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 114
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 115
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 116
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 117
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 118
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 119
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 120
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 121
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 122
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 123
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 163
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 164
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 165
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 166
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 167
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 168
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 169
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 170
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 171
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 172
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 173
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.
