Click for next page ( 114


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 113
4 Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering The task statement for this study asks the committee to “evaluate the current state of science and technology [S&T]—specifically, basic and early applied research—activities in naval engineering and closely related disciplines in the United States in the context of research, edu- cation (the ‘pipeline’ of future naval researchers, graduate and post doctoral), and the associated infrastructure. . . . [and to] report on the health of the basic and early applied research, graduate and postgraduate research ‘pipeline’ and the associated infrastructure necessary for a long- term, sustainable portfolio that will provide technology options for future Navy advanced technology development programs.” In response to this charge, the first section below assesses the health of basic and early applied research, graduate and postdoctoral education, and the research infrastructure. The task statement also asks the committee to assess the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering’s (NNR-NE’s) “progress in the ability to: (l) provide and sustain robust research expertise in the United States working on long-term problems of importance to the Department of the Navy; (2) ensure that an adequate pipeline of new researchers, engineers, and faculty continues; and (3) ensure that ONR [the Office of Naval Research] can continue to provide superior S&T in naval architecture and marine engineering.” In response, the second section of this chapter compares ONR activities and accomplishments with the original NNR-NE goals and assesses ONR’s ability to fulfill the NNR-NE. 113

OCR for page 113
114 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century HEALTH OF THE S&T ENTERPRISE SUPPORTING NAVAL ENGINEERING This section presents the committee’s assessment of the state of health of the scientific and technical disciplines on which naval engineering depends most directly. The assessment examines the state of research in each field and the contributions of government laboratories, universities, and indus- try to the naval engineering S&T enterprise. The section also proposes how ONR could measure the health of these disciplines in a systematic way in the future to fulfill the NNR-NE mission. The committee defined the health of research in a field in terms of the three kinds of research outputs intended from ONR’s S&T invest- ments (ONR 2009, 4): knowledge (evidence that the activity is a source of new understanding of physical phenomena and technologies rele- vant to naval engineering), transitions (evidence that research output leads to applications that strengthen naval capabilities), and people (evidence that the activity contributes to the pool of research talent and expertise devoted to naval engineering problems). A healthy research field was defined as one that is productive in advancing fundamental knowledge, has strong linkages to engineering practice as evidenced by the transition of discoveries to applications and by the existence of effective channels of communication between researchers and practi- tioners, and has positive future prospects as evidenced by the develop- ment and retention of talented researchers and by the attraction of new researchers and resources into the field. Typically, in a healthy research field, diverse topics are under investigation, a balance of research methods is being used, and resources are sufficient to allow ample oppor- tunity for creative research and for pursuing transition opportunities. The ultimate success of research depends on the availability of practi- tioners who are aware of the latest scientific developments, are profi- cient in the latest techniques, and maintain close communication with the research community. The state of the institutions conducting research in support of naval engineering is described in the first subsection below, and the state of research in the naval engineering–related S&T fields is described in the sec- ond subsection. The present study is not the first to consider the health of

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 115 the naval engineering S&T enterprise; earlier assessments are summarized and commented on in Annex 4-2. Research Institutions The major participants in research supporting naval engineering are gov- ernment laboratories (especially the Navy laboratories), universities, and the shipbuilding industry. Navy Laboratories and Related Government Research and Development Facilities The ability of the naval laboratories and other government research and development facilities to support the naval ship systems engineering S&T infrastructure was explored at the committee’s January 2010 workshop (see Appendix A) and through analysis of the ONR portfolio of sponsored basic and applied research projects in the NNR-NE fields. At the workshop, rep- resentatives of the principal Department of Defense (DOD) and other gov- ernment entities supporting naval ship systems engineering1 were asked to discuss the following questions: • What research is your institution supporting, or has it supported, that directly relates to the areas of interest of the Ship Systems and Engi- neering Research Division of ONR (hydromechanics and hull design; ship design tools; propulsors; ship structures; and automation, control, and system integration)? • How did the research topics in these areas originate in your institution? • Who has performed the research (e.g., internal laboratory personnel, external contractors, recipients of university grants, or multiple insti- tutions in collaboration)? • Has your institution cooperated with ONR for these research projects? • Do you foresee research topics that would benefit from ONR coordina- tion and support? 1 The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division; the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division; the Naval Research Laboratory; the CREATE Ship High Performance Com- puting Modernization Program; and the National Science Foundation.

OCR for page 113
116 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century The ability of the naval laboratories and government research and development facilities to support the naval ship systems engineering S&T infrastructure is varied. The results of the committee’s assessment indi- cate the following: • The Naval Sea System Command’s (NAVSEA’s) Naval Surface War- fare Center, Carderock (NSWC-CD), is the primary facility conduct- ing research and development for transitioning NNR-NE research results to naval applications. • NSWC-CD has been effective in supporting advanced degrees in naval engineering; in recruiting naval engineers; and in promot- ing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. • NAVSEA’s Naval Undersea Weapons Center has relevant but limited activity in the NNR-NE areas, in particular, in unmanned vehicles and in system integration (focused on energy sources). • The Naval Research Laboratory’s diverse mission does not emphasize investments in the NNR-NE areas. • Although the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsors basic re- search in related areas (including fluid dynamics, structural materials, energy and power, and systems engineering), NSF-sponsored projects in these areas are heterogeneous and rarely address the problems crit- ical to naval engineering progress. Similarly, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other DOD agencies support relevant research, but rarely with potential naval applications or spe- cific Navy needs in mind. University Research Centers and Private-Sector Research Institutions The January 2010 workshop also explored the ability of university and private-sector research institutions to support naval ship systems engi- neering S&T. Representatives of university research centers, large and small private-sector research institutions, and naval shipbuilder research centers closely aligned with naval ship systems engineering were asked to do the following: • Briefly outline the institution’s involvement in basic and applied research and advanced technology development related to the areas

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 117 of interest to the Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division of ONR (hydromechanics and hull design; ship design tools; propul- sors; ship structures; and automation, control, and system integration). Features to describe include major interest areas and projects, depart- ments involved, major sponsors and annual support (in round num- bers), and numbers of faculty and graduate students. • Characterize the overall health of the field in the institution’s most active areas, for example, trends in funding, faculty, students, and sig- nificant recent research and development accomplishments. • Identify opportunities for ONR to sustain research and education in these research areas. • For the institution’s most active areas, identify the factors that drive the research and development agenda. How does the institution plan for future growth or contraction in these areas? How do the institution’s researchers interact with users of research (beyond the funding source)? What role does ONR have in setting the agenda in this field? The results of the committee’s assessment indicate the following: • Considerable university research is funded by the Navy in hydro- dynamics, hydromechanics, and advanced hull design areas. Several universities have towing tanks to conduct experimental research. • Research in the naval engineering S&T areas conducted by private research institutions and shipbuilders is funded by the Navy. There is little or no commercial funding of naval engineering research at universities and private research institutions. • Design agents support shipbuilders or the Navy in design-related activities. Some design agents develop ship design tools to assist their design-related activities. • Providing scholarships to junior- or senior-year undergraduate engi- neering students to encourage them to pursue a naval engineering focus probably would be effective in increasing the engineering workforce supply. • The Navy is essentially the sole source of academic research funding in the areas of naval hydrodynamics and naval ship design, and university research in these areas would cease without this support.

OCR for page 113
118 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Commercial Shipbuilding, Offshore Petroleum Industry, and Professional Societies The ability of the commercial shipbuilding industry, the offshore indus- try, and classification and professional societies to support the naval ship systems engineering S&T infrastructure was explored at the January 2010 workshop and through analysis of case studies (Hackett 2010; Hagan 2010; B. J. Carter, presentation to the committee, Jan. 13, 2010). Repre- sentatives of commercial shipbuilders, the offshore industry, and classifi- cation and professional societies2 were asked to give information similar to that asked of the university and private research institutions. The information received from these sources indicates the following: • Investment in commercial ship systems engineering technology within the United States is limited. Therefore, the Navy cannot rely on the commercial industry to sustain the naval ship system engineering S&T infrastructure and technology base. However, some U.S. ship- yards have developed relationships with foreign shipyards, which have resulted in application of commercial ship construction concepts devel- oped abroad to Navy shipbuilding programs (B. J. Carter, presentation to the committee, Jan. 13, 2010). • Commercial shipbuilding is focused on efficiency and cost, which are of interest to the Navy. • There is a healthy investment in offshore technology that is vital in supporting and sustaining the maritime-related university infrastruc- ture and the naval engineering human capital pipeline for this seg- ment of the industry. • Classification societies’ research is primarily focused on supporting classification rules or standards development for commercial ships and other marine structures. • Professional societies such as the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers support educational programs and have technical and research committees that address some of the S&T activities. 2 General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO); Herbert Engineering Corp. Group; ConocoPhillips; Chevron; American Bureau of Shipping; and Maersk Maritime Technology, AP Moller-Maersk.

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 119 • The activity of the international research community in shipbuilding countries such as Japan, Korea, China, and Norway (a center of the offshore industry) is isolated from U.S. interests and efforts. • Alternative approaches to improving the efficacy of these activities would include increasing government investment in the U.S. com- mercial S&T infrastructure and promoting government–industry cooperative research and development of dual-use (commercial and naval) technology. State of Naval Engineering Research Institutions: Summary Observations The naval engineering S&T enterprise relies on government support. Therefore, the national laboratories, university research centers, and private-sector research centers tend to conduct project-based research in highly specific areas. The unique attributes of naval ship design limit the ability to make wide use of technology imported from other disciplines; therefore, the responsibility for S&T advances in this industry rests on the industry customer. Thus, government has no option other than to invest directly in the S&T enterprise to advance the naval engineering industry and to keep national efforts current with world developments. In the United States, there is little transfer of technology from the com- mercial shipping industry to the naval engineering industry, in part because of the differing forces that drive the two industries. While each industry is concerned with the design, production, maintenance, and operation of ships, the driving force in commercial shipping is one of minimizing cost. Minimizing total ownership cost is growing in impor- tance for the Navy, but this focus is tempered in naval engineering because of the many constraints and requirements that determine naval ship design. Therefore, the commercial ship design industry is not a major contributor to efforts to advance naval ship design S&T. Clear exceptions are in the areas of ship design for producibility and ship production meth- ods, where commercial technology and practices are important contrib- utors to improvements in naval ship manufacturing and reductions in ship acquisition cost. There has also been appreciable commercial tech- nology transition in maintenance and in crew size issues associated with automation and control.

OCR for page 113
120 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Research in the S&T Areas Supporting Naval Engineering The committee’s sources of information on the current state of research in the S&T areas supporting naval engineering (hydromechanics and hull design; propulsors; structural systems; ship design tools; automation, control, and system integration; and platform power and energy) included the January 2010 workshop described in the preceding section, certain of the papers commissioned by the committee (Triantafyllou 2010; Kiss 2010), and the June 2010 workshop at which researchers supported by ONR discussed the prospects for contributions to naval engineering from research in their fields (see Appendix A). Each of the June workshop researcher panelists, as well as other researchers who did not attend, responded to the following questions relating to the state of health of the panelist’s field: • How would you characterize the overall health of your field? Have there been recent breakthrough accomplishments in the field? Are the trends positive in your field for attracting researchers and funding? • Are advances in your field tied to other fields of research? What are the links, and how do the dependencies among the fields affect research in your field? • Where does financial support for research in your field come from, in the United States and internationally? • What are the most significant areas of challenge in your field of research in the next 20 years? What are the hard problems in your field? What are the obstacles to progress in your field? Hydrodynamics and Hull Design; Propulsors The major supporters of hydrodynamics basic research in the United States historically have been the Navy, NSF, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NSF supports a diverse and substan- tial program of basic and applied research in fluid mechanics, including projects that have potential applications ranging from chemical engineer- ing to robotics and medicine, but few address hydrodynamics problems of likely relevance to naval engineering. The field of naval hydromechanics, that is, research aimed at under- standing the physical phenomena that determine the hydrodynamic and

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 121 hydroacoustic performance of naval ships, arguably would not survive without Navy support. The move in recent years to replace experimen- tal work with computation—in part to save costs (and time)—has not yet achieved the ultimate potential savings and has in fact created new demands for experimentation and measurements to provide the necessary validation and calibration of codes and models. Given current resources and objectives, the current mix and balance of U.S. naval hydrodynamics basic research (primarily, the ONR program) may be the best that can be achieved to meet narrowly focused needs. However, the overall program is stretched thin and is not robust enough to meet unanticipated critical Navy needs. More important, it does not have sufficient depth in more basic investigations to generate the breakthrough and disruptive tech- nologies that could redefine naval engineering in the future. The balance between computational and experimental work in hydro- dynamics must be carefully monitored. Experimental validation remains an essential step in the development of hydrodynamic models. How- ever, experiments are costly and therefore more vulnerable during peri- ods of budget pressure. Experimental facilities depend on funded research for their support and will deteriorate without use. Major research facili- ties are maintained and used at NSWC-CD and elsewhere, primarily at universities. Structural Systems U.S. industry supports little naval structures research because few large commercial ships are built in the United States. Naval structures research is performed and funded in the commercial sector in such countries as Japan and Korea, where commercial shipbuilding is a major industry. Basic research in structures and structural materials (that is, research not focused on naval applications) has a broad range of potential applica- tions and receives support from multiple public sources (including NSF and NASA) as well as private-sector sources; therefore, many structures researchers are working in the United States who could perform naval structures research if they received funding from ONR. However, the health of the field of structures research directly related to naval engi- neering, exclusive of ONR activities, can only be considered as poor to fair in the United States.

OCR for page 113
122 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Ship Design Tools There is little research in the United States aimed at developing improved tools and methods for use in the early stages of the design of new naval ships. In the early design stages (e.g., feasibility studies, preliminary design, contract design), the performance requirements for the new ship must be translated into a viable design concept (or alternative concepts), and the design is defined up to the level of detail required for making cost and con- struction schedule estimates (contract design). These early design phases use specialized methods and models such as ship synthesis tools, set-based design methods, physics-based performance prediction models, and cost- estimating tools. Decisions made at the early design stages determine the basic architecture of the ship and ship systems and costs of construction and ownership (Keane 2011, 13). A recent analysis of Navy ship design capability concluded that “over- all, the availability and quality of analysis software has eroded with the passage of time. There has been inadequate investment to keep pace with changes in computer technology, weapon systems technology and ship technology (materials, hull configurations, power density, etc.)” (Billingsley 2010, 6). It has been estimated that the lack of robust physics- based tools for use in early design in recent Navy surface combat ship programs has resulted in added costs on the order of hundreds of mil- lions of dollars to the Navy for repair of material deficiencies that have arisen in service and has placed operational restrictions on the ships’ deployment (Keane 2011, 10–12). At the same time, the shipbuilding industry, with Navy support, has invested significantly in development of tools for detail design, the stage of design that produces the plans and procedures that guide the shipyard construction workers and provides control over construction cost and schedule. These shipyard design tools are more advanced than those in use for commercial ship design and construction, because the technical complexity of modern naval ships demands more sophisticated methods. The advanced shipyard design tools have potential uses throughout all stages of design. Some recent acquisition programs, notably the Virginia Class submarine program, have applied integrated product and process development (Figure 4-1), an approach to ship design and construction in which the early design stages are integrated with construction planning

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 123 YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR 6 YR 7 YR 8 YR 9 YR 10 YR 11 YR 12 YR 13 “TRADITIONAL” CONCEPT DESIGN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PRELIM DESIGN OVERLAP LIMITS EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DESIGN DETAIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PLANNING CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL SOURCING “IPPD - SEAMLESS” INTEGRATED SCHEDULE SYSTEM DEFINITION INTEGRATED DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION SHIP 1 MATERIAL SOURCING SHIP 1 CONSTRUCTION SHIP 2 MATERIAL SOURCING SHIP 2 FIGURE 4-1 Traditional versus integrated product and process development ship design and construction processes. (IPPD = integrated product and process development. SOURCE: General Dynamics Electric Boat 2002, 28.) to improve the efficiency with which performance and cost objectives are met (General Dynamics Electric Boat 2002; Keane et al. 2005, 4, 9). In the Virginia Class program, product and process designs were integrated through a central model and a database provided by the shipyard. How- ever, broader use of shipyard design tools and databases in this manner may be hindered because there has been little transition of the technology developed by the private-sector shipyards to Navy ship designers, many advances are regarded as proprietary, and the level of detail in associated databases is often not compatible with the early-stage analysis of alterna- tives and set-based design for new concepts. The NNR-NE portfolio does not include investments in detail design tools because development of these tools is not considered to be basic research. In general, research in ship design tools tends to be focused on the transition of basic research knowledge gained in multi- ple disciplines into design applications; hence, it is often perceived as applied research and may receive low priority in programs oriented toward basic research.

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 163 • Facilitate use of alternative hull forms that are lighter, more surviv- able, stealthier, cheaper, easier to maintain and have a longer life than steel or aluminum hulls. Approach: • Develop reliability-based, structural performance and degradation models and supporting technologies. • Develop ship structural health monitoring technologies to provide basis for life-cycle management and operator guidance. • Develop vulnerability assessment capability for light-weight ship structures based upon an improved understanding of material and structural response and life-cycle degradation effects. • Develop the ability to model the failure of naval composite structures under air blast and after fire. • Develop models describing the effect of the implosion of a pressure vessel. Navy Unique: • Composites and lightweight structures improve stealth and reduce weight, corrosion, fatigue, and maintenance and operational costs. • Rules and tools necessary to develop novel systems with tailored response against shock and impact that minimize damage on structures, vehicles, personnel and sensitive equipment is needed. Payoff: • Advanced structural health monitoring systems that will sustain the life of naval vessels. • Tools that will assess the performance of new structural components in naval vessels. • Comprehensive, integrated toolsets and processes to accurately assess the stability and structural integrity of a damaged ship. • Understanding of heat conduction, charring, buckling, and residual strength of composites under simultaneous heat and load. • Predictive tools on long-term availability.

OCR for page 113
164 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century PROPULSORS Objective: • Improve propulsive efficiency and optimize propulsor for given Naval application. • Provide the Navy with quiet, efficient and affordable propulsor con- cepts and capabilities that will meet emerging mission requirements. Approach: • Evaluate novel design such as counter-rotating props for fuel efficiency. • Exploit novel materials in the design of the propulsor to improve hydrodynamic efficiency and blade performance. • Develop accurate, reliable and robust predictive–simulation tools and methods for design and behavior of propulsors. • Explore and demonstrate at lab-scale novel propulsor concepts. Navy Unique: • Navy propulsors must be able to survive high intensity impulse loads caused by underwater explosions. • Navy propulsors must also be efficient, affordable, quiet and easily maintained. • Integrated with naval platforms. Payoff: • Propulsion options for high-speed ships that support critical missions. • Efficient and robust models to advance fundamental knowledge of rotating marine structures which operate with complex, turbulent flows. • Advanced waterjet design and analysis technology. • Understanding of the fundamental aspects of two-phase propulsion. AUTOMATION, CONTROL, AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION Objective: • Develop science and technology necessary to demonstrate distrib- uted monitoring and control of hull and mechanical and electrical

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 165 systems for Navy vessels (including electrical, auxiliary, and dam- age control systems). • Develop and prototype an autonomous, distributed control system featuring the integration of fluid, thermal, and power systems. Approach: • Construct a reduced-scale hardware in-the-loop evaluation platform for agent-based control system testing–warship intelligent control system multi-institution demonstrator. • Perform hardware in-the-loop test and evaluation. • Develop medium-scale integration of NAVSEA-Philadelphia fluid and thermal systems with remote Purdue power system test bed. • Develop and demonstrate an intracompartmental integrated wireless sensing and data network. • Investigate actuation technologies and approaches. • Develop rapid damage recoverability decision support for structural system to support the fleet with existing and future ships and vessels. Navy Unique: • Navy ships are complex platforms composed of disparate systems where interactions and interdependencies are extensive and nonlinear. • Overall system behavior cannot be inferred from the analysis of an individual portion. • The dynamic environment with the potential of severe stresses is unique to naval platforms. • True automation provides increased platform performance, faster deci- sion time, increased survivability and recoverability, optimal manning, and increased safety. Payoff: • Demonstrated distributed monitoring and control architectures. • Integrated, automated operation and reconfiguration of shipboard machinery systems. • Optimized manning, survivability, and recoverability.

OCR for page 113
166 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century SHIP DESIGN TOOLS Objective: • Reduce platform design cycle time. • Reduce acquisition cost through integrated design and software tools. • Extend design options as long as possible. Approach: • Set based approaches. • Integrate emerging research results into physics-based, technology performance evaluation tools. • Complement concept development activity with analytical tool devel- opment and model testing. • Investigate translation of higher order physics-based models to quicker running surrogate models appropriate to order of design fidelity. • Determine methodologies to treat all aspects of the design as a vari- able. • Investigate alternative geometric design representations for alterna- tive analytical techniques. Navy Unique: • Integration of complex war-fighting systems. • Large variability in operational profile. • Interfaces with proprietary design software. Payoff: • Support for innovative design concepts. • Provision of traceability in design process applications. • Intelligent search of design space. • Provision of methodology to deal with uncertainty and variability of inputs and designs. • Systems optimization.

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 167 EDUCATION AND UNIVERSITY LABORATORY INITIATIVE Objective: • Provide capable and knowledgeable future workforce in Naval engineering. • Maintain and enhance education infrastructure (programs, depart- ments) to ensure education and research programs. Approach: • Partner with professional societies to create venues for student inter- action with Navy labs, design agents, and focus universities. • Leverage existing K-12 technology education infrastructure. • Include real world Navy challenges. • Leverage existing programs in outreach and education. • Expand existing local programs. • Insert outreach efforts into undergraduate level engineering courses. • Focus ONR efforts on advanced degree capabilities. Navy Unique: • U.S. citizens required to work in naval facilities. • Engineering optimizations in platform design and build different than private sector. • Undersea naval engineering opportunities very limited in private sector. • Amphibious capabilities. Payoff: • Development of an Experimental Introduction to Marine Engineering. • Increase in student awareness of Naval Engineering course of study. • Expansion of Sea Perch Program using Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. • Expansion of number of teams participating in Autonomous Under- water Vehicle Competition. • Feedback from schools—enrollment in these programs is increasing, direct links to this effort.

OCR for page 113
Annex 4-2 Earlier Assessments of the State of Naval Engineering The 2001 ONR memorandum that created the NNR-NE cited the con- clusions of a number of assessments of the status of naval engineering in the United States as evidence of the need for the Navy to take a leading role in investment in science and technology in the field (National Naval Program for Naval Engineering, Oct. 22, p. 1). Below are summaries of the following studies cited in the memorandum: • National Research Council. 1996. Shipbuilding Technology and Edu- cation. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. • American Society of Naval Engineers. 1998. Preserving Our Naval Engineering Capability. Naval Engineers Journal, May. • Chryssostomidis, C., M. Bernitsas, and D. Burke, Jr. 2000. Naval Engi- neering: A National Naval Obligation. Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology Ocean Engineering Design Laboratory, May. • National Research Council. 2000. An Assessment of Naval Hydromechan- ics Science and Technology. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. • U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. National Security Assessment of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry. May. • Transportation Research Board. 2002. Special Report 266: Naval Engi- neering: Alternative Approaches for Organizing Cooperative Research. National Academies, Washington, D.C. National Research Council, Shipbuilding Technology and Education, 1996 The following were among the findings of this study: • ONR should continue to support faculty members through fel- lowships, through research projects directed at Navy objectives, 168

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 169 and, to the extent possible, through projects that have economic impacts. • Naval architecture and marine engineering schools should become more involved with the U.S. shipbuilding industry through research in business-process, system, and ship-production technologies, as well as by soliciting support for these and other kinds of research. The schools should continue concentrating on subjects traditionally taught but should also pay much greater attention to the economic health of the industry. Universities, with their multiple disciplines, led by the naval architects and marine engineers who justifiably lay claim to being good systems thinkers, should be able to seize the problem that U.S. shipbuilders face; understand what it will take to create a healthy industry; and reach as far afield as needed to understand the cultures, political motivations, and economic infrastructures of inter- national competitors. The focus of this study was naval architecture and marine engineering, and early activity related to the NNR-NE tended to have this perspec- tive. Naval engineering as it is now understood embraces many more academic and professional disciplines, though naval architecture and marine engineering are largely seen as key contributors to total ship engineering. Appreciation of this total ship approach has increased in recent years. American Society of Naval Engineers, “Preserving Our Naval Engineering Capability,” 1998 The American Society of Naval Engineers undertook the development of a white paper specifically addressing the need to maintain a robust naval engineering capability, in all its facets, in the United States. In this paper, the reader can see the developing line of thinking that led to ONR’s establishment of the NNR-NE. The paper contains the following discus- sion and recommendations: • The problem [of maintaining a robust naval engineering capability] is not just a shipyard or ship design issue. It involves the full spectrum of naval engineering including

OCR for page 113
170 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century – The research, development and operational evaluation of command control, weapon systems, ordnance, aircraft and ship mechanical and electrical machinery; – The engineering and integration of the individual command control, weapon and machinery systems into effective combat, electrical and propulsion systems; – The physical and functional integration of these systems into com- batant ship designs. • Unless there is a national commitment to a design and construction program in the years ahead, we cannot expect to attract engineering students into the profession, . . . universities . . . will be forced to elim- inate their naval engineering curricula. There must be challenging and interesting career opportunities. . . . This reinforces the necessity for the U.S. to commit to sustain at least a minimum level of naval engi- neering, design and construction activity. • Commitment to a scaled down but aggressive weapons and ship sys- tems R&D program coupled with the periodic construction of at least a few complex warships of new design is essential if the U.S. is to retain naval technological and warfighting supremacy. Recommendations: • [The Navy should make a commitment to] . . . a planned, budgeted program for periodic ship design and construction. • [The Navy and others should make a long-term commitment to] . . . sustain naval engineering education. • [The Navy needs to] . . . produce a plan. C. Chryssostomidis, M. Bernitsas, and D. Burke, Jr., Naval Engineering: A National Naval Obligation, 2000 This study also focused significantly on naval architecture and marine engineering. An excerpt from this paper follows: As part of its national obligations, ONR must ensure U.S. world leadership in those unique technology areas that insure naval superiority. ONR accomplishes this mission through research, recruitment and education, maintaining an

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 171 adequate base of talent, and sustaining critical infrastructure for research and experimentation. One critical area requiring support by ONR is the “knowledge infrastructure” in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. National Research Council, An Assessment of Naval Hydromechanics Science and Technology, 2000 As is apparent from the title, this study focused on one important aspect of naval engineering: hydromechanics. In this study the following state- ment appears: Historically, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) has promoted the world leadership of the United States in naval hydromechanics by sponsoring a research program focused on long-term S&T problems of interest to the Department of the Navy, by maintaining a pipeline of new scientists and engineers, and by developing products that ensure naval superiority. The committee restated the objectives of the NNR-NE and then stated the following: The assumption of national responsibility for the support of a research area requires the long-term commitment of a significant level of investment. The committee is concerned that ONR support for research in ship and sub- marine hydromechanics and, in turn, the output of new ideas and technol- ogy have declined over the past decade. The current system relies partially on funding made available from major acquisition programs, which in turn produces dramatic variations in the funding for naval research. ONR should establish an institute for naval hydrodynamics (INH) subject to the following guidelines: 1. The INH should capture the best talents and the largest body of knowl- edge in hydromechanics from the United States and foreign countries. It should leverage existing funding and ensure a well-coordinated approach to research in hydromechanics. 2. The INH should be directed by a highly qualified scientific leader. The management style and philosophy should be in tune with the intellectual creativity expected of participants in the INH. 3. A small central facility should support the INH. This facility should be open to all INH participants.

OCR for page 113
172 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century 4. The form of the center should be carefully determined. One attractive option would be a virtual center that uses distributed assets and extensive Internet communication. The virtual center would have a management committee and a small central supporting entity. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Security Assessment of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry, 2001 This study, centered as it was on the shipbuilders, largely confined itself to the needs of those facilities to improve the process of construction. The historical focus of the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), referred to below, has been on improving the competitiveness and process efficiency of U.S. shipbuilders. The report states the following: A key reason for U.S. warship superiority has been the shipbuilding research and development (R&D) expertise that currently resides . . . [in] the Navy’s laboratories, acquisition commands and certain shipbuilders and universities. An existing effort to bolster the shipbuilding R&D infrastructure is the National Shipbuilding Research Project Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP ASE). The U.S. Navy and the 11 major shipbuilders that comprise NSRP are jointly funding R&D costs. The report’s conclusions did not address R&D. Transportation Research Board, Naval Engineering: Alternative Approaches for Organizing Cooperative Research, 2002 This report concentrated on the evaluation of alternative structures for the management of research and used the current ONR principal investigator model as the baseline for comparison. Three alternative models were con- sidered, and committee members strove to assess how well the varied man- agement structures would perform R&D that supports Navy needs. The evaluations of the three alternative structures were not based on the eval- uation of actual enterprises. The following excerpts are from the study: The Navy is facing serious limitations related to an adequate supply of the cre- ative talent and knowledge base needed. ONR also lacks sufficient personnel with broad, interdisciplinary experience. ONR stressed the importance of an approach to research that incorporates total systems aspects of the naval

OCR for page 113
Results and Future Prospects of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering 173 engineering discipline. . . . The committee was able to describe and evaluate only the alternative organizational models that were presented to it and that are the leading contenders for consideration by ONR. ONR has two overall goals that it needs to achieve in adopting a model for naval engineering cooperative research: (a) to maintain and develop human capital and (b) to revitalize naval engineering and improve ship design and production. Naval engineering graduates and practicing professionals need to approach ship design, development, and production/construction from the “total ship” point of view in order to meet the challenges of the future Navy. Hence, the concept of “total ship engineer” must be infused into the education and pro- fessional development of future naval engineers. With regard to the second ONR goal, there is a critical need for the U.S. ship design community to revitalize its ability to accomplish creative new research and to support higher-performing, cost-effective designs and more innova- tive ship systems engineering. In addition, research results need to be trans- ferred to the next stage of technology development and used in actual ship designs. Organizational models considered: individual principal investigator (current practice); professional society/community of practitioners model; consor- tium model; project-centered model. The committee found that all three models for cooperative research organi- zations that it evaluated are capable of meeting all of ONR’s program objec- tives. No specific cooperative model was recommended. An interesting feature of this study is the significant and repeated emphasis on “total ship” methods, approaches, and education. This appears to be consistent with the recognition that more than research is necessary to stay at the forefront of knowledge in specific scientific fields: it is essential to develop and keep healthy the national ability to pull knowledge together as needed to support the design of the large, complex structures that are Navy ships. The marrying and integration of technologies are at least as important to the final result as are the technologies themselves.