia is Paper, which is apparently intended to stimulate not helped by the bad press being received by public input to the defence review process, such the Collins class submarine project. Some of an in-depth review of Australia’s defence needs the criticism appears to be not unwarranted, but has not been done since the mid-1980s. it would have been nice to see equal air time be- ing given to recent events where HMAS Waller, An important component of defence capability an unmodified Collins class boat, was twice able and preparedness is defence industry, and for the to penetrate US Navy defences and position it- naval side of this industry this review is particu- self to attack key fleet units during RIMPAC larly timely. The Anzac frigate and Collins sub- 2000. If this submarine is indeed as ‘noisy as a marine programmes have already commenced rock band’ then the USN must have some hear- their run-down phases, and it is understood that ing problems! It should also be noted that Aus- in both cases work has commenced on the last tralia is not unique in having a major defence vessels. Furthermore, major contractors are al- design-and-construct project run over budget. In ready retrenching key staff, who will not be eas- comparison with some projects elsewhere, the ily replaced when the next ramp-up phase com- problems of Collins are down in the nuisance mences. class. As I write, I have on my desk a paper prepared RINA Australian Division will be making a sub- over 20 years ago by Rear Admiral G. A. Bennett, mission to the Defence Review arguing the case sometime General Manager of Williamstown for the defence shipbuilding industry. This sub- Naval Dockyard and Chief of the Naval Techni- mission will include and enlarge on the points cal Services, on the subject Naval Shipbuilding raised above. The Division Council will also be in Australia. In this paper RADM Bennett ar- looking for ways to support the submissions of gues that efficient naval shipbuilding requires: other bodies such as IEAust to ensure that the · ‘continuity of orders, with a high degree of case is put with the maximum strength possible. identicality between orders; In the view of the Council, a sound defence ship- · the timely availability of data and materi- building industry is an important component of als; and the national defence. To allow it to wither as a result of Government or community short- · suitable facilities.’ sightedness or inability to make the hard deci- These are not surprising conclusions, and I quote sions will be a case of gross negligence. RADM Bennett primarily to make the point that Bryan Chapman people have been arguing the case for defence industry for a long time. Bennett himself refers to The Position Paper on the Australian Ship- building Industry prepared by the late Prof. P.T. Fink and R.J. Hallett in 1976 and to the history The Australian Collins class submarine HMAS of naval shipbuilding in this country back as far Waller arriving at Pearl Harbour for the first time as World War I. on 28 May 2000 (right). Waller was one of several RAN units participating in the major For the last ten years or so the naval shipbuild- naval exercise RIMPAC 2000 (RAN Photo- ing industry in Australia has enjoyed something graph) approaching the conditions Bennett described. Whether they will last much longer is a moot point. Certainly the Government’s Discussion 4 The Australian Naval Architect Editorial other perceived environmental difficulties which On 25 June I joined a large crowd of people gath- suggest that it will not have widespread applica- ered at the Australian National Maritime Museum tion. at Darling Harbour to welcome Solar Sailor to One thing is most probable. The contrast between Sydney. This interesting craft is the brainchild the technology of one hundred years hence and of a NSW South Coast medical doctor, Robert today will be as dramatic as that represented by Dane, and was built with the help of a $1 million James Craig and Solar Sailor. It seems to me grant from the Commonwealth Government that there is plenty of interesting and satisfying through the Australian Greenhouse Office. Dr work ahead of new generations of engineers and Dane’s statement that ‘we have in Solar Sailor scientists, and Australia must surely benefit from something that no-one has done before — a boat this work if we are bold enough to make the best which needs only a combination of the wind and use of our many talents. the sun for power’ perhaps went a bit far, noting the surrounding sailing ships like Batavia, En- Once again looking to the future, with this issue deavour and James Craig. They were (and are) of The Australian Naval Architect we welcome solar powered — perhaps the innovative new ship Wärtsilä NSD on board as sponsor of our Jour- is better described as ‘a return to solar power.’ nal. The ANA is becoming an important part of the activities of the RINA in Australia, and sup- The event certainly highlighted a challenge that port such as this is highly valued and much ap- lies before us in the 21st century — to develop preciated. new and sustainable sources of power, for our supply of fossil fuels must in time run out or This edition is another large one and, as editor, I become prohibitively expensive. Eventually, man definitely prefer to have to decide what is to be may look back on the 20th and 21st centuries as left out, rather than have insufficent material. The a time of great waste of scarce resources. Just contributions sent to Phil Helmore and myself how the challenge will be met is a bit hard to are greatly appreciated, and we always want more determine now. Perhaps Solar Sailor does rep- news of the activities of naval architects through- resent a path to the future, noting that the con- out Australia. Please keep them coming. sensus seems to be that we must reduce green- John Jeremy house emissions, and nuclear energy suffers from August 2000 5 · It has left a legacy of valuable testing infra- Letters to the Editor structure in this country which will hope- Dear Sir, fully continue to be effectively utilised. We have moved into the new millennium with If anyone is brave and persistent enough to try what seems like a bright future for the maritime to establish a new-generation maritime CRC, industry in our country. Yet at the same time, what lessons can they learn from the failure of 30 June 2000 saw what was perhaps a step back- AME CRC? There are probably many and di- wards as far as assuring that future, for this was verse viewpoints on this, but listed below are the wind-up date of the Australian Maritime some which I have gained from staff formerly Engineering Cooperative Research Centre (AME employed by the CRC, from colleagues in the CRC). private and public sectors and academia as well When AME CRC was established following a as my own views: commitment of Federal Government funding in 1. The original submission for the forma- 1992, it seemed like the best prospect for mak- tion of a maritime-related CRC was limited to ing a significant advancement in the expertise of activities related to applied hydrodynamics. At the Australian maritime industry. But now, less that stage the focus was tight and the scope was than a decade later, AME CRC has disappeared manageable.