Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A2, Intl J Maritime Eng, Apr-Jun 2010 knots) and fully developed Container Weathership”; B ships of the
Liverpool Bay Class (1972). A series of papers over the period have described specialist ships: A Webster’s 1964 “Canadian
Baxter’s Car Ferry 1973
“Hydrographic Survey or Research Ship”; D Dick & E Corlett’s 1976 “Cable Repair Ship”; K Bengtsen & B Walker’s 1980 “Modern
Design &
Development ”; A Oliveira et al in 2006 “Modern Purse Seiner Fishing Vessels for the Portuguese Coastal Sea”; the same year P Truijens et al of Ghent University and LR Belgium “Design of Ships for Estuary Service” and R Cartwright et al in 2008 with “A low wash design of a River Patrol Craft with Unusual Environmental Impact”. The latter could be said to highlight
the main 21st
Century concern, specifically reflected in an inshore ship design. A major specialist offshore ship like vessel, rather than
the essential civil engineering based
technology of the ubiquitous North Sea oil platforms of the 1970s to the 1990s, was presented in the Harland & Wolff 1999 paper by J MacGregor et al on “Design and Construction
of the FPSO Vessel for Schiehallion
Field”. Finally going back to 1971 there was an update on one the 19th Century’s hallmark ships; E Corlett’s “Steam Ship ‘Great Britain’” not only presented Brunel’s 1843 design but also the author’s personal role in recovering for posterity and bring back home to Bristol this highly innovative vessel.
4.3. SPECIFIC NAVAL DESIGNS
At the small end of the naval scale in 1960 J Revans & A Gentry “The “Brave” Class Fast Patrol Boats” included a focus on the transom flat, which seems to reoccur regularly. Following on from Purvis’ major review in 1974, the next generation of RN designs were presented as specific papers by leading members of the specific design teams in the UK Ministry of Defence (as the Admiralty has become), rather than the traditional DNC “authored” Spring Meeting paper. Thus A Harris in 1980 with the class of “HUNT Class MCM Vessels” applying the new Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) technology. The other end of the ship scale was A Honnor & D Andrews’ 1982 paper “HMS Invincible – the first of a New Genus of Aircraft Carrying Ships”, which extensive discussion, including several
produced an senior naval
contributors, welcoming back aircraft carriers to the RN after their demise over a decade before – something unforeseen in Chapman’s 1960 paper. In the same year P Symons & J Sadden considered the novel “Seabed Operations Vessel”, followed in 1999 by the first of two papers on the ultra quiet CODLAG powered Type 23 Class Frigate. This paper was read, in 1984, by Admiral L Bryson, the first (weapon) engineer Controller of the Navy, and was entitled “The Procurement of a Warship” but focused on the early stages of that Frigate design. It also had a rebuttal of the Thornycroft Giles ‘short fat ship’ proposal, which was never presented as a technical paper. Once the lead Type 23 was in service, a 1992 paper “Type 23 DUKE Class Frigate” was presented by T Thomas & M Easton (MoD Project Manager and
Yarrow Shipbuilding director, respectively, indicating a move away from “in-house MoD design”). In between the papers on the Type 23 there was P Wrobel’s 1984 “Design of the Type 2400 Patrol Class Submarine” on the last RN conventional submarine design, which was described in a level of detail unlikely to be provided on any design for the nuclear submarine fleet. YARD’s design for the RFA ”Logistics Support Ships” was presented in 1978 by B Baxter, followed by other YARD non-RN designs: M Rorly et al on the Danish “Corvette KV76” and, both in 1992, B Kay et al on “FRV Corytes Purpose Built Fisheries Protection Vessel” and D Watson & A Fritis “A New Danish Fishery Inspection Ship Type”. In 1983 B Robson (the Royal Australian Navy’s DNC) presented ”Development
of have been
generally, a less formal manner in conference papers or, in the US Navy’s case, in American journals. Papers on specific naval
above, especially when
designs, like the merchant ship ones accompanied by written
discussion by the authors’ peers and, less commonly than in the first 100 years, by naval officers, continue to provide invaluable insights into general and specifically naval ship design issues.
4.4. NOVEL SHIP TYPES
The Transactions continue to have designs for novel ship types presented, which can conveniently be split into conventional former start,
and “unconventional hull somewhat ‘unconventionally’
forms”. The with two
submarine papers: E Wenk et al 1960 American paper on Aluminaut , “An Oceanographic Research Submarine of Aluminium of operations to 15,000 FT”, followed by P Crewe & D Hardy’s 1962 “Submarine Ore Carrier” proposal which was seen to require nuclear power, whereas E Corlett & G Snaith in 1964 “Some aspects of Icebreaker Design” and 1985 “Ice breaking Cargo Ships” by M Kanerva & B Lunnberg both seem worth revisiting today, with the opening of the Artic seaways. J Teasdale’s
1967 “Modern Composite Ship – A
Competitive Nuclear Powered Merchantman” was a 13,000 ton 21 knot Pusher and Cargo hulls combination proposal, with a novelty in keeping with some 19th Century concepts, while B Baxter’s “Oceanographic Survey Ships” paper was presented the same year. In 2006 P MacGregor et al presented “Some Aspects in the Design of Compressed Natural Gas Ships” reflecting the insatiable need around the world for energy, which has led to novel bulk cargoes. In contrast two recent (2003) sailing ship designs were presented by S Wallis of Southampton Institute, ”A Brigantine Rigged Sailing School Research Vessel (for the Woods Hole Institute in Massachusetts)”, and by C Mudie on “Some parameters for the Design of 21st Century Sail Training Ships”. Another contrast was provided by J Coates’ paper on the “Naval Architecture of European Ored Ships” of 1994, which describes his recreation of the Greek Trireme design and its physical realisation for the Greek Navy.
Minehunter Design”. More recent designs, both for the RN and overseas navies,
RAN GRP presented in,
A - 66
©2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64