Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering (2019)

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.

Committee for a Review of the National Naval Responsibility— Naval Engineering Program A Consensus Study Report of

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 organi- zational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transporta- tion 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. Cover credits: Left top: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Adam Dublinske; Left middle: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kelsey L. Adams; Left bottom: U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams; Middle: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Maxwell Higgins; Right top: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Anderson W. Branch; Right middle: U.S. Navy photo courtesy of General Dynamics Electric Boat by Matt Hildreth; Right bottom: U.S. Navy photo by Greg Vojtko. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49885-2 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-49885-6 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25601 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019956079

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institu- tion 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 char- ter 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 ad- vice 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 provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence- based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of trans- portation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their exper- tise in the public interest. The program is supported by state departments of transportation, 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.

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 typi- cally 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 opin- ions 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.

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 (NAE), 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 (Alex) H. Techet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Jennifer Kehl 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

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 NE as well as other technical areas for the Chief of Naval Opera- tions and the Secretary of the Navy. ONR also supports education pro- grams 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). NE was one of four technical areas so designated, along with ocean acoustics, underwater weaponry, and under sea 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 Engineer- ing (NNR-NE) was specifically charged with maintaining the necessary invest ments 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 NE capabilities of 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 U.S. Merchant Marine.

viii PREFACE importance to the Navy and the needed supply of talented researchers, en- gineers, and university faculty to provide superior science and technology related to NE. In 2009, ONR asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineer- ing, 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 NE and related disciplines in the United States and to review NNR-NE’s un- classified plans and portfolio to further its mission of ensuring a healthy research and educational enterprise that meets the future platform capa- bility 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 sus- taining 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 vessels and cybersecurity. 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 (see Box 1-2). To conduct the study, the National Academies appointed a commit- tee of 12 experts in the fields of NE 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 mem- bers, who served uncompensated in the public interest. The committee members’ biographical information is provided at the end of the report. 3 TRB Special Report 306: Naval Engineering in the 21st Century: The Science and Technol- ogy Foundation for Future Naval Fleets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/165502.aspx.

PREFACE ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee held four meetings with public sessions for information- gathering and briefings from the sponsor and invited presenters and discus- sants. 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 sup- port 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, Jeffrey D. Smith, and Ryan Zelnio. 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 U.S. Department of the Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense: Sharon Beermann-Curtin, Strategic Capabilities Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense (retired); Michael S. Brown and Nathan Hagan, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division; John C. Hootman, Surface Warfare Division, Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations; and Rear Admiral Lorin C. Selby, Deputy Commander for Ship Design, Integration, and Engineering. From industry, the committee held discussions with Charles R. Cushing, C.R. Cushing & Co., Inc.; Howard Fireman, American Bureau of Shipping; 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; James Bellingham, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Bradley E. Bishop, U.S. Naval Academy; 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 Uni- versity; Jeffrey D. Paduan and Clyde Scandrett, Naval Postgraduate School; and Matthew R. Werner, Webb Institute of Naval Architecture. 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 docu- ments. Karen Febey, Senior Report Review Officer, managed the report review process. This Consensus Study 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

x PREFACE 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, 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 (retired), San Antonio, Texas; Sharon Beermann-Curtin, Strategic Capabilities Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense (retired), Arlington, Virginia; Edward N. Comstock, Independent Naval Architect, Davidson, North Carolina; Charles R. 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 of Naval Architecture, Glen Cove, New York; and Pat Tamburrino, Jr., LMI, Tysons, Virginia. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments 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 mak- ing 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.

xi Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii Summary 1 1 Study Background, Request, and Approach 15 Background, 15 Request for This Study, 17 Study Approach, 21 Report Organization, 23 2 A Framework for National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering Evaluation 25 “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Evaluation Framework, 27 Applying the Evaluation Framework to the Three Pillars, 28 3 Naval Engineering Research and Development 31 Summary of the Current NNR-NE S&T Portfolio, 32 The Imperative of Capitalizing on S&T Advances Outside Traditional NE Fields, 38 Strategic Use of the “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Framework, 40 Viewing Platforms as Innovation “Forcing,” 46

xii CONTENTS 4 Naval Engineering Workforce 49 Trends in STEM Education in the United States, 50 Relevant Naval Engineering Workforce Development Programs, 53 “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Workforce Investments, 61 5 Naval Engineering Science and Technology Infrastructure 65 Changing Role of Experimental Infrastructure, 66 Changing Computational Capabilities, 69 Implications for NNR-NE’s “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Functions, 70 6 Summary Assessment and Advice 77 Appendixes A Invited Speakers and Presenters at Committee Meetings 83 B Study Committee Member Biographical Information 85

xiii Acronyms and Abbreviations ASEE American Society for Engineering Education CFD computational fluid dynamics CINT Centers 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 DSB Defense Science Board kV kilovolt MBSE model-based systems engineering NAVWARSYSCOM Naval Information Warfare Systems Command NDSEG National Defense Science & 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

xiv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 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