1 / 5

Personal views....” back, then forward” ... re oceanographic ship construction

Personal views....” back, then forward” ... re oceanographic ship construction. Steve Ramberg ser24@psu.edu Steve.Ramberg@ndu.edu 202-685-3578 [Usual Disclaimers = I speak for noone else]. UNOLS Ships & Major Platforms.

gallia
Download Presentation

Personal views....” back, then forward” ... re oceanographic ship construction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Personal views....”back, then forward”...re oceanographic ship construction Steve Ramberg ser24@psu.edu Steve.Ramberg@ndu.edu 202-685-3578 [Usual Disclaimers = I speak for noone else]

  2. UNOLS Ships & Major Platforms • With the modern era (post WWII ) of oceanography this became a national responsibility (it still is) • Navy assumed this infrastructure responsibility, arguably for both national and own reasons • Legacy of research-oriented Navy • Initially, surplus WWII ships • Strategic dominance of ASW in Cold War • Provided most (large) new construction for 4+ decades Seastory: TENOC report circa 1960

  3. On Navy investments • Funding source was largely SCN “ship-building” accounts (think large sums of large numbers) • DoD builds a 5 yr budget for Congress (“FYDP”) • “Smooth” budget category profiles (eg SCN) a good idea • Exceptions: FLIP & KNORR/MELVILLE drew on 6.5 (NAVSEA) accounts vs S&T (which is 6.1-6.3 accounts) • Navy was seeking a 600 ship Fleet (now aiming at 300) • All hulls counted regardless of size/cost • Oceanographic ships filled SCN planning “dips” nicely • Supported naval oceanography as well as academia Seastory: AGOR-26

  4. Some consequences of this framework • Vulnerable to single “source” (≈ “construct”) for funding • Navy listened, but ultimate authority: • Insisted on multi-purpose, “global” ships (the ASW mission, of course) • Sought input from science community on capabilities (but final judge) • Chose the operators (competitively with help of external reviewers) • Could not provide full (S&T) op funding for ships it built • Credit for overall fleet planning (ie “ship exchange”) became de rigueur • ONR/NSF worked the problems imperfectly but well • NSF ~ 25% ship ops for Geosciences, ONR32 ~ 10% for “OAS” • NSF took shiptime 100% separate, ONR did PM cost-share (varied) • PIs (community?) had little sense for the “how” of ship investments or use, much less “optimization” • On balance, it worked well for several decades, UNOLS a key enabler Seastory: Dolly as a “market force”

  5. A glance at the road ahead Remains a national responsibility • Very unlikely any single agency can fill investment role Strategic priorities for ocean-related studies rising? • Argues for multi-year(/agency?) budget planning for infrastructure New National Ocean Policy and governance, NOC • All relevant ocean agencies (and then some?) • Statutory NOPP requirements subsumed • NOC Deputy level = NOPP NORLC (SecNav role?) • ORRAP remains tied to NORLC (1 of 2 nonFed NOC elements) • Whither NOPP IWG-FI? (nee “FOFCC”) NRC/OSB study on ocean science infrastructure for 2030 underway [large(st?) agency sponsor list]

More Related