CLICK HERE TO READ THE FOFC DISCUSSION PAPER

CLICK HERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY

THESE RESPONSES ARE SORTED BY RESPONDENT

CLICK HERE TO SEE RESPONSES SORTED BY QUESTION

---

Responses Posted on 1/8/01

Name: Barry Raleigh
Institution: SOEST
**Responses**

1.

2. Ships have not been awarded competitively, at least in the sense we think of as peer reviewed science proposal competition. The Agors 23-25 were awarded under criteria that strongly favored institutions with very large Navy-funded programs, thus virtually excluding other competitors. There was in place at the time an erroneous notion that economies of scale would result from concentrating ships at a very few institutions. This assumption ignored the reality that monopolies never return value for the lowest cost. I argue that ships ought to be distributed among as many competent academic operators as makes economic good sense. They tend to compete vigorously to capture enough users to keep "their" ship funded. A second and perhaps stronger argument for this strategy is that ship operators are a potent lobbying force and the more states that are proud of their operations of an oceanographic ship, the more likely that Congress will support ocean-going science.

3.

4. The AGOR 26 provides an interesting variation from the usual service life expectations. When a monohull ship's hull life is exceeded, re-building the ship is very costly. When a SWATH hull wears thin, it is easy to replace without invading the working sections of the ship. In effect, a SWATH ship is forever.

5.

6. Go-slow scenarios may become self-fulfilling prophecies. As this was written, a gradual unfolding of a major increase in ocean observational programs is working its way through our government. While much new observational effort will be conducted through unconventional platforms, a ten-fold scaling of our current efforts will surely require more ships than we currently operate.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: Bob Martin
Institution: Univ of Texas Marine Science Institute

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Assistant director of the marine Science Institute, primarily responsible for business activities of the institute and operation of its research vessel fleet.

**Responses**

1. I believe the report understates the need for vessels in the "regional" category, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.With the rising interest in biological and chemical oceanographic research in this region i believe there will be considerably more need than the stated one year of full utilization. The two smaller vessels now operating in the Gulf currently have a combined cruise booking for 2001 of more than 340 days. Most cruise requests appear to be less than 20 days so perhaps the endurance needed would warrant examining somewhat smaller vessels with lower operating costs. Operating costs continue to be a prohibitive factor in use of larger vessels, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.

2.

3. I believe there is demand for individual scientists preferences of smaller vessels where individual scientific parties have greater control of the science locations, instrumentation and scheduling. Thoughts should be given to a greater number of these vessels with geographically dispersed home ports allowing lower operating costs for both transit and on site activities.

4. Again the life of vessels is as determined by the type mission it supports as it is the number of years in service. Some vessels, like aircraft can be maintained in a like new status by extensive retrofits and instrumentation upgrades at a cost much less than replacement of the vessel, hull up!

5. see 4 above

6.

7.

8. a smaller, less sea kindly ship, but easier to schedule is greatly more desirable

9. I believe the need for service support for this type data acquisition system and similar needs for greater numbers of local data acquisition buoy systems will shift the research vessel requirements to more "rigging type activities and less data collection activities.

10.

11.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

**Responses**

1. My concerns are twofold: first, it is important to maintain the availability of regional and ocean class vessels for coastal surveys and biological programs, which at times cannot meet the operating cost of a global class vessel and may not overlap in ship usage requirements with well-funded geology or physics programs; and, secondly, in planning the total number of vessels, the competition for shiptime during particular seasons, such as spring upwelling/spawning, should be taken into consideration as well as the total integrated usage for the year. With careful planning, it should be possible to accommodate several season-dependent projects on one ship within a designated time period, but the capacity should exist to simultaneously address process-intensive questions that require longer blocks of dedicated ship time.

2. Perhaps it would be helpful, in assessing the competitors, to take into consideration such factors as an institution already having a marine shop in place, and the quality of continuing, experienced personnel versus training new crews. This said, I believe the competitive aspect is indeed important, and that the influence of political wrangling should be minimized as much as possible by setting up a solid decision-making structure in advance.

3. For the regional vessels, I believe that lab and deck space as well as number of ships should be emphasized over scientific berthing, enabling regional space- and time-intensive sampling to co-occur. I agree that the global vessels should accommodate more science berths.

4.

5. While it is a good idea to increase the flexibility of a vessel within its lifetime to adapt to new uses and improvements in technology, the number of times a vessel is taken out of commission should be minimized to the greatest extent possible by careful planning, since this invariably will greatly affect the scheduling of funded research (there is rarely a really universally-agreed-upon "good" time to take a vessel out of commission for an extended period of time).

6.

7. Certainly some of the most interesting regions off the West Coast coincide with both a narrow continental margin and at times semi-constantly rough weather, and this should be taken into consideration in designing the regional vessels for this area.

8. For graduate student usage of ships, such as my own, it is preferable to have a smaller, more-easily-scheduled ship. In the long run, it is important that flexibility to schedule last-minute investigations be maintained, so that unexpected geological, physical, and biological events can be effectively studied. However, this flexibility may be possible to some extent in the scheduling step, rather than requiring smaller ships to be available.

9. Demand will increase for both deployment and maintenance of such systems, and to investigate process-oriented questions prompted by these observational systems.

10.

11.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: Anonymous
Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am a blue water oceanographer

**Responses**

1.

2. In the design and construction phases, it is extremely important that some vitally interested users of oceanographic ships be in a position of control. I do not see how this can be maintained unless a lead organization (read - oceanographic institution) is in charge. How is this to be accomplished without some dictatorial/anti-democratic approach. I do not know, but I do recognize the failure in past designs of ships. In my opinion, UNOLS committees are not sufficiently concentrated and dedicated to perform this essential service, and contracting it out would be a disaaster, I fear. Even with a high degree of control, one oceanographic institution has made a botch of design of a coastal vessel, and I hope would learn by this experience.

3. - 11. No response given

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

POSTED 1/9/01

Name: Paul E. Smith
Institution: Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Southwest Fisheries Science Center
Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have spend approximately 3 years of the last 30 at sea and the remainder of the time working on a 50-year time series of biological events driven by climatic change at the decadal to century level.

I am responding for myself.

**Responses**

1. I don't believe that the new list of ships will be capable of the required work of the next half century. This will be a time of truly significant growth in the potential of global climatic models. For this purpose, one needs two ships in each octant for description of phenomena, on the 70 meter class framework. Seeing the scale transfer from the octant to the regional scale will require a further two ships in each octant on the 50 meter framework. Lastly, the biological and geochemical consequences of the global climatic behavior will require a minimum of two ships per region for dissecting the linkages among the global, octant and regional scales with emphasis on orographic and topographic dynamic interactions with the ocean.

2. Currently, global climate models, satellite observations and tagged migrations consume the available ship time with short term, incoherent demonstration projects. As these activities mature, it is conceivable that ship requirements could return to this low level. If one wants to achieve this economy without risk of being blind sided by events, much more ship time should be invested in the interim.

3. I believe the berthing increases are placed in hopes of great multidisciplinary sharing of shiptime. I wonder if the compromises which happen among PI's foster the most incisive progress or is it an accountancy feature to claim more sea going capability owing to greater capacity?

4.

5. I have been pleased with the mid-life refits I have dealt with. You get certain tried and true hulls and propulsion with modern navionics and computer centers.

6. I think we should lead with our plan for the global needs and invite 'non-classical' sources to join us for acceleration or emphasis but not for the main course.

7. I would rather see the shallow-draft function performed from a launch capable mother ship.

8. Regional to octant scale ships must be sea kindly to achieve successful days at sea. Less sea kindly vessels are only for work near harbors. This scale is already performed at the county sewer and generator levels and from piers.

9. I think they will eventually return demand to present levels after global atmos ocean models become functional.

10. The global models, need an octant scale. The local scale needs a regional comprehension. Therefore, each octant needs 2 70 m, 2 50 m, and 6 30 meter vessels. This should be drawn from an international and agency pool as well as UNOLS.

11.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: Eric D'Asaro
Institution: University of Washington

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding as myself. I have used UNOLS vessels many times in the last 25 years and also used charter commercial vessels, aircraft, helicopters and autonomous floats all for sampling physical oceanographic quantities.

**Responses**

1. More Smaller ships

2. It is intrinsically a political question.

3. More Vessels

4. NO

5. This is a highly technical question and probably not one that can be answered properly through a survey of technically naive oceanographers.

6. I like the cautious growth assumption.

7. Clearly this needs to enter into the ship designs. U. Miami's recent boat was clearly designed to meet their shallow draft requirements.

8. I don't mind a bad ride, but I need ships. Thus, smaller.

9. They will change the nature of the work, placing more emphasis on faster ships, with more flexible schedules and perhaps less capability in order to service the autonomous systems and respond rapidly to events sensed by them. I build and operate autonomous systems and my greatest frustation with UNOLS is its lack of flexibility.

10. Ship days used (as now), plus ship days requested but not available (i.e. a measure of undercapacity)

11.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: Steven Constable
Institution: SIO/UCSD

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
During a 18-year career at SIO I have used research vessels on a regular basis, for instrument development and both coastal and deep water surveys. I have used vessels operated by US, UK, Australian, and Japanese facilities. I spend between one and two months a year at sea. My responses are entirely personel.

**Responses**

1. Access to smaller ships with regional capability is extremely important to my type of research, which is heavily dependent on instrument development. I still need to get to the middle of the oceans every now and then, but usually a 40-day endurance will suffice for what I need to do, which is mostly instrument deployment and recovery at one particular location.

2. The advantage of a competetive process is that State and University funds can often be captured for ship operations. However, one worries that with a political involvement, the best interests of the scientist are not always met. It also makes more sense to me that institutions with a good track record of ship operations and the experience that goes with that continue to operate ships, rather than going through the inefficiency of ramping up ship operations at a novice facility.

3. Again, my preference would be more vessels with smaller berthing capacity. I'd like to note here that smaller, single berth cabins, such as on NERC's Charles Darwin, make longer cruises much more pleasant/bearable.

4.

5. It seems to me that the advantage of a mid-life refit, either done once or more often, is that problems that became evident during the prior operation of the ship can be solved, and that improvements can be carried out based, again, on prior experience. With a new ship one doesn't have the advantage of experience, and we've seen examples of ideas that didn't quite work out once a new ship was built and put into service.

6. I think a cautious growth assumption is appropriate. In my own work I have been forced to seek non-government funding for my research, for the obvious reason that government money is becoming harder to get, and significant portions of the non-government money goes into buying shiptime.

7. Absolutely. A coastal vessel still needs to be able to operate in the broadest possible spectrum of weather conditions, and that usually means having a decent keel.

8. Too difficult to anwser. It really depends where you are going. That is, for equatorial cruises one might go for the easier to schedule option, but in the North Atlantic one might insist on the more seaworthy ship. It also depends on how time-critical your research is.

9. Don't know.

10.

11.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: John A. Orcutt
Institution: Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding to the questionnaire personally. I have made use of the UNOLS fleet for about 27 years and have been Chief Scientist on many expeditions, largely related to studies in marine seismology and acoustics.

**Responses**

1. Current planning and funding for new, fixed ocean observation systems as well as floats and gliders delivering data via satellite and wireless communications as well as cables would appear, at first glance, to reduce the requirements for ships. However, the installation and maintenance of observatories and the seeding of drifting systems in remote oceans will certainly increase the need for ships and ship time. The advent of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) in 2003, with two drilling ships, and the growing MARGINS program will increase significantly the need for capable seismic survey ships including the resources needed to support three-dimensional surveys. All of these programs will require new, large ships. The case for a smaller number of ships in the FOFC draft report appears to be based on an extrapolation of past funding and not on future plans, aspirations and projections of needs. Obviously a balance is needed in planning, but I feel that the estimates in the FOFC report are far too conservative. For more details regarding the observatory programs, see the response to question 9.

2. It is essential that a fleet plan be in place enumerating future requirements. Without such a plan (i.e. FOFC), fleet replacement will be uncontrolled and dominated by earmarks on agency budgets rather than an objective, competitive process. Competition necessarily requires substantial planning on the part of the bidding institutions or consortia and commitment to long-term operations and maintenance including the planning for long-term matching funds. New ships must be flexible in design to allow ongoing instrument modernization and replacement. Matching funds provide a means for financing such upgrades and, without such commitments; new ships will become rapidly outdated. Earmarking vis-à-vis competitive acquisitions should be discouraged by both academia and government agencies to minimize the impact of unplanned ships and their maintenance on scientific planning, funding, and progress. A broad, regional distribution of ships is not an argument for a non-competitive process.

3. It is probably more correct to anticipate that ships will become more multidisciplinary, but not more interdisciplinary than is now the case. Personnel costs, modern equipment, high-bandwidth communications, and increasing specialization on a single cruise will likely reduce the number of bunks needed. However, the space for equipment and lifting power will likely increase.

4. I must admit that I don,t understand the reasons for the differences in projections by UNOLS and FOFC although the effect, at least for the large ships, is to anticipate longer lives by UNOLS. I would encourage FOFC and UNOLS to seek a common timeframe. As noted in 1.) and 9.), there will likely be a growing need for larger vessels for servicing observatories. Furthermore, the advent of the IODP and the growth of MARGINS will both likely require an academic ship with 3-D capability using long streamers in the near future. While Ewing may not need to be retired until 2015 (FOFC) or 2018 (UNOLS), a 3-D capability would be best supported with a new ship with a substantially larger beam. Perhaps issues such as mission should be included in developing the time lines and not just estimates of how the life of a ship can be extended.

5. I believe that taking advantage of modifications of existing hulls is an economical approach to providing enhanced technical capability in the existing fleet. If no significant technical compromises need to be accepted, the extension of a ship's lifetime through an additional "mid-life refit" is a good idea. There are, of course, limits to the overall economical lifetime of a ship.

6. I see no reason that the non-classical funding for UNOLS ships will decrease. In particular, supporting Navy and NOAA needs for modern ship capabilities will likely grow in importance. What will change to enhance shipbuilding programs in either agency to offset the current needs for academic ship time?

7. Many coastal areas are not particularly shallow or well suited for exploration, study and monitoring with shallow-draft vessels. Shallow-draft vessels are obviously required for some applications in some parts of the US EEZ, but deeper draft vessels, with enhanced stability and sea-keeping capability, are important for many regions (e.g. the western US and Hawaii).

8. In many cases, studies will simply require the use of a larger ship and the PI will have little choice, but to wait for ship support. However, it is important not to overbuild ships with small, shallow-draft characteristics. Have the ships meet the actual needs as they are built.

9. As noted in 1.), the need for larger, more capable ships is likely to increase with the growth in observatory programs. In addition, the existence of fixed and floating observation systems will certainly increase the need for additional, focused process studies to unravel problems uncovered by the observatories. A good case in point is the Ocean Mantle Dynamics program, which will make use of observations of seismological phenomena on a global scale to target regional-scale questions of fundamental importance in understanding mantle processes. In the case of fixed observatories associated with DEOS (Dynamics of Earth and Ocean Systems) buoys and NEPTUNE and the new NSF Ocean Observatories Steering Committee (OOSC), the programs will require 2-3 ship years/year of very capable (and large) research vessels for maintenance. For example, such ships will need to have significant lifting capability as well as the ability to support a sophisticated, deep-water (at least 6,000 m) ROV system simultaneously. The DEOS buoy program, for example, includes systems for high-speed (> 500 MB/day) telemetry as well as low-speed telemetry (<5 MB/day) and high capacity (500W) and zero-level power supplied to instruments in the water column and on the seafloor. Buoys designed to support these needs include 5m discus and 133, spar buoy designs at the high end to 3m discus buoys at the low end. While both the 3m and 5m discus buoys can be launched and recovered by existing large UNOLS vessels, the spar buoy installation is beyond the capabilities of these ships. While the 3m buoys can be managed with existing shipboard equipment, the 5m buoys require significant upgrades. The weight of the discus buoy anchors (4500-9000 kg wet) and the diameters of the steel and synthetic mooring lines exceed the handling capacities of standard UNOLS winches and wires. An independent winch system will have to be used to deploy and recover mooring components. The additional deck equipment may cost upwards of a million dollars and will need to be able to be shipped and installed on more than one UNOLS vessel in order to service observatories in widely scattered areas. The anchors needed for the spar buoy design each weigh 35 tons and exceed even the capacity of the standard A-frames on the largest UNOLS vessels. Furthermore, the size of the spar buoy, and the amount of mooring and line required, exceed the capabilities of the largest UNOLS vessel, primarily because of deck limitations and reel/winch capabilities. An offshore supply/anchor handling boat would be required for launching the mooring and spar buoy. Annual maintenance, however, can be managed by a standard, current Class I, UNOLS vessel. If one-off installation costs are assumed, the lease cost of the vessel is about $335,000 per buoy exclusive of manning and fueling costs. If 20 buoys are deployed, this amounts to $6.7M. If we consider the cost of removing the buoys, this cost could be doubled to $13.4M. If the costs of upgrading existing ships for buoy handling are included ($1.35M), the total vessel-related costs are $14.754M. A used vessel of this class can currently be purchased for about $12M, or with modifications, $13.35M. The costs of new ships with these capabilities is about $14-$18M. The advantages of purchasing ships with these capabilities are manifold. For example, the costs would not be subject to market fluctuations, the ship could be incorporated into UNOLS for scheduling, and the ship could be available for other oceanographic applications including the launching and maintenance of large numbers of discus buoys and the use of the associated ROV's. More details can be found in the DEOS report to the NSF: "DEOS Moored Buoy Observatory Design Study", http://obslab.whoi.edu/buoy.html

10. NSF and other agencies must examine plans for the use of oceanographic vessels and extrapolate these plans into future needs for ships. While it is generally felt that projections in the 1980,s were too optimistic in terms of current realities, we now find that there is a minimal oversupply of large ship time to meet user demands. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the low success rate of proposals for ship time use in NSF programs leaves many worthwhile projects at the beach. The fundamental issue is the funding of oceanographic research and not the support of the needed oceanographic fleet will we take the necessary measures to conduct needed research?

11. I don't believe the statement in the FOFC report, which asserts: "As a result, the role of ships as the primary source of collecting of data at sea will diminish. This is possibly correct in a strict sense, but the requirement of support of the observatories from which much new data will arise, greatly increases the need for ships. Furthermore, the "holes which appear will drive many new field programs (from ships). With respect to the Arctic, what will happen when the aging Polar Star and Polar Sea are no longer available for supporting Arctic research? The Healy is not a fully-capable ice breaker and cannot replace the two existing ice breakers. The support of the Antarctic vessels Palmer and Gould as ships independent of UNOLS should be examined shouldn't these ships be incorporated into UNOLS operation and ownership?

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: John Diebold
Institution: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, NYC

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Over the past 34 years, I have sailed on 60+ MG&G legs, as technician, student, or research scientist. I am currently the marine science coordinator for R/V Maurice Ewing, managing its technical operations and planning future improvements. I am responding on behalf of myself only.

**Responses**

1. It is difficult to forsee future directions of research with great accuracy. Some new directions are apparent, and really just getting started - servicing of farflung seafloor observatories, for instance, which will increase the need for larger ships. Another question is whether or not there will be a significant increase in use of UNOLS vessels by the Navy and NOAA.

2. I don't think we can realistically legislate the outcome of this process. Political intervention is, generally, bad, but innovation and imagination in the acquisition of ships is good. Let's not stifle it.

3. Multiship operations will always be more costly than single-ship ops. Whether future ships are fewer or greater in numbers, increased berthing capacities are desirable.

4. Considering that EWINGs midlife refit will almost certainly be phased over multiple years, the quoted date for retirement seems early.

5. It is too bad that the bad experiences with Knorr and Melville left NSF and the community so gunshy of such large-scale modifications.

6.

7. There is obviously a need for a certain number of "coastal" ships that are very seaworthy.

8. Two year waits are common, both to me and my [marine seismic] community.

9.

10.

11. One correction needs to be made, Bob; CONRAD was not built as a seismic ship. It was the first of the AGOR-3 class, and was pretty much the same as all the others of that class. CONRADs seismic capability was developed and continuously improved over the years with a combination of Navy, NSF, and Institutional funding. The analog seismic systems used between 1962 and 1974 were entirely designed and manufactured at Lamont, with the exception of the air compressors.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have spent more than 2 years of my life as a scientist at sea, mostly on UNOLS vessels, but also on Canadian R/Vs. My institution is not responsible for my comments.

**Responses**

1. It would be nice to see a clear assessment of the benefits of larger ships and those of smaller ships. As I see it (maybe these lists could be expanded), the benefits of larger ships are

1) greater range and endurance
2) greater carrying capacity (volume and mass)
3) the ability to hold more scientists
4) better ride

The benefits of smaller ships are

1) lower operating cost - of course this means that we can have more of them
2) better maneuverability (maybe this is arguable)

So the issue is who needs what? I think that those who need to get water and analyse it onboard may carry large science crews, but the trend is going rapidly to more-automated sampling systems and fewer scientists/cruise. Deck capacity (volume) must be an issue for large mooring cruises. I suspect that mass is rarely an issue. Having a good ride must be important for launching ROVs, for example.

I have not seen ship use statistics that show the scientist/cruise distribution sorted by cruise type, and ship size. But I do know that the large ships have provided substantial overkill in terms of all of the following:

lab space
deck space
range
people-carrying capacity
for many projects over the last few years.

I envision that during the next generation of ship use, measurements used for larger scale oceanography will become more operational, not requiring specific PI guidance at sea. This would probably not be handled by research scientists. On the other hand, the prospects for learning more about the smaller scales from shipboard, remote and autonomous measurements is becoming better all the time. It invites innovation and this is where the research scientists will be.

MORE SMALLER SHIPS! MORE SMALLER SHIPS! MORE SMALLER SHIPS! MORE SMALLER SHIPS!

2. I don't know anything about political jockeying. However, I do think that a ship is an integral part of any institution that thinks of itself as an oceanographic institution. There is no top flight physics department that does not have strong groups of both experimental and theoretical physicists. The presence of a ship at the institution helps to define that institution.

A ship is also more than just a platform. It includes the personnel and local adaptations that evolve with use. It is difficult for some projects to work on "any old" ship. The cooperative efforts with a particular set of equipment and personnel from a particular ship may be critical to the evolution of new and daring technologies.

I think there is good reason to make every effort to make sure that ships are spread around.

3. MORE SMALLER SHIPS! MORE SMALLER SHIPS! MORE SMALLER SHIPS!

4. I have not seen a clear statement of who decides when and why a ship should be retired. I would assume there are 2 basic criteria: safety and operating costs. The other issue of building for the next generation of research is a little fuzzy since we really don't know what that means. I would guess that there is nothing special about 30 years as a ship lifetime and that many of these ships can continue to be operated well past this time span (perhaps with some help from external funds for more frequent repairs). For many seagoing operations, there is no clear or strong need for anything different from what we already have.

5. good idea - see response to Q4. So long as the ship is safe, operating costs are contained and it continues to do what we need it to do, by all means extend its life.

6. I'm afraid we should be thinking cautious growth.

7. There should be a clear definition of what is meant by shallow draft. How many meters difference? Where does it get you? How much is gained scientifically by this? This may be a local issue, important for a small area of research.

8. MORE SMALLER SHIPS!

9. don't know

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
The opinions expressed are my own and aren't intended to represent the view of a group or institution.

My experience is entirely on small or intermediate ships (last 3 yrs as a PI) participating primarily in physical oceanographic work including survey cruises and mooring operations. Lately it seems that intermediate ships have been highly utilized (at least on the west coast). I regard intermediate ships as increasingly necessary for coastal work making small (regional) ships of less value.

**Responses**

1. I think the problem is one of sporadic utilization. In an average year, a fleet of 10 ships would probably work. However there are no average years. I'd guess in 50% ship usage is higher and could not be accomodated by fewer ships than present. In remaining years one or more ships seems underutilized. In order to achieve science goals, as presently conceived and funded, I don't think we could get away with fewer ships. We have the choice to either accept underutilization in some years (the present system), or move towards lowered expectations of science goals (occasional 2 year wait times and fewer opportunities for multi-ship field efforts).

2. I think there should be an attempt to hammer out some algorithm for ship replacement before retirements start happening. Although it would likely be contentious and seen by some as unfair it would be better than the alternative. Factors such as:

historical geographical patterns of funded ship requests
an institution's record for safe, efficient, and mechanically reliable operation
PI's opinions of satisfaction as expressed by UNOLS post cruise surveys
geographical patterns of PI affiliations
distribution of ships ensuring that capabilities (seismic work, ROV support etc.) are well distributed

should be considered. This is hardly meant to be an inclusive list.

3. Given the continued drive toward interdisciplinary science, in general I agree that fewer ships with more berthing (and lab!) capacity are appropriate.

4. No comment except that the expected ship retirements in the FOFC paper referenced above are quite different than in the academic fleet review.

5. I'm out of my depth here. If there is some excess fleet capacity in some years, then there might be time to do more refitting of the ships which happen to be underutilized in those years. If there is a reduction of the fleet as conjectered above, then I doubt any ship will be able to afford the time out of service these refits would require. I have no idea how the economics of several refits vs. earlier replacement work out and I imagine the benefits of this would be highly variable.

6. I think the cautious assumption is justified.

7. Yes, as you point out not all coastal regions are shallow. Moreover, it should be recognized there can be a need for larger ships (to support more investigators or otherwise take advantage of large ships' capabilities) in coastal regions.

8. I would take the smallest ship in which I could get the work done. However a smaller less sea kindly ship means more weather days and/or reduced capability for operations in poor weather. Overall I'd choose requesting a smaller ship (and more weather days) over choosing a larger ship for which I had to wait 2 years. For the work I hope to do in the next 20 yrs, the intermediate class of ships represents the most flexible and useful type.

9. No effect, I think they represent different capabilities. They may affect the uses of ships which in turn might have an effect on ship design. For example maintenance of deep ocean observatories may put a premium on this relative to say, CTD work.

10. This is an extremely complicated issue. Overall, I think no prediction is more likely to be accurate than persistence -- i.e., maintaining the present capacity.

Name: Dan Fornari
Institution: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution - Geology&Geophysics Dept.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
oceanographic ship user for ~30 years focusing mainly on seafloor mapping, high-resolution imaging using sonar and cameras and deep submergence vehicles on the MOR crest globally, transforms, seamounts and oceanic islands.

**Responses**

1. In general, I believe that the US federal agencies have short-changed oceanographic research and facilities over other effort which have largely been driven by national security interests. This is short sighted both in terms of understanding our planet and its oceans which are over 2/3rds covered by ocean water, and also in terms of the critical impact that ocean circulation, chemistry, and climate have on our planet and fisheries resources. This statement does not absolve the scientists from their role in providing outreach or leadership w/respect to relevance, but by and large, the scientists have very limited access to the seats of power and decisions regarding distribution of federal dollars to research.

If the government marginalizes oceanography then certainly, fewer ships will be needed, but a new vision is needed in DC and it must be a grass roots movement to help make this case with the broad community of ocean scientists lobbying heavily for adequate funding and facilities to carry out this important research.

Unless the government is willing to accept that oceanographic research is AS IMPORTANT (or arguably more important) than space science we will not make progress on these issues.

So - NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FOFC PLAN IS ADEQUATE, BECAUSE IT HAS LARGELY BEEN DRIVEN BY NSF AND OTHER AGENCY MANDATED ARTIFICIAL LIMITS WHICH ARE BUDGET DRIVEN, NOT SCIENCE OR NEED DRIVEN

2. For the most part, the competition process has been a level playing field, with the exception of the U Hawaii AGOR acquisition and the conversion of that effort to a SWATH.

The statement that the ship resources should be awarded based on demonstrated capabilities in running these types of facilities and that they do need to be regionally distributed for various reasons, logisitcal and from a fairness point of view - all this should be emphasized in the report

3. The mix between berthing and capabilities is not an easy one to make into an "either/or" requirement. In general, the intermediates have smaller berthing capacities reflective of their working range closer to home ports and coasts, but not always. Also, the larger AGORs now in service do have extensive berths for science, much more than previously available, but in some cases that number, while still large is not sufficient, especially for programs where many (up to nearly 10) PIs are either forced to go on the same leg, or because of multidisciplinary science must be on the ship at the same time. This is more easily dealt with by 2 ship operations which have taken place frequently within the UNOLS system and is the right way to deal with this type of situation. In general, the improved capabilities of the ships should be an effort that continues both in terms of operations, and shipboard science capabilities, however, it should not be done so as to marginalize the crews or to force the ship operators into a mode of operation where they cannot sustain efficient and sane operations, in terms of personnel safety or reasonable quality of life issues (this is a critical part of what happens when ships are laid up...)

4. Again, to what extent is this driven by agency mandated funding shortfalls (or expected shortfalls) and to what extent true science/operational needs. This is not clear to me, but I suspect that is largely the former. Frankly, given the mid-life refit of both Knorr and Melville, and the current good state of those vessels, I don't really see a need to remove those ships from the UNOLS fleet a priori.

5. Generally yes, but it seems that the various UNOLS operators do a very good job of distributing knowledge on ships and hardware. This effort should continue and be expanded to include technical and technician capabilities.

6. Again, this goes to the heart of the question I raised above. That insufficient funding has been provided to oceanographic facilities, and that the federal funding agencies have not been aggressive enough in securing those funds for oceanographic science. We are settling for what crumbs we're given, not being provided with what is truly needed to make progress in the 21st century for should be an imperative, the full, and holistic exploration of the global oceans.

7. Not being a coastal oceanographer I'll let those more knowledgeable than I speak to this.

8. Not a good question... again, this is marginalizing what we do and need as oceanographers, this survey and UNOLS and the relevant agencies should be asking: "what do we truly need in terms of research funding and facilities to do a top notch job of exploring and assessing the multivariate components of the global ocean system, from the deepest depths to the coastlines across all disciplines".

9. Yes, these types of initiatives WILL increase the need for vessels, especially in the near term when the systems are being deployed and repaired in the early stages of the programs (especially Neptune and other seafloor observatories).

10. The decisions should be science driven, not "funding expectation" driven. This process has undermined US research since the Reagan adminstration and if not reversed we will see US research leadership erode which will have enormous negative impacts on our society. We have seen over the past decade how significant US research is to the global economy. We need to invest in research science- broadly, and oceanography specifically given its import to our planet and future - in order to ensure that the US maintains scientific leadership and economic growth.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: Dave Checkley
Institution: Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I reply on behalf of myself, not my institution. I am a regular ship user.

**Responses**

1. My answer to this question depends on anticipated funding of ship days and ship days available for funded work (in the proper region). My sense is that, yes, the chart projections would satisfy my needs. As a biological and fisheries oceanographer, my needs are often best met by medium- to small-sized vessels. I also feel that independent researchers' needs are most easily and often met by such sizes of vessels. The balance proposed appears reasonable. One concern of mine will be access to ship days in the Eastern Pacific and, specifically, out of Scripps along the California coast, given the retirement of New Horizon and, to a lesser degree, Melville. SIO, CalCOFI, and others depend heavily on the New Horizon for work in this region. We would need a replacement of either like size or, potentially, larger.

2. More should be said at this point. Institutions and agencies must plan in the long range. It is vital to such planning and, more importantly, its implementation, that sufficient ship resources be properly distributed in the future. If left only to institutions suffering the loss of ship to request its replacement, I can forsee problems. The long-range plan for oceanographic research vessels in the US should take in to account past and predicted useage, funding, institutional growth, research needsd, and other factors. Geographical distribution of ships must be considered in this context.

3. A mixture is needed but I give preference to more capacity in the form of ships with smaller (or intermediate) berthing capacity.

4. I have sailed with great success and pleasure on old but well-maintained vessels. I have also sailed will less pleasure and success on newer vessels. Vessel maintenance, crew ability (is it a 'can do' crew?), and similar factors affect this issue.

5. I am a proponent of good maintenance and mid-life refits.

6. As for commerical fisheries fleets, oceanographic research fleets should not grow to overcapacity. This is a difficult problem due to the relatively long lead time necessary to consider then build a new vessel for research. However, I feel that overcapacity would serve the research community poorly in the eyes of Congress, state legislatures, and funding agencies. We must be careful in this regard.

7. Perhaps. This seems like a modest revision which should be performed.

8. Smaller ship.

9. Neither, my hope is. There will remain a demand for sea-going oceanographers and thus ships to accomodate them. These new technologies will simply complement such a demand.

10. Supply and demand. Supply being the number of ship days available for purchase and use in various parts of the world's ocean. Demand being the grant and contract monies to purchase such ship time. These must match within an acceptable margin for error. Not an easy task, but reasonably objective.

11. 1 - Ask members of the community what ship use they envisage during the next 5-20 years. Are there any surprises? This would only be a wish list but, perhaps, it could be placed in perspective by simultaneously asking what was the ship use of the respondents in the prior 5-20 years.

2 - What programs do community members anticipate requiring ship time in the next 5-20 years and what type of ships would best meet the needs of such programs? These could span the range from individual investigator to global-scale programs.

3 - What one ship (historical, existing, or anticiapted), if lost from the fleet, would impact your program the most?

Name: Greg Cutter
Institution: Old Dominion University

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responses are mine alone. I've used more than 60% of the vessels in the fleet in the last 20+ years in the Pacific and Atlantic, as well as numerous "local" vessels. Reviewed many operator/technician proposals submitted to NSF.

**Responses**

1. I use all three classes of vessels under consideration for my research (e.g., in the last 5 years I have been the chief scientist on the Knorr, Endeavor, and Hatteras) and that of my colleagues, and I find the prospect of fewer ships to be quite troubling... you may limit the type and volume of science by limiting access. In any case, the distribution of classes is a bit off in that there is an increasing interest in coastal processes, but only one regional ship per coast...very bizarre. Moreover, what if one wants to do coastal work away from the US (e.g., Amazon shelf)...the "region" is left without a platform since the "ocean" class cannot do the same work (i.e., the new Hawaii ship will draw far too much for coastal work. What I have seen lately with the fleet is that the lack of proper platforms forces ships to be doing work they have no business doing (Henlopen well offshore; Endeavor and Wecoma stretching their range), while other studies cannot be done because multidisciplinary projects that are becoming the DOMINANT way to do things require large berthing capacity only afforded by the global ships which cannot work well in the coastal zone. You are correct that the ships have to be very flexible, and the current fleet is incredibly so, but a 25% reduction is problematic.

2. Too much politics already control the distribution of ships. The placement of a new (or existing) vessel should be based on their (actual or proposed) ability to meet the users' needs in an efficient (cost effective) fashion. Look at the post cruise assessment forms for a change!

3. Interesting question! As I stated above, more berths are absolutely essential in the modern practice of interdisciplinary oceanography. BUT, if this means far fewer ships, then perhaps we should consider multi- ship operations (haven't done one of those in 17 years!) with more specialized platforms and wider distribution. Having said this, the cost of a ship does not equal, in a linear fashion, the number of berths/endurance. Certainly 21st century naval architects have some answer for this.

4. They seem a bit off (i.e., Hatteras going until 2010??), but basically on target.

5. All mid-life refits are not equal..some are successful and others are not, although most seem to be. The refit of the Endeavor made her MUCH better and more versatile, the too large crane not withstanding. The Knorr was also greatly improved. So I am in favor of extending the life of a good ship that is well run (don't extend the life a ship run by a less than good operation..give it to someone more deserving).

6. This depends too highly on politics, for example the status of NOAA or ONR under the new Republican administration. Scientists, especially ocean ones, are realizing the importance of lobbying the public and the Congress, so I wouldn't be surprised to see more growth than expected.

7. I think coastal is the proper term, and shallow draft work does not have to be done entirely by the main platform... one can send out smaller specialized boats to do the shallow work. This should be considered.

8. Less or more seakindly are certainly difficult to define, and I suspect that newer technology will allow the smaller vessels to ride better. In general, I favor smaller and easier to schedule....the ocean keeps the time and you have to go out no matter. When I've had to go out on rough winter cruise offshore in a "regional" class vessel (e.g., Hatteras instead of the Endeavor), I've simply asked UNOLS to give me a few extra weather days or a port stop for R&R...it works well

9. I don't trust crystal ball predictions about where/what science will be in the future. Real time data systems will more than likely be used for alerts to get ships out for sampling with instruments that simply have to be operated, or samples taken, on site. Perhaps technology will catch up, but then there will be new questions which arise that have to be addressed at sea....ground truthing will not go away.

10. Versatility/adaptability are vital factors for our fleet and should be used as the measures for meeting the needs.

11. Operator institutions need to be regularly reviewed for their overall operation (i.e., meeting needs of their users fairly and efficiently cost-wise; proper upkeep of the vessel(s), safety, etc.), and if they don't meet the community accepted criteria, the ships should be reassigned. The whole cruise assessment, evaluation of operators, and funding mechanisms for operators are not working properly.

Name: Jim Yoder
Institution: University of Rhode Island

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I used ships extensively in the 1980s including the Cape Hatteras, Cape Florida, Iselin, Gyre, Gillis, Blue Fin, Suncoaster and others, including Japanese and Spainish ships.

**Responses**

1. The number of ships currently available to scientists appears to work well. As I read the report, Endeavor, Oceanus and Knorr are replaced by one realatively large ship. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible, for example, to conduct a JGOFS or WOCE type experiment in the North Atlantic in the same year as a GLOBEC Georges Bank experiment. I do not believe it is wise to limit ourselves in this way.

2.

3. We need a balance of ships to be able to serve large programs as well as individual investigations.

4. - 8.

9. New sensing systems will identify new processes and events that will require investigation. Some of these events would require a ship to be available on relatively short notice. Ships will be needed to respond to these events as well as service the sensing systems. This suggests more ships will be needed not fewer.

10.

11. I haven't used ships for my research since the 1980s, but went to sea extensively then. Oceanographic ships are one of the key capabilities that make our field unique. As oceanography expands in the future, and programs such as the ocean observing system lead me to believe that it will, we will need more ocean-going capability not less. The ships will certainly be different than the ones I rode in the 1980s, but we should not be planning now for less future capability than we currently have.

Name: Matthew Hawkins
Institution: University of Delaware

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Director, Marine Operations for R/V CAPE HENLOPEN. These are my personnal views, but are related to my observations of coastal R/V operations over the past 9 years. They also reflect some of the views that were expressed by members of our new vessel design committee (DRVC- "Delaware Research Vessel Committee") as the Science Mission Requirements were being developed. I do not want to infer that I speak for the committee, in part or in whole, but my comments generally reflect the content of the final SMR's.

The DRVC (15 persons)is composed of sea-going scientists from the mid-Atlantic and some key agency representives. They represent a wide range of disciplines in oceanography, as well as a significant number of acedemic institutions in the region.

**Responses**

1.

2. I agree that ships should go to areas (both geographic and size/capability) of recognized scientific need as the first criteria. "Competition", based on ability to effectively operate the required platform (within that area), should be the next criteria. I don't feel much more needs to be (or should be) addressed by this report.

3. More vessels gives greater flexibility is supporting science schedules, however, it is obvious that only so many platforms can be economically supported.

Achieving higher berthing capacity does not appear to be as problematic on the "Global" or "Ocean" class of vessels. However, it can be a major factor on the "Regional" class where size and capability is dictated by the "Region" itself. How to properly handle larger berthing requirements (if that is a future requirement) in this class must be carefully considered due to possible draft and size limitations.

I like the vessel classifications given is this report as opposed to the old UNOLS classes. The "Global" (multi-ocean) and "Ocean" (Atlantic vs. Pacific) are a reasonable descriptor of capability and quite self explanatory. The "Local" class (in my mind) are the smaller vessels that operate more on a daily basis (not normally 24 hours) or on short projects close to home port (2-4 days).

The "Regional" class however, can be problematic. It is my feeling that the report puts the "cart before the horse" by attempting to define "Regional" vessel capabilities before defining what a "Region" is. This is a critical step for this class in that vessel capabilities could vary widely. Some Regional ships may have to work effectively in both confined inshore waters and offshore. Some will not.

I would offer these criteria to help define "Regional": "Regional" vessels are one class below the "Ocean" class. As such, they are more "Coastal" in nature. They should be able to support projects within a 24 hour steam from their home port (extended transits should not normally be appropriate for this class. At 10 knots this is ~240 nm in all directions (along coast, and offshore). They must (like the Ocean class) be able to operate continuously on a 24 hour basis. "Regions" should overlap slightly (say 120 nm) so that there is more flexibility is support of science. The vessel should have the capability to operate in the major bays and sounds within the "region" once defined.

Starting at Nova Scotia, East Coast "Regions" could thus be defined as:

Nova Scotia to mid-Jersey Coast (NE Region)
Long Island to Onslow Bay, NC (Mid-Atlantic Region)
Cape Hatteras, NC to Cape Canaveral, FL (SE Region)
Jacksonville, FL to ~ 120nm up West FL Coast. (Southern Region)

This suggests 4 smaller ships as opposed to one larger vessel.

4.

5. This decision should be made on what science capabilities must exist in the next generation of vessel. If only operating efficiencies are envisioned (fuel economy, more berthing), then economical upgrades to M/E's or conversion of existing space MAY be good options at mid-life or various stages throughout the vessel's life. However, newer capabilities (such as "acoustically quiet", Dynamic positioning) are difficult and expensive to retro-fit. The later is my view; that the next generation of R/V's will have capabilities of this type, as well as improved efficiency.

6.

7. This deserves more consideration. It can be seen by the definition proposed in Question #3 above that "coastal" and "shallow-draft" vessels are not the same. By contrast, the Gulf of Maine (and even more so, the Gulf of Alaska) has far more difficult operating conditions within a 24 hour steam from home port then a vessel normally operating off the southern tip of Florida. The detailed "Regional" requirements for each vessel would be very different, though both may still need to carry 20+ scientists. The need to carry 20 scientists is independent of the other Regional requirements.

8. Scheduling conflicts are a major concern with PI's in the coastal region. In the "Coastal" zone cruises are shorter and there tends to be more of them. Ability of meet temporal requirements (typical of the coastal zone)on a wide variety of projects would be very difficult on fewer number of larger vessels.

For example, a cruise in the NE region might need to be scheduled in the first 2 weeks of April in conjunction with a certain fish spawning time, while a project in the SE Region might need to go in the same window because of tidal currents associated with the phase of the moon. Two smaller ships could solve this conflict, where one larger ship could not. Both may still need to carry 20+ scientist scientists.

9. The role of R/V's will change in the future - it is doubtful they will not be eliminated from the scientists "tool box". Work may shift from more traditional missions to deployment and servicing of ocean observatories and AUV's.

There is the potential that a large number of these observatories will be "coastal" - not only "deep ocean". The "Regional" ship of the future will potentially be very different from the last generation. The next generation should be "ultimately flexible"/modular to meet the changing needs of science and (hopefully) lessen the need for mid-life refits.

10.

11. I think that the report is lacking in that it only addresses the Federally owned R/V's in the "Regional" class. Institutionally owned vessels are, and I think will and should, continue to be a major part of this "National Asset" By definition (If you go by the definition proposed in Question #3) "Regional" vessels are more geographically dependent, and at the same time economically acquirable by institutions.

It must be noted that the institutionally owned vessel ARE highly Federally supported (though not owned) - by daily rates (ship and technical support proposals) and equipment proposals. The Federal agencies may not be able to directly control the fate (who operates/owns)those vessels, but they have a significant role in how those vessels are operated, how they are scheduled, and how and they are equipped in support of science. To have virtually no discussion on these vessels is an unfortunate omission.

Likewise, there is no discussion on current efforts underway to replace institutionally owned vessels of this class. The University of Delaware's efforts to replace the CAPE HENLOPEN in a timely manner, with great involvement from the science community, is not mentioned. Our effort is not the only one currently underway in this class - a review of these efforts should at least be summarized in the report, even if not fully commented on.

Moreover, Delaware's new vessel will undoubtedly be within the size range described in the new "Regional" category - though admittedly at the lower end because of regional requirements. Partnering with the Federal agencies for funding (outfitting and other) is being pursued. It will continue to be operated as part of the UNOLS fleet. This effort is an important part of the academic fleet renewal process.

On the "Regional" ship capabilities, I think the requirements for a 30 day endurance is (generally speaking) too high. Except for regions that are less inhabited (Alaska possibly), Regional vessels are easily able to make routine port calls - both to exchange science party personnel/crew and take on fuel and supplies. A good example of this is the different legs of a multi-disciplinary project such as TIES or LMER in the Chesapeake-the entire project consisting of three 22-day cruises. Each leg had it's own requirements - both in equipment and science party size/discipline. The legs involved work that could not be conducted simultaneously. Even if the ship could have stayed at sea for 30 days, it is unlikely that it would have because of the requirements of coastal projects. Having both the need and ability to make port calls, lowers the need for high endurance. This is a potential savings in vessel acquisition cost, and allows space which would have to be used for fuel/expendables to be used for already valuable science space.

The final statement on "Regional" vessel capability is that they should not only be able to carry a total of 20+ scientists, but also carry 10 scientists economically. A high cost is paid up front(and operationally) for larger berthing capacity, and the benefits must be carefully weighed.

Name: Olaf Boebel
Institution: Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am an observational physical oceanographer, working mostly with floats to study the deep ocean circulation. Even though I have only limited experience with US vessels, I have been going to sea regularly (1-2 times a year) on German research vessels for about one decade now.

**Responses**

1. The number of ships currently available to scientists appears to work well. Fewer ships would cause a serious shortfall in the ability to get to sea. This is particularly true in the northeast where the plan calls for one ship replacing three. No general-purpose class I/Global ship would be available in the entire Atlantic. In addition, single investigators would be critically restricted without a capable, economical ship to replace ENDEAVOR and OCEANUS.

2. I think a solution in which no institution is deprived of all it's ships is certainly advantageous. This in particular concerns smaller institutions which have only one ship.

3. A balanced mix of ships is necessary to respond to the varied scientific problems addressed in oceanography. This suggests some ships with moderate berthing capacity as well as larger ships with greater endurance and berthing. With the end of WOCE long multi-disciplinary cruises with a high (30-50) number of participants have become less frequent. Hence the scientific requirements will probably shift more towards process studies, directed by the array of remote/autonomous observations. Hence fast (to get in time to where the action is), rapid response (because the timing of interesting events is hard to predict) types of ships are needed. This would call for more, smaller ships, however, our demands on what we would like to study (e.g. high latitudes to study convection processes) at the same time calls for larger, seaworthy ships that can endure AND OPERATE in foul weather. Probably somewhat larger (than ENDEAVOR) ships with a superstructure of no more than 3 decks (incl. working deck) and hence a smaller berthing capacity than ships like KNORR would provide a good compromise.

4. No opinion.

5. This must be decided case by case. Physical Oceanography and Geophysics for example might have very different perspectives on this. It is further hard to predict what technological advances will have happened and what requirements science will have in 15+ years from now.

6. I feel the assumption of 'cautions growth' warranted.

7. No opinion.

8. The larger more sea kindly ship. Nothing is more frustrating than to have to cut short a well planned cruise and to not being able to achieve the goal that was promised in the proposal that funded this cruise.

9. Many monitoring tasks will be performed in the near future by autonomous instruments. New sensing systems will identify new processes and events that will require investigation. Some of these events would require a ship to be available on relatively short notice. Ships will be needed to respond to these events as well as service the sensing systems as well as to maintain them. This suggests more ships will be needed, not fewer.

10. No comment.

11. The speed of research vessels appears to slow for many of today's requirements. Data collection and processing capabilities are increasing in speed, but the ships are still at their classical 10-12kn. I find it desirable to develop ships that have a faster cruise speed. This would also significantly increase the fleet capacity by freeing up time for other projects. Even a modest increase from 11 to 14 knots will reduce the cruising time by 20%, which frees up one month of shiptime per year if assuming 50% of a deployment time of 300 days per year.

Name: anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Most of my experience, which is minimal, stems from coastal studies. I respond on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. I believe that there will be a need for fewer long-endurance ships, so long as other methods of oceanographic data analysis become more prevalent / accurate (moorings, satellites, etc). There does appear to be a trend that more oceanography is being studied in the coastal / shelf regions.

2. For an institution to loose its research vessel is an unfortunate turn of events. Perhaps they can be compensated by other means (increase in research funding, first pick for ship time on another institutions vessel, etc).

3. The more science being done at one time, the better. More vessels with smaller berths appears to be a good way to go.

4. As long as research can be planned according to the retirement / aquisition schedule, there should be no problems...?

5. It would be wise to make any changes that would prolong the life of a vessel, so long as that process does not compromise sea-time. By the same token, if it inhibits the production of replacement vessels, it may not be worth doing.

6. Classical research funding may be the most reliable, and it should be used to predict future funding.

7. Well, that's one for the ocean engineers to answer.

8. I suppose getting the work done is more important than feeling good about it while you were doing it. BUT, a larger vessel may allow for sampling in heavier seas, and be more benificial. In short, so long as the work can get done without compromising safety.

9. In the short term, the ships may be needed for calibration purposes (Argo, for example). In the long, perhaps the demand may decrease.

Name: anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:

**Responses**

1. At present, the number of ships appears to work well; a decreasse in the UNOLS fleet would cause a shortfall in the ability to conduct seagoing research  This is especially true in the northeast, where the plan calls for one ship replacing three.  In addition, single investigators would be restricted without a ship to replace ENDEAVOR and OCEANUS.

2.

3. A balanced mix of ships is necessary to respond to the varied scientific problems addressed in oceanography.  This requires some ships with moderate berthing capacity as well as larger ships with greater endurance and berthing.

4. - 8.

9. New sensing systems will identify new processes and events that will require investigation.  Such events could require a ship to respond on relatively short notice as well as service the sensing systems.  All of this suggest that more ships will be needed, not fewer.

Name: anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience: I have been to sea as a volunteer on other researchers' cruises, and used archived samples collected on UNOLS ships. I have no plans for a sea-going research program at this time.

**Responses**

1. - 7.

8. I think the main factors determining which ship will get used will be capability and cost. The larger, more sea kindly ship may be prohibitively expensive to use for short-duration, regional work, regardless of whether it can be scheduled. The smaller ship may not have the capabilities to work far offshore, even if the cost and scheduling are preferable. So I'm not sure that comfort and ease of scheduling will be that important in choosing a ship.

My other comment is that I think there is a need for ships that can be scheduled on fairly short notice. Some oceanographic phenomena occur episodically and cannot be predicted far in advance. Two examples I have been involved with were a large red tide event off southern California and the strong El Nino of 1997-98. The El Nino was forcast a few months in advance and the RV Sproul was scheduled to supplement regular CalCOFI cruises, providing valuable higher frequency data during the El Nino period. The red tide event was not predicted and the Sproul was hastily scheduled for two days of sampling. These events cannot be predicted a year or two (or even sometimes a month) in advance, but studying episodic oceanographic events can be extremely valuable. I think the capability to schedule ships on short notice for this kind of study should be included in the plan.

Name: anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Use for deploying coastal moorings and bouys.

Responding as an individual scientist.

**Responses**

1. More smaller ships with regional capability and rates that are not sky high.

2. I have no clue.

3. More small ships. (see 1 above).

4. NO

5. NO thoughts.

6. No crystal ball.

7. Don't know.

8. Prefer less sea-kindly and available.

9. Don't believe these will effect Coastal vessel usage.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

Name: Charles Miller
Institution: COAS - Oregon State University

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Lots of cruises, lots of cruise leading, service on UNOLS, etc.

**Responses**

1. So long as the stock of "Ocean Class" ships is kept as high as apparently planned, the reduction in "Global Class" ships should pose no problems. All signs point to recurrent overcapacity for our largest ship class.

2. There is no way around this pain. We have dealt with it many times. Often there has been political intervention, and we probably see it currently in early assignment of ships to Hawaii and Alaska, however appropriate that may be logistically. Politics will continue into the future, so there may well be political responses to the pain of institutions. Sometimes those responses will provide opportunities for reformulation of the fleet mix. It can be viewed as a mechanism for mid-course corrections of the plan.

3. Instrumentation trends remain such that more berths are needed per overside cable. However, ships under 60 m are not only "berth limited" when greater staffing is desired. They don't have the space to carry the elaborate social interactions that develop with parties of more than 20 scientists. The lab space also becomes limiting. Some system defining the (average?) space needs of per scientific participant is needed, not just a bunk count. There will be advantages to having enough "Ocean class" ships that two can be sent when the observation sets get sufficiently complex, rather than sending one giant fuel guzzler. The big guys are still mostly limited to one wire overside.

4. The scheme proposed here is fine. The important thing is to have a plan.

5. We've done it before. We'll find it beneficial to do again. It should be done as technical opportunity and available funds permit.

6. Gifts of ships from rich folks? These will continue to be very few. They will usually be inadequately supported by refit, maintenance and operations endowment. Previous attempts at fleet reduction which were counteracted by private donations of vessels have led to bad results. The USC experience at conversion with private funds, then much pressure for inclusion in the federally supported fleet, is not to be repeated if at all possible. However, in a system that treasures private enterprise, it may not be possible to stop occasional events of this kind. We have built a coastal boat with private funds. It's great and will support publicly funded research. Much more difficult for "Regional class" vessels and above.

7. Sure. Fix it. Make the detail in the plan fit the detail of the ocean areas subject to scientific inquiry.

8. I would opt for the smaller ship anyway, if it could possibly do my work. Smaller also means less complex interactions between crew and scientists, less environmental impact from the ship itself, less waste of all sorts of resources when weather makes work impossible (which still happens on big vessels) and a much more adventuresome sense of fun in work at sea.

9. Seems to me that getting techno packages to desired launch sites and recovering them (when that's necessary) will take more ships, unless such systems supplant other, ship-borne observations. Seems as if planners anticipate some supplanting. Perhaps they're right. Possibly many sensing systems could be dropped from airplanes.

10. Nothing comes to mind. A table of ships with sizes and endurance is what one looks for.

11. To a remarkable extent the report seems to project business as usual. A ship less, some new ships like the old ships.

There is nothing about really new types of platforms - not even SWATH vessels, which are no longer new. It has a strong feeling of more of the same. There is nothing along the lines of permanently manned mid-ocean stations for really elaborate time series of water column ecology, an old but still excellent suggestion.

Is anybody thinking about possibilities not yet tried?

Name: Rob Pinkel
Institution: Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have conducted research from the R.P Flip since 1969 and have participated in a number of arctic ice camps.Recently, my research group has developed and installed a Doppler sonar system on the R.V.Roger Revelle which routinely profiles to depths of 700m or more, with 15-20 m depth resolution. It is planned to keep this system in continuous operation, with data distributed through the SIO Data Center.I have gained some appreciation of the capabilities of large ships through this exercise. I presently serve as Chair of the SIO Marine Operations Committee and at one time chaired a FIC ad hoc subcommittee investigating the Scientific Opportunities of Nuclear Submarines.Here I write on my own behalf.

**Responses**

1. There are many tasks which presently require large (long range) ships but not large science parties. Seabeam-type swath mapping surveys, gravity surveys, float deployments, observatory and buoy servicing in remote locations, etc. are examples. We might consider the possibility of small ships which operates globally. Such ships would be designed for range and sea-keeping ability. Acoustic systems such as swath mapping sonars would be mounted well below the sea surface (~ 10m), to avoid both hull generated and natural bubbles. Such vessels might look quite unlike anything presently in the fleet (or presently afloat for that matter). Powered by conventional means and manned by small crews, they would be economical to operate. They would free up the schedule of the large ships significantly, allowing us to get by with fewer of them.

2.

3. The size of the science party on today's large ships is near the limit of effective management.One cannot expect a mortal Chief Scientist to orchestrate the activities of more than 30 people / 5 research teams in difficult,rapidly evolving conditions.At some point, there are too many conflicting priorities on board.

4. - 6.

7. The equation of "large ship, big crew" with "long range" and "high stability" might also be examined.

8.

9. The circulation of the ocean is best described as an advective-diffusive balance. Most recently, our focus has been on the advective aspects, with the monitoring of the global circulation being a primary objective. However, both sides of this balance must be understood if a predictive capability is to be achieved. "Diffusive" processes such as fronts and eddies, etc., are at the edge of what can be modeled numerically and will constitute a limit to the performance of the global modeling effort.

Diffusive phenomena are often associated with coherent structures (eg squirts and jets) or localized phenomena (eg internal tide or solitary wave sources). These are poorly sampled by fixed moored arrays or by randomly seeded floats. Ship operations involving real-time access to space-based and in situ data, are required.

One hopes that the mind-numbing, repetitive, tasks once done from ships can be taken over by autonomous floats, freeing up the vessels for the host of tasks that require on-site intellect.

10.

11. One of the major factors affecting the future (and present) use of our ships is the shortage of people who are trained to use them imaginatively. The perception is widely held that shipboard research is largely pre-programmed, repetitive, surveying of some sort. To the extent that bright students shy away from field work to pursue "more intellectual" activities, this perception is self fulfilling. There is now the possibility that our ships will be freed from some of the more repetitive oceanographic tasks. New researchers need to be trained and new measurement techniques developed if we are to capitalize on this opportunity.

Both education and technology development require extensive time at sea and good working conditions, but not necessarily range or mobility. A highly stable craft that can put to sea without requiring a (literal) act of Congress to cover the operating expenses is called for.

My own experience is with the Research Platform FLIP, which operates with a full time crew of three, an at-sea crew of 5-6. For historical reasons FLIP has not been operated through UNOLS. However, its record in training young oceanographers and developing new instrumentation (the Vector Measuring Current Meter, Doppler sonar, etc.) is exceptional, especially in view of its (lifetime) operating cost. While spar buoys such as FLIP provide an attractive set of capabilities, alternative concepts can now be considered.

The continuing support of FLIP is not a UNOLS problem. But maintaining the capability to ground truth sensors, develop new instruments and train new scientists certainly is. Some form of inexpensive, stable, access to the deep-sea must be preserved within the national community. With nine conventional intermediate and regional class ships planned, it would seem appropriate to invest a fraction of future resources in platforms with unique capabilities.

QUESTIONS?.......BACK TO THE TOP

POSTED 1/29/01 (33 responses)

Name: Richard Jahnke
Institution: Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have accumulated just less than 900 days of sea time on UNOLS vessels and have served as Chief Scientist on more than 22 expeditions. I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. Depending on competition for shiptime, this plan would appear to meet my projected needs. In general, I anticipate more computer modeling efforts, more data acquisition from non-ship platforms and more coastal work. Thus, I believe that decreasing the number of global ships and increasing or simply modernizing regional class ships is appropriate.

2. This is an issue with significant political implications. Nevertheless, if we are to maximize fleet efficiency through the designation of strategic operating institutions, the political will and authority to determine operating institutions must be found.

3. I do not feel that endurance is a significant issue (within reasonable limits) for all but the global class. It is my experience that berthing capacity can be increased on essentially all ships. Again, except for the global class and for crew's quarters, expeditions are not so long that some compromises on comfort for scientists cannot be made (i.e. 3-4 person state rooms, community desks rather than desks in staterooms, etc.) Additional berths add little cost to the construction of a ship. Not every expedition needs to fill every berth.

4. I leave discussion of timing of retirements and new acquisition to operators who have a more thorough understanding of the relationship between maintenance costs and ship age.

5. A well operating, well equipped older ship is just fine with me. I had an expedition on the Knorr not long ago and, quite honestly, I prefer it to some of the more modern ships.

6. In the absence of a long-term commitment from these non-classical sources of ship support, I believe that we should attempt to match fleet capacity to the basic science needs of the community. Since we have had excess capacity in the recent past (some of it used by ONR and NOAA)and since WOCE and JGOFS are ending and are not being replaced with programs with similar shiptime requirements, I suspect demand for global and ocean class for open ocean studies will decrease. Of course, along deep continental margins, these vessels can also be used for "coastal" research and may do more of this in the future.

7. Probably - see above.

8. It is a matter of degree. If the smaller vessel could perform the science without the majority of the participants being sea sick, I would request the smaller vessel.

9. It is difficult to say whether the actual user days will decrease. However, I suspect that the missions will change to more of a service mission. Also, in the case of NEPTUNE and other fixed observatories, the need for global transit capabilities will be reduced and that most fixed observatories will be serviceable with Ocean or occasionally Regional Class vessels.

10. Ship days available vs ship days funded. Given the choice, most people prefer to be on larger vessels than smaller ones and the large vessels tend to be utilized closer to their capacities than intermediate vessels. With fewer global class vessels in the future, the ocean and regional vessels may be better utilized in the future with little or no impact on science.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I routinely go to sea (>1 year of total sea time in the past 10 years). I have sailed on UNOLS vessels of all three size classes as well as non-UNOLS vessels.

I am responding for myself only.

**Responses**

1. I do not think a reduction in the size of the research fleet will better serve the oceanographic community. This seems particularly problematic with the proposed coverage in the North East Atlantic. Although there are currently three Global Class ships in the area, two are highly specialized (EWING and ATLANTIS) while the third (KNORR) is scheduled for retirement within 10 - 15 years. The FOFC draft has no provisions for bringing a new Global Class ship with general oceanographic capabilities on line in the area. The problem is compounded further by retiring two Intermediate Class ships in the region (ENDEAVOR and OCEANUS) and replacing them with one Ocean Class ship.

2.

3. I prefer more ships with smaller berthing capacity but I do not think we can afford to go exclusively one way or the other in order to maintain flexibility. The Ocean and Regional Classes should emphasize deck and lab space at the expense of berthing space.

4. See question 1 regarding NE Atlantic.

5.

6.

7. This discussion needs to be modified. The one size fits all approach is not useful for the Regional Class ships. By definition, the ships will work exclusively in one area and therefore should be designed with that in mind.

8. I prefer a ship that is easier to schedule. This is necessary when trying to study an event that occurs during a specific window of time.

9. I believe the emphasis on remote sampling will increase the need for ship support (instrument servicing, sample collection for ground-truthing etc.). The continuous data streaming will undoubtedly result in new hypotheses that will require sea time to test. It is important to point out that many of us working in biological oceanography are quite far from being able to collect our data remotely. There emphasis on the Argo and Neptune programs does not reduce ship time requirements of all oceanographers.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
During the past decade, I have been chief scientist on cruises aboard the RV Edwin Link, Endeavor, Oceanus, Revelle, and Seward Johnson. I have also sailed on the RV Thompson. I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. I think that there will be a need for more smaller ships for coastal ocean work that are able to deploy large gear and operate in higher sea states. UNOLS should pay close attention to the SWATH experiments at MBARI and WHOI to see if these vessels are the wave of the future for coastal ocean research.

2. If an institution has been running its ship(s) properly, then that information should feed into the competitive process. Institutions should not expect to be rewarded with a new vessel if they don't have a great track record. We will never be able to avoid political end runs, although the community might be able to impose additional requirements on institutions playing that game. For example, UNOLS could require institutions to provide 3-4 weeks of education days per year at no cost and on a competitive basis to any educational institution applying.

3.

4. NE region is being short changed for coastal research vessels.

5. I believe that this must be explored on a case by case basis. In the past, I think that we have done mid-life refits that have kept less capable and more expensive to operate vessels at sea beyond their time.

6.

7.

8. This is the wrong question. The question is - "how do we make smaller ships as kindly to use as the current large ships. The answer may be SWATH.

9. The demand will be the same, but how the ships are used will evolve.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding for myself. My experience in using oceanographic research vessels has been a very pleasant one, and I hope it will stay that way.

**Responses**

1. At the current funding climate, I believe we generally have more ships than funded seagoing research projects. Thus, everything is dependent upon the success rate of seagoing proposals, and/or how much is the commitment of funding agencies to explore and investigate our oceans. If we simply extrapolate our research activities from the present state to the future, then 10 ships instead of 13 will be consistent with the needs, though not necessarily based on the actual scientific interests, of the community.

2. We must remove, or at least minimize, the awarding of ships due to political pressure. Awarding of ships to "new" operators is a noble idea, but we should also be practical about it. I believe the reduction of the number of future ships is partly a cost-cutting exercise; awarding ships to "newer" institutions will defeat such purpose. New infrastructures have to be built in the new locations. It will also dislocate personnel who are qualified because of experience, thereby causing possible interruptions. On the other hand, the idea that "old" operators should be given priorities in getting the replacement awards must not be emplaced. They must show and behave accordingly that they deserve to keep their ship operations.

3. I prefer to see more vessels of smaller berthing capacity because some research projects are really incompatible with others.

4. None.

5. It has to be a case to case basis. Personally, I prefer modifications because we usually have enough experience with existing ones - we know their good points and bad points. We can modify them to keep the good, and replace the bad. Starting new is always a gamble, it can be very costly and create an unpleasant experience for everyone.

6. I should have specified "classical" funding sources in my #1 answer above, but this was what I meant. Regarding "non-classical", I would not rely heavily on it, because it is largely driven by economy. We have had such a strong economy lately, and so there appears to be growth of funding in that sector. I would not bet on such growth.

7. Sorry, no comment.

8. No preference.

9. There will be an increase in demand.

10. I believe fleet "capacity" means its capability to perform the multi-disciplinary tasks demanded by future research projects. It should not be limited to current "topics" of today, but its ability to adapt to new, yet to be developed directions of research.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responding for myself.

I am a physical oceanographer. My use of research vessels has been mainly for the purposes of hydrography
and mooring deployment/recovery.

**Responses**

1. Unless there is reason to expect that oceanographic work in the field is going to be substantially less in the future than it has been in the past, this plan will not, I believe, meet the need. Remote sensing and modeling have not (and will not) reduce the need for ships, but actually increase them, because they increase the value of subsurface and other in-the-field measurements.

2. An overall (but modifiable) plan for the next 10-20 years should include the appropriate institutional assignments. This will allow institutions to plan accordingly or to ask for modifications well before retiring a ship.

3. I would prefer to see more vessels of mid-size (10-20 berthing capacity).

4. No

5. I don't know enough about this question to respond intelligently; but it would seem to me these considerations should come up on a case-by-case basis.

6. My knowledge of this is too limited for my opinion to be worthwhile.

7. I do very little shallow-water work, so I'll leave this one for others to answer.

8. A year or two is altogether too long. I vote for the smaller, less sea kindly ship.

9. I believe that they will increase demand. Just as computers seem to have increased the demand for paper.

10. Current fleet utilization is the obvious starting point. Beyond the next few years it's pretty much a crap-shoot. One issue that may not have received adequate consideration is the possibility of future more frequent use by U.S. investigators of foreign vessels in joint research projects.

11. Should more experimental vessel types be considered? E.g., Semi-submerged ships, FLIP-type stable platforms, research submarines for under-ice use.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been going to sea for 1-3 months/year for the past 18 years. My responses are my own and do not represent the official policy of any organization.

**Responses**

1. I strongly disagree with having fewer large ships in the UNOLS fleet. The best science will be obtained from MORE intermediate and small ships. The intermediate size class (e.g the old Thomas Washington) has almost been eliminated from the current fleet and this should be corrected.

2. There should be a policy of NO political intervention agreed by all UNLOS members. Any infraction should be punished with expulsion from UNLOS.

3. I would rather see more small and intermediate ships (fewer berths) and fewer of the large (many berth) ships. This allows more room for individual research programs and less for "Science by Committee" programs.

4.

5. Yes. Modification to existing hulls should be given serious consideration.

6. The principal loss to ship operations has been from reduced support by the Navy. Some effort should be expended to boost the Navy's role in ship operations, although the success of this effort would be uncertain.

7.

8. Some projects need the larger ship (not an option to use a smaller one). However, both kinds of ships need to be available.

9. Increase demand.

10. The is a catch 22 issue -- in that the availability of ships helps define what the community proposes to do. More availability will boost the demand in that projects can be scheduled and completed in a more timely manner.

11. The issue of specialized/exotic platforms should be kept in mind, such as a replacement for the stable platform FLIP, and the capability for laying undersea cable (in the in telephone company ships).

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been working at UAF for about thirty years, in the capacity of a student, technician and research associate. I have worked extensively on NOAA vessels during the OCS studies in the 1970s, on the Acona (the previous UAF vessel) and on the Alpha Helix (from 1980 to the present). My research has involved deployment of benthic grabs and trawls, and plankton sampling equipment (MOCNESS, NIO nets, bongos, CalVETs). I have also made extensive use of towed acoustic arrays. I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. My experience has been primarily in Alaska, working on the Alpha Helix or NOAA vessels. The Alpha Helix has had two limitation.

1) It has been limited in size and therefore a considerable number of ship days can be lost to weather.
2) The vessel does not have trawl capability.

Since Alaska and the surrounding waters sustain major world fisheries and wildlife resources, it is important that our research capability include the ability to sample both commercial fish and forage fish populations that support the wildlife populations. I have not had sufficient experience in other regions to be able to adequately assess the demands or vessel requirements for the nation as a whole.

2. A major consideration should be the proximity and availability of other vessels. If other vessels are stationed in the vicinity and are available, then a replacement vessel for the retiring vessel may not be necessary. In the case of Alaska, for example, no other major UNOLS vessel other than the Alpha Helix is immediately available in the region. Although NOAA vessels are sent to Alaska periodically, they are usually committed to doing primarily NOAA sponsored research. The additional transit time required to post a vessel to Alaska if it is stationed in Seattle or San Francisco can make Alaskan research cost-prohibitive. It is therefore critical that vessels in Alaska, other remote regions or regions without access to other UNOLS vessels, be replaced if retired.

3. Considerable research interest in the past in the Alaskan region has centered around wildlife resources (marine birds and mammals). These studies often involve a somewhat smaller scientific crew than might be expected for major research initiatives involving concurrent participation of many of the major oceanographic disciplines. If the vessel becomes too large, it may become cost prohibitive to deploy it for smaller studies such as those involving wildlife resources, if the study requires only a limited scientific complement. The Alpha Helix has been used to study Auklet foraging in the Aleutians, Murre foraging near the Pribilofs, gray whale food habits in the Chirikov Basin, Auklet foraging in the King Island, St. Lawrence Island and St. Matthew Island regions, and bowhead whale foraging in the western Chukchi Sea, to name a few examples. These studies may not have been possible if the only vessel available were overly expensive to operate due to its large size and science capacity. The Alpha Helix costs about $10 K per day. Occasionally as much as eight to ten days may be required to get to the sampling region from the home port in Seward Alaska, before a single sample has been collected. These costs might be compared with that required to deploy a large vessel with a large scientific complement to the same region.

4. This seems to be an engineering question. How long can a vessel be safely operated and how difficult is it to upgrade the equipment to reflect modern standards and research goals?

5. If it is cost effective, it should be done. I have no objection to using an older ship if it fulfills the research requirements.

6. The non-UNOLS demand for vessels is difficult to predict. Maintenance of seriously underutilized or unused vessels may substantially effect the amount of money available for other science programs. If vessels are required for research needs by the private sector, the government should not be expected to build and maintain those vessels to fulfill the temporary needs of private business. I would therefore build the UNOLS vessels to reflect as closely as possible, the projected research demands by the university scientific community.

7. Alaska is a region with numerous sounds, inlets and passages. Often research centered in these regions can be most effectively addressed by smaller vessels than would be required for the open ocean research initiatives. Some capability for operation of smaller, less expensive coastal vessels is essential. A vessel the size of the Alpha Helix is ideal for research in the Inland Passage, southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, the Aleutian passages and other protected or semi protected waters. These regions are very extensive geographically and are often critical habitat for species and populations of interest to the research community. I therefore think it is important to maintain the capability of operating smaller vessels in coastal regions.

8. This entirely depends on the research goals. The smaller vessel may be more easily scheduled, but may lose many of its days to weather if the research goals require open ocean sampling. On the other hand, coastal research on specific populations or species may require sampling at specific times during the year, and a smaller less capable vessel may be more easily scheduled and entire adequate to the need. Both capabilities are necessary. Roughly half of the research I have been involved in has required ocean capability and half could have been done with a vessel the size of the Alpha Helix.

9. Towed instrument arrays capable of producing underway depth profiles of salinity, temperature, nutrients, chlorophyll, light attenuation and zooplankton will increase the demand for the research vessel. A promising technology in this respect is the video-plankton recorder. Research vessels should also be capable of collecting continuous underway acoustic data at multiple frequencies for assessment of fish and micronekton. The vessels should therefore be acoustically quiet.

10.

11. I think that our research vessels, especially those based in Alaska, should be trawl capable and they should be acoustically quiet. As ecological models become more complex, the possibility of top down control of plankton and forage fish populations will be critical aspects of ecosystem simulations. Our research vessels must be capable of sampling predator populations, in addition to zooplankton and lower trophic levels. Without this capability, we will be unable to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of these more complex ecosystem models which incorporate higher trophic levels.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have participated in several cruises in the coastal ocean (Georges Bank) aboard the intermediate vessel Oceanus. In the next several years, I will be utilizing non-UNOLS vessels in the coastal ocean.

I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. I would be worried about severely cutting back the research fleet to the extent envisioned. In particular, the replacement of Oceanus and Endeavor in the North Atlantic with a single ocean class will make it difficult for smaller projects to get ship time. The lack of a general purpose global ship for the North Atlantic (with the retirement of Knorr) means that the ocean class ship will most likely be extremely heavily used.

2.

3. Given the choice between fewer ships with larger berthing capacity and more smaller vessels of smaller berthing capacity, i would prefer to see the latter. With the end of the WOCE program, there appears to be somewhat less of a need for large ships with berthing capacities suitable for the multidisciplinary cruises carried out under this program.

4.

5. If modification of existing ships is economically feasible, I think that it makes sense to refit existing ships. When we are talking about major hull modifications, I'm not sure that this can be a distributed process. It seems to me that this type of refit cannot be done more than once during a ship's lifetime or else the costs will be too high. Improvement of shipboard technical capabilities, for example in the areas of electronics and instrument handling should be carried out in a more or less continuous manner over the lifetime of a ship.

6.

7.

8. I would probably choose the smaller ship.

9. I don't believe that these sensing systems will decrease demand for research ships. First of all, ships will be needed for deploying these instruments. Second, these systems are likely to identify new phenomena which will lead to a desire to investigate them with more traditional (shipboard) means.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Approx 20 years, both US coasts, Bermuda, and South Pacific. Chief Scientist on cruises out of coastal US (primarily California coast, SIO and Moss Landing ships) and Bermuda.

I am responding on my own behalf.

**Responses**

1. I have been involved in both kinds of cruises, although as Chief Scientist, my work is primarily coastal. A problem I see relates to availability at specific needed locations. Current scheduling, especially of large ships, can involves significant compromises, such as waiting (for years in extreme cases) for a ship to "already" be near the desired location in the right season. This can only get worse if fewer ships are available. I am particularly thinking about primarily biological cruises, that already have significant restrictions on usage of radioisotopes, etc. If there were fewer large ships, I'd like there to be a concerted effort to be sure that no groups (e.g. biologists) end up consistently "last in line" behind others (e.g. geochemists) when scheduling is tight. The issue for intermediate ships is different - if there were fewer, presumably having more sparsely distributed home ports, this would make it harder for relatively short regional cruises to be operated.

Overall, I'd suspect that there may be more of a shortage of regional ships if the plan as shown is adopted. A lot depends on what kinds of programs get funded, in what proportions. There is certainly a need for both global and regional research efforts on UNOLS vessels.

2. Nothing I say will prevent political intervention. There already is plenty of internal politics in UNOLS. "The rich get richer" applies all too well. I'd like to see the smaller institutions protected from losing altogether in the name of "cost savings." The bigger institutions pass too many costs to end-users (you know who I mean).

3. With fewer ships in general, it will become particularly hard to arrange multi-ship operations. The global type cruises are often short of space now when they support multidisciplinary projects (or even large biological projects), and I'd be glad to see more berths available..

4. no

5. Multiple mid-life refits seem like a very sensible option, especially for vessels that already are popular in the community.

6. I don't know. Of course, I'd like to see NSF and ONR funding increase with the presumed increase in the national interest in environmental/oceanographic issues like global change.

7. I think it is OK as is. In my region, there is no need for a shallow draft.

8. Smaller, less sea kindly. I'd rather not wait a year or two for most of my work. But for other projects, one absolutely needs the larger ship. The intermediate ships often can't do much work even in moderate seas.

9. My guess - increase in the long term. We'll find more interesting things that require a ship to study.

10. It needs to include the breadth of supported activities, and not just person-months. Ships need to support multi-disciplinary groups and have the flexibility to adjust labs/instrumentation/ logistics from project to project.

11. Consider the updating and provision of standard, commonly-used equipment (e.g. CTD, rosettes), as a routine cost of fleet improvement, not a separate item to be charged to PIs.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been chief scientist on expeditions a number of times.
My responses are strictly personal.

**Responses**

1. As the ocean's life support systems respond to global warming and global change, there will be a need for more monitoring and for calibration with monitoring from space. I don't see how this increasing need will be fulfilled by fewer large ships. A need for smaller ships for regional studies, especially along the coasts, also will be strong and should increase as the environment changes and additional study becomes necessary to chart these changes. Such a need is more readily fulfilled within a shorter planning horizon. Nevertheless, such a need can be readily foreseen at this time.

2. As a rule, the institutions who have ships will attempt to keep them, and other institutions will attempt to acquire ships to become players of equal rank. It is undesirable to give excessive importance to the status quo. Having said this, I would remind planners that problems arise when trying to run a laboratory on "on-and-off" funding. Such problems have to do with infrastructure and especially with long term commitment of (and to) people. Whether the life time of a research ship should be the same as a sunset period is worth looking into.

3. The more berths, the longer scientists have to wait for their turn. The question can only be answered in the context of the science to be done.

4. Projected lifetimes should be based on experience rather than on guessing. So, there seems to be little opportunity for generating "significant differences", unless experience is improperly documented, or ignored.

5. A distributed "mid-life refit" might avoid pulsed availability (i.e., lack) of ships, depending on the phasing of the life times. Definitely worth looking into.

6. Ships are expensive. It will be difficult to move a significant portion of their costs out of the funding area of the major agencies and into the realm now used for complementing PI research, for example. It is hard to see how these facilities could attract industrial funding, unless their use were refunctioned.

7. Coastal oceans the world over are showing the influence of human activity and will do so increasingly in the future. The need for studying these impacts will not be addressed by "shallow-draft" vessels.

8. It depends on the science. Sediments don't run away. Plankton responses to El Ninyos do.

9. I don't know.

10. Plankton growth and species adapt to available nutrients, as do oceanographers. One cannot determine necessary change from what is already in place. It depends entirely on what the needs of the future will be, especially the needs of society in coping with changing Earth systems.

11. Perhaps it would be a good idea to pay attention what other nations are doing and planning. Oceanography is highly international in scope.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am a sea-going physical oceanographer and have used many of the UNOLS ship, primarily the Intermediate Class. I am chair of Graduate School of Oceanography's Marine Committee which consists of faculty, marine scientists and support personnel. The purpose of this committee is to advise the Dean of GSO on matters related to small boat operations, the R/V Endeavor and scientific diving. This response is on behalf of GSO/URI as prepared by the Marine Committee.

**Responses**

1. The number of ships in the academic fleet has remained reasonably consistent over the past 28 years and has served well the scientific needs of the country. When satellites came on the scene prognosticators predicted a decline in ship use. This did not happen, in fact more opportunities for ship use opened up. Now as we look to the future we see observatories, moorings, drifter buoys, AUVs and other collection devices making their way into the scientific inventory. Conventional wisdom suggests that these data collectors will replace or reduce the need for ship time. We believe the converse is true. These additional tools will not only open new scientific doors and demand yet more investigation, they will need to be hosted, mothered and serviced. The future will require at least the current number - and most likely more - ships to meet the anticipated demand. This was the conclusion of the Cowles et al report cited in the FOFC paper. The myriad new programs on the horizon will prove to be ship intensive. The Commission to be established by the Oceans Act of 2000 will likely stimulate interest in ocean research creating the needed for yet more ships. It is our recommendation that no less than one-for- one replacement is necessary with an eye toward an even larger UNOLS fleet.

As for the northeast, the replacement of three ships by one is unacceptable. Under the draft plan no general purpose global ships would be homeported in the Atlantic. We see a clear role for at least two new ships. A significant increase in Arctic research is anticipated. Therefore, one ship might be ice hardened and with fisheries capabilities, similar to the plans for the ALPHA HELIX replacement. The northeast also needs a less expensive but extremely capable general-purpose work platform for heavy duty mooring work and single investigator activity. In view of North Atlantic weather this ship needs to be rugged and stable, beyond the capability of a Regional class. Economy and responsiveness must also be attributes.

2. More not fewer ships will be needed in the future making this question mute. If, however, an institution fails to be competitive in seeking a replacement ship they will need to reevaluate their proposal and compete in the next round or retire from the ship operating business.

3. It is clear that recent trends suggest more scientists are going to sea as programs become multi-disciplinary. This increase in berthing also necessitates an increase in lab and storage space thus a larger and more expensive ship. Not all science has been or will be science party intensive and not all new ships should be cut from the same mold. There will clearly be a role for a capable cost-effective workhorse type ship with modest berthing (i.e. 15-20 berths) yet other attributes that make it highly desirable. Only one, or maybe two wires can go over the side at one time, no matter how big the ship. Having the capacity for 25 or 30 scientists drives the life-cycle cost of that ship to the upper limit. A balanced fleet with ships of multiple capabilities is necessary to address the variety of investigative chores foreseen.

4. We believe that using the traditional rule-of-thumb of 30 years for a ship s life is appropriate for a planning document such as this Discussion Paper . Some ships may remain active beyond the 30-year period if they remain competitive and cost effective, however, for planning this number works. The flexibility of lifetime and the competitive process for replacement vessels allow a truly open competitive process.

5. Ship upgrades or mid-life refits focused on improved technical capabilities make sense at the 15-20 year point of their life. Efforts beyond this have not proved economically successful. How many of the WW II vessels converted for research ships survived beyond their 30 year life? Ships deteriorate, wear out, equipment becomes unsupportable and scientific obsolescence sets in. One mid-life refit, including major alterations such as lengthening, and a 30-year life cycle has proven quite successful.

6. We believe that the balance of ship time use including non-classical sources is appropriate and should be continued at about the current level. Having funded programs from DOE, NAVO and NOAA along with an occasional commercial use has provided a buffer against variable funding years with the traditional NSF and ONR programs. Maintaining this buffer leads to a more robust fleet and one that maintains schedule flexibility. Filling the schedules helps to hold down costs that ultimately benefit the NSF and ONR funded investigator. This process works as long as operators preserve an appropriate balance and keep priorities in favor of the core research needs.

7. Most of the Ocean (intermediate) class ships can operate in the coastal region. The difference in draft is usually only 5-10 feet.

8. In an ideal world question 8 need not be asked. We must strive for a balanced fleet not too dissimilar to what exists today.

9. We believe that these new programs will increase the need for ships but these ships may need to have specialized capabilities for the different tasks. For example, servicing moorings may require a certain type of ship. To the extent possible, new ship designs need to remain general purpose, however, some ships should have characteristics that enhance their ability to service observatories and the like while others need to be enhanced for investigative oceanography.

10. There are several ways to define fleet capacity. The number of bunks going to sea is one measure. The number of ship days available can be another. Relying on either metric alone can be misleading. Real Fleet capacity is the ability to provide the appropriate platform at the appropriate time for all funded scientists.

Shipboard support of ocean science is directly related to the research funding available to the sea-going scientists. As this funding increases so does the support function increase. It is folly to key capacity to berths at sea. Taken to the extreme one could suggest that one cruise ship could satisfy the entire oceanographic research community. A full mix of ships in both size and capability is needed to meet the requirements, therefore capacity is better defined by number of ships and ship options. Clearly, larger science parties have been the current trend, but single investigator science has not gone away. Currently twenty-eight ships are supported and provide the capacity for the ocean community. This number allows an equitable distribution of ships and ship sizes. As long as the funding for science programs continues to rise, albeit slowly, so must the capacity increase in the form of number of ships.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I or members of my research group have participated in over 50 biological research cruises. These include both survey, as well as "process" cruises where experiments with living organisms were carried out at sea.

**Responses**

1. The number of ships currently available to scientists appears to work well. Fewer ships would cause a serious shortfall in the ability to get to sea. This is particularly true in the northeast where the plan calls for one ship replacing three. No general-purpose class I/Global ship would be available in the entire Atlantic. In addition, single investigators would be critically restricted without a capable, economical ship to replace ENDEAVOR and OCEANUS. Multi-ship operations would be precluded with this plan.

2.

3. A balanced mix of ships is necessary to respond to the varied scientific problems addressed in oceanography. This suggests some ships with moderate berthing capacity as well as larger ships with greater endurance and berthing.

Multiship operations are essential for many oceanographic studies. The present plan for the N Atlantic would preclude this. The smaller, regional vessel would be too limited in the its operation to meet these needs.

After participating in over 40 biological survey and process cruises in the Georges Bank region during winter and spring over the past 6 years I would argue that my needs were well met by the current intermediate class ships (Oceanus/Endeavor). Seldom were the number of berths a serious limiting factor although a few more would have been nice. A larger ship might have provided better weather handling capability but frequently in biological sampling, the ability to continue working in rough weather is limited by the probability of damage to gear in high seas rather, than the sea-keeping ability of the ship. A larger ship would not make much difference. At the same time a regional class such as the Cape Hatteras would not have been able to work in this area during the seasons of interest.

Many monitoring tasks will be performed in the near future by autonomous instruments. Hence the scientific requirements will probably shift more towards process studies, directed by the array of remote/autonomous observations. Hence fast (to get in time to where the action is), rapid response (because the timing of interesting events is hard to predict) types of ships are needed. This would call for more, smaller ships.

However, our demands on what we would like to study (e.g. high latitudes to study convection processes) at the same time calls for larger, seaworthy ships that can endure AND OPERATE in foul weather. Probably somewhat larger (than ENDEAVOR) ships with a superstructure of no more than 3 decks (incl. working deck) and hence a smaller berthing capacity than ships like KNORR would provide a good compromise. The Oceans class ship would meet these needs

In the future I don't see autonomous instruments, or remote sensing replacing the need to go to sea to collect organisms to measure their distributions in space and time, or to carry out experiments with them, to answer specific oceanographic questions.

4. See above. I don't think that the plans for the Atlantic fleet will come close to meeting future needs

5. If it can be done cost effectively to meet a clear need, sure.

6.

7. Yes. The Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and adjacent Slope waters,