This is a survey designed to get UNOLS community input regarding the future of the Academic Research Fleet (UNOLS Fleet). The questions below are designed to get your reaction to the draft discussion paper prepared by a working group of the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee (FOFC) entitled "Charting the Future for the National Academic Research Fleet" as well as your opinion, in general, about the needs for Oceanographic Facilities in the future. If you have not already read the draft discussion paper, click on the link above. We also encourage you to look at the UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) discussion of this subject on their home page at: http://www.unols.org/committees/fic/
There are ten questions below based on our reading of the FOFC discussion paper. Question #11 gives you an opportunity to frame additional questions and even answers to them, and we would appreciate these. We ask that you answer any or all of the questions, fill in the personal information at the bottom and click on the submit button. An email will be sent to the UNOLS Office (and to you if you enter your email address below). The results of this survey will be used by the FIC committee and UNOLS in preparing input to the FOFC working group. It is also our intention to post the responses to the survey (unless asked not to) on this web site in an attempt to stimulate discussion. Click here to see posted responses.
THIS FORM IS NOT CURRENTLY ACTIVE!
1. The FOFC paper calls for a smaller number of ships in the future fleet, at least in terms of federal acquisitions for ships over 130 feet in length. Over the 20 year time interval considered, the chart of "fleet retirements and renewals" shown below indicates retirement of 13 ships and acquisition of 10. Would this plan meet your needs or the needs of the community as you see it? Do you believe there will be a need for fewer larger ships with all oceans capability and extended endurance or more smaller ships with regional capability and shorter endurance? Click here to see the chart.
2. Except to say that new ships should be awarded competitively, which is certainly a proper statement, there is little discussion in the FOFC paper of what can or should happen when one or more institutions confront the prospect of having to retire a ship with no prospect of a replacement. Should anything more be said on this point, or should we await the outcomes, and with them perhaps the potentials for political interventions on behalf of such institutions?
3. The FOFC paper emphasizes more science berths across the size classes. Would you prefer to see more capability for multi-ship operations through provision of more vessels of smaller berthing capacity or do you agree that fewer ships with more endurance and larger berthing capacity are appropriate?
4. The postulated 30 year lifetimes in the table mentioned above ( Click here to see the chart ) yield significant differences from the existing UNOLS and NSF Fleet Review tables of projected lifetimes (see the link references below), and thus a significantly different temporal pattern of ship retirements and new acquisitions. Do you have any comments about the timing of retirements and acquisition?
Academic Fleet Review: http://www.geo.nsf.gov/oce/pubs/fleetrev.html UNOLS FIC Discussion: http://www.unols.org/committees/fic/
5. The FOFC paper calls for ongoing improvement of the shipboard technical capabilities. Should there be an analogous emphasis on ongoing, feasible improvements in the existing ships as well? It may well be that at some times a modification to some aspect of the ship - more fuel-efficient propulsion, a reshaped bottom for better acoustic properties, or other such change - could be made effectively and more economically than a new construction. Another way to put this is that the usual model of a single "mid-life refit" might better become a more distributed process, for some kinds of changes. What are your thoughts regarding modifications and improvements to existing hulls as a means for extending the life and capability of the fleet?
6. Based on the 1982-2000 funding graphs for NSF and ONR Ocean Sciences research given in the FOFC paper, an assumption of flat or slowly-growing funding for use of research vessels is made. In recent times funding sources other than these "classical" ones have played significant roles in UNOLS ship use and fleet funding. Will such "non-classical" sources wax or wane, and should the cautious growth assumption be modified?
7. The concepts of "coastal" and "shallow-draft" vessels and research regions seem to merge in the FOFC paper. But not all coastal regions are shallow; does this deserve comment or modification?
8. If you had a choice of a larger, more sea kindly ship, but more difficult to schedule ship vs. a smaller, less sea kindly ship, but easier to schedule which would you request? Note that more difficult may mean a year or two could go by before you could be accommodated.
9. Will new sensing systems such as Argo (ocean autonomous profilers) and NEPTUNE (deep observatories) increase the demand for research ships or decrease demand?
10. In Dr. Leinen's forwarding letter she asks "By what measures should we define this (fleet "capacity"), and use it to modify future projections of ship requirements based on funding expectations, science trends and the changing mix of tools? Please comment on this issue.
11. Are there other questions raised by this draft discussion paper that should be put to the community? Do you have other observations or comments not covered by the above questions?