National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R7
Page viii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R8
Page ix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R9
Page x
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R10
Page xi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R11
Page xii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R12
Page xiii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R13
Page xiv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25601.
×
Page R14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD SPECIAL REPORT 333 Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering Committee for a Review of the National Naval Responsibility— Naval Engineering Program A Consensus Study Report of

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs Transportation Research Board Special Report 333 Subscriber Category Maritime Transportation Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America This publication was reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine. This study was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, U.S. Department of the Navy International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/XXXXX Library of Congress Control Number: XXXXXXXXXX

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs iv Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs v COMMITTEE FOR A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NAVAL RESPONSIBILITY— NAVAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM Heidi C. Perry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Chair Steven E. Ramberg, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Vice Chair Michael S. Bruno, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu Thomas M. Jahns, University of Wisconsin–Madison Jennifer G. Michaeli, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia RADM Marc Y. E. Pelaez (U.S. Navy, retired), Naples, Florida VADM Ronald A. Route (U.S. Navy, retired), Monterey, California Jessica K. Shang, University of Rochester, New York Alexandra H. Techet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Jennifer K. Waters, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland Yin Lu (Julie) Young, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Dick K. P. Yue, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff Transportation Research Board Mark S. Hutchins, Senior Program Officer, Consensus and Advisory Studies Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., Director, Consensus and Advisory Studies Anusha Jayasinghe, Associate Program Officer, Consensus and Advisory Studies Claudia Sauls, Program Coordinator, Consensus and Advisory Studies Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Martin Offutt, Senior Program Officer, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs vi

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs vii Preface Naval engineering (NE) is the field of study and practice that concerns the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of naval platforms. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) of the U.S. Department of the Navy sponsors basic and applied research in the scientific and technical fields that support naval engineering as well as other technical areas for the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy. ONR also supports education programs to ensure the supply of researchers and engineers in these technical areas. In 2001, ONR designated naval engineering research and education as a National Naval Responsibility (NNR). Naval engineering was one of four technical areas so designated, along with ocean acoustics, underwater weaponry, and undersea medicine.1 ONR added sea-based aviation as a fifth NNR technical area in 2011. These technical areas were designated as NNRs because they were considered deserving of special attention in ONR’s planning and budgeting given their unique importance to the Navy. The NNR for Naval Engineering (NNR-NE) was specifically charged with maintaining the necessary investments in basic and early-applied research for key areas of NE interest to the Navy.2 It was also charged with investing in students and research facilities and with conducting field experiments that integrate technologies into innovative platform concepts. Through the NNR-NE, ONR would ensure a sustained base of U.S. research on long-term naval engineering capabilities of importance to the Navy and the needed supply of talented researchers, engineers, and university faculty to provide superior science and technology related to naval engineering. In 2009, ONR asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies), under the auspices of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and its Marine Board, to conduct a study to evaluate the state of basic and early-applied research in naval engineering and related disciplines in the United States and to review NNR-NE’s unclassified plans and portfolio to further its mission of ensuring a healthy research and educational enterprise that meets the future platform capability needs of the Navy. TRB’s Committee on Naval Engineering in the 21st Century conducted the review and issued its report in 2011.3 The report contains a series of findings on the state of NE research, education, and research infrastructure critical to naval interests. The report offers advice on how ONR can improve its monitoring and understanding of the health of this research and education enterprise and the effectiveness of the NNR-NE program in sustaining and strengthening its health. In 2017, ONR asked TRB and the Marine Board to convene a special committee to conduct a second study of the health of the NE research, education, and infrastructure enterprise and the NNR-NE’s role in sustaining and strengthening it. This time, the study committee was asked to give additional consideration to whether the practical definition of naval engineering should be modified to account for developments such as the growing importance of autonomous 1 ONR. 2001. Memorandum: National Naval Program for Naval Engineering. Oct. 22. 2 Some of these naval engineering interests also extend to the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard, and US. Merchant Marine. 3 TRB Special Report 306: Naval Engineering in the 21st Century: The Science and Technology Foundation for Future Naval Fleets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/165502.aspx.

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs viii vessels and cyber security. As in the first study, this study too considered only NNR-NE’s unclassified activity. The full Statement of Task for the study is given in Chapter 1. To conduct the study, the National Academies appointed a committee of 12 experts in the fields of naval engineering and naval architecture; shipbuilding and ship design; propulsors; platform power; hydromechanics and hull design; education; warfare requirements; cybersecurity; and platform control and system integration. The committee met for the first time in April 2018, and met an additional five times over a 15-month period. The content of this report represents the consensus efforts of the members, who served uncompensated in the public interest. The committee members’ biographical information is provided at the end of the report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee held four meetings with public sessions for information-gathering and briefings from the sponsor and invited presenters and discussants. Public session agendas are provided in Appendix A. The committee thanks the many individuals who participated in these sessions, which were critical to informing the committee’s work. The study would not have been possible without the interest and support of Thomas C. Fu, Director, Advanced Naval Platforms Division, ONR, and the members of his team: Robert Brizzolara, H. Scott Coombe, Kelly Cooper; Joseph Gorski, Paul Hess, Ki-Han Kim, Ryan Zelnio, and Jeffrey D. Smith. Smith was especially important, as he provided a single ONR point of contact and fielded the many information requests from the committee and National Academies staff. The committee was briefed by the following officials from the Department of the Navy and Department of Defense: Rear Admiral Lorin C. Selby, Deputy Commander for Ship Design, Integration, and Engineering; Sharon Beermann-Curtin, Strategic Capabilities Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense (ret.); Michael S. Brown and Nathan Hagan, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division; and John C. Hootman, Surface Warfare Division, Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations. From industry, the committee held discussions with Howard Fireman, American Bureau of Shipping; Charles R. Cushing, C.R. Cushing & Co., Inc.; Donald M. Hamadyk, HII— Newport News Shipbuilding; Priya S. Hicks and Christopher J Rock, Electric Boat; and Robert G. Keane, Jr., Ship Design USA, Inc. The committee also met with the following individuals from educational and research institutions: Michael A. Aucoin, Draper Laboratory; Bradley E. Bishop, U.S. Naval Academy; James Bellingham, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Timothy J. Dasey, Reed Jensen, and Robert T-I. Shin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory; Melissa L. Flagg, Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Georgetown University; Jeffrey D. Paduan and Clyde Scandrett, Naval Postgraduate School; and Matthew R. Werner, Webb Institute. Mark S. Hutchins and Martin Offutt managed the study and assisted the committee in the preparation of this report under the guidance of Thomas R. Menzies, Jr. Anusha Jayasinghe and Claudia Sauls provided support to the committee in arranging meetings and in managing documents. Karen Febey, Senior Report Review Officer, managed the report review process. The report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments to assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence,

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs ix and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: H. Norman Abramson, Southwest Research Institute (ret.), San Antonio, Texas; Sharon Beermann- Curtin, Strategic Capabilities Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense (ret.), Arlington, Virginia; Edward N. Comstock, Independent Naval Architect, Davidson, North Carolina; Charles Cushing, C.R. Cushing & Co., Inc., New York City, New York; Thomas J. Eccles, Trident Maritime Systems, LLC, Arlington, Virginia; Millard Firebaugh, University of Maryland, College Park; R. Keith Michel, Webb Institute, Glen Cove, New York; and Pat Tamburrino Jr., LMI, Tysons, Virginia. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of the report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of the report was overseen by Chris T. Hendrickson, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Craig Philip, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs x

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs xi Acronyms and Abbreviations ASEE American Society for Engineering Education CFD computational fluid dynamics CINT Center for Innovation in Naval Technologies CISD Center for Innovation in Ship Design CNO Chief of Naval Operations DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy kV Kilovolt MIT/LL Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory MBSE model-based systems engineering National Academies National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine NAVWARSYSCOM Naval Information Warfare Systems Command NDSEG National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate NE naval engineering NNR National Naval Responsibility NNR-NE National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering NPS Naval Postgraduate School NREIP Naval Research Enterprise Intern Program NSF National Science Foundation NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center ONR Office of Naval Research R&D research and development S&T science and technology SMART Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation (DOD) STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics TRB Transportation Research Board WC Warfare Center

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs xii

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs xiii Contents Summary 1 Study Background, Request, and Approach Background Request for This Study Study Approach Report Organization 2 A Framework for National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering Evaluation “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Evaluation Framework Applying the Evaluation Framework to the “Three Pillars” of the NNR-NE 3 Naval Engineering Research and Development Summary of Current NNR-NE S&T Portfolio The Imperative of Capitalizing on S&T Advances Outside Traditional NE Fields Strategic Use of the “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Framework Viewing Platforms as Innovation “Forcing” 4 Naval Engineering Workforce Trends in STEM Education in the United States Relevant NE Workforce Development Programs “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Workforce Investments 5 Naval Engineering Science and Technology Infrastructure Changing Role of Experimental Infrastructure Changing Computational Capabilities Implications for NNR-NE’s Lead, Leverage, and Monitor Functions 6 Summary Assessment and Advice Appendixes A Invited Presenters at Committee Meetings B Study Committee Member Biographical Information

PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs xiv

Next: Summary »
Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. Navy has many unique naval engineering needs that demand a highly capable and robust U.S. naval engineering enterprise. In seeking an independent review of the unclassified elements of its National Naval Responsibilities—Naval Engineering (NNR-NE) program, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) asked for recommendations on ways to ensure the program meets the many naval engineering research, education, and workforce needs that will be critical to the Future Navy.

Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering recommends a number of strategies, including advice that ONR adopt a “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework for the programming, prioritization, and integration of its investments within and across the NNR-NE’s three “pillars” of science and technology (S&T), education and workforce development, and experimental infrastructure.

The report points out that as the technological landscape critical to naval engineering continues to expand at a rapid pace, NNR-NE must make strategic choices about when it should invest directly in research that meets naval-unique S&T needs, and when it should leverage technological advances from other domains.

Likewise, the report points to the importance of the NNR-NE making direct investments to inspire STEM interest among K-12 students and attract undergraduate and graduate students to the field of naval engineering but also to leverage the many STEM programs found elsewhere in the Navy and Department of Defense.

The report stresses the importance of engaging individuals from under-represented groups to expand the naval engineering talent pool and to find creative ways to expedite the recruitment of workers to Navy-critical professions by providing naval engineering graduates with early work opportunities while awaiting security clearances.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!