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 COPYâUncorrected 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 Responsibilityâ Naval Engineering Program A Consensus Study Report of
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected 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 COPYâUncorrected 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 Boardâs 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 COPYâUncorrected Proofs iv Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the studyâs 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 committeeâs 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 COPYâUncorrected Proofs v COMMITTEE FOR A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NAVAL RESPONSIBILITYâ 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 Hawaiâi at MÄnoa, Honolulu Thomas M. Jahns, University of WisconsinâMadison 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 COPYâUncorrected Proofs vi
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected 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 ONRâs 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-NEâs 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. TRBâs 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-NEâs 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 COPYâUncorrected Proofs viii vessels and cyber security. As in the first study, this study too considered only NNR-NEâs 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 membersâ 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 committeeâs 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, HIIâ 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 COPYâUncorrected 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 COPYâUncorrected Proofs x
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected 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 COPYâUncorrected Proofs xii
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected 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 âLead, Leverage, and Monitorâ Evaluation Framework Applying the Evaluation Framework to the âThree Pillarsâ 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 âLead, Leverage, and Monitorâ Framework Viewing Platforms as Innovation âForcingâ 4 Naval Engineering Workforce Trends in STEM Education in the United States Relevant NE Workforce Development Programs âLead, Leverage, and Monitorâ Workforce Investments 5 Naval Engineering Science and Technology Infrastructure Changing Role of Experimental Infrastructure Changing Computational Capabilities Implications for NNR-NEâs Lead, Leverage, and Monitor Functions 6 Summary Assessment and Advice Appendixes A Invited Presenters at Committee Meetings B Study Committee Member Biographical Information
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs xiv