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, may be thought of as "coastal". However a "shallow draft" vessel would be totally inadequate in this region in winter. As an example, the Seward Johnson did not participate in the Georges Bank Globec project until the likelihood of bad weather had diminished.

8. It depends on the region and season of operation. Probably the second choice. Frequently biological studies are very time dependent. For example, the time when a population is in a particular stage of development may be very limited. As mentioned earlier, rough seas limit often limit the deployment of biological gear, not how sea kindly the ship is (unless, off course the ship is really limited such as the regional, coastal vessel)

9.

10. "Fleet Capacity" is hard to define. 100% utilization may not be good because it would tend to place severe constraints on the scheduling of cruises. Time-dependent studies could be difficult to schedule. Some small amount of flexibility would be desirable.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I go to sea about once every 2 years, usually with a small group of close collaborators focused on the same problem. Cruise lengths are typically 2-4 weeks. I have been very satisfied with the resources and crew aboard the Wecoma, Oceanus, New Horizon and Point Sur in recent years. I am writing on behalf of myself and colleagues at both my and other institutions who are investigating the dynamics of mesoscale and smaller processes as they relate to oceanic mixing.

**Responses**

1. For my own research and those of most of my colleagues, the most pressing need is to maintain the fleet of intermediate size ships (e.g., Wecoma, Oceanus, Endeavor, etc). Larger ships do not match my needs well and are expensive. I have never used one. There is also a need to maintain and perhaps enlarge the regional fleet.

2. No opinion

3. Multi-ship operations provide far more flexibility than large ships with more berths. Multiple ships can be cover more territory and make measurements at 2 or more locations simultaneously, a single large ship cannot. Many at-sea operations are mutually exclusive. With multiple ships, many instruments or samplers could be in the water simultaneously without interfering with each other. On a single packed ship, many scientists might be twiddling their thumbs while one group is carrying out its operations. This is a waste of valuable personnel resources. Furthermore, with competing demands on time and weather days, good scientific measurements are more likely to be lost in the large ship model. I strongly prefer the option of multi-ship operations with more vessels of smaller berthing capacity over fewer ships of larger berthing capacity.

4. I am most concerned about any possible gap in intermediate vessel availability in the NE Atlantic or NW Pacific, that is, the continuity of service presently provided by the Wecoma, Oceanus and Endeavor.

5. No opinion but it sounds like a costly alternative in general.

6. It seems likely that the non-classical sources will continue at similar rates.

7. No strong opinion

8. Again, my preference is for the intermediate vessels which best match my scientific needs.

9. Neither of these sensing systems are likely to change my ship needs. They are not particularly well-suited to addressing the dynamical questions I am particularly interested in.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding in behalf of myself. I have experience working from all of the size classes of vessels. I find that the capabilities of the crew tend to outweigh the capabilities of the ship, however smaller vessels have worked better for the types of research that I am involved in.

**Responses**

1. I don't think a reduction in number of vessels will meet the oceanographic needs in the next 30 years. I think the emphasis of ship use will favor smaller vessels, which can be used to support and maintain autonomous systems and work in multiple ship efforts. I think there will be decreased demand for the larger vessels.

2. New ships should be awarded based on competitive proposals, however a discussion about how geographical balance will be maintained needs to be addressed. A geographical balance in the distribution of ships is important to reduce transit time.

3. I strongly disagree with the need for more ships with larger berthing capacity. Additional berths does not imply additional wire time. A balance must be struck between the availability of wire time and berths. I think that balance is easier to maintain with more smaller ships.

4. I have no comment.

5. I think that refits make more sense than developing new ships provided the refit does not try to add capabilities without taking into account the expected life of the vessel.

6. Cautious growth assumptions should be made. The non-classical sources may tend to favor vessels not contained in this report.

7. Shallow-draft vessels should not be used to imply coastal research capabilities. If a shallow draft is not needed for research purposes than the term should be removed from the description in favor of using coastal vessels.

8. The smaller less sea kindly. Larger vessels also tend to be more difficult to deploy and retrieve the types of equipment that I use. Having handling gear that can work in rougher conditions is more important to me than size of the vessel.

9. Without a doubt these systems will increase demand for shiptime. The increase in demand will come in the forms of supporting these systems and collecting ground truth data.

10. Fleet capacity should be defined by the types of systems and sampling a ship is capable of, total wire time available, and berths.

11. In the draft there is no discussion about how changes in the fleet will change the cost of operating the fleet. How does fewer ships at fewer locations impact cost compared to more ships near the study region? How can new ships reduce operating cost by use of more fuel efficient design or reduced manning requirements?

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding for myself. I have spent 1017 days at sea doing oceanographic research on a total of 34 oceanographic expeditions. I have led 23 of these expeditions as Chief or C0-Chief scientist.

**Responses**

1. It absolutely will not meet my needs or those of the community as I see them in the future.

2. No

3. This is a no-win choice, IMHO. We definitely need more ships of the new Oceans class or larger than FOFC proposes. Total berthing on these ships is less important in my mind.

4. No

5. We need to get away from the concept of research vessels as simply taxi platforms. The ships that are the most heavily used, by and large are the ones with special, built in capabilities that are desired by the community.

6. I do not see funding continuing to be level in the long term. The oceans will become more and more important and that will eventually be reflected in increased funding, although maybe not in the Bush presidency.

7. To quote Bruce Heezen, "I don't mess around in shallow water."

8. I don't get sea sick if that's what you mean. If the ship can do what I want it to do, I don't care about the ride.

9. No doubt about it.

10. Fleet capacity in my mind means that all ships are used to about 85% of their full time capacity, which often is about 300 days per year. If they are being used to 100% capacity (the full 300 days) that may make the accountants happy but it means that I will often have to wait more than a year to get the ship I need to do the job I want to do.

11. I am a marine geophysicist and these days our community is only going to sea on the big ships with specialized capabilities. I see the Oceans class ships as being a way to both take some the marine geophysics pressure off the big ships and also reduce the costs of doing marine geophysics at sea. The incongruity right now is that we often go to sea on a big ship because we want the ship's Seabeam capability or whatever, but we bring a very small scientific party onboard so that many bunks are not being utilized. If the Oceans class ships could have the technical capabilities that we need with a more modest number of berths and small daily operating costs, then that would be good for the entire community.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
My response is in behalf of myself. As a grad student my experience has been brief, but I see great potential for research plans that I have once I am finished with my dissertation.

**Responses**

1. As a graduate student it is important to me to have accessible and available research vessels. My intention is to be a frequent user. In addition, the oceans have always been important commercially, environmentally, and scientifically. Our need to understand its processes will only increase. Because of these reasons I think that it is imperative to maintain our fleet size or even increase it! I feel that the current plans to reduce the number of ships could harm and hinder our nation's ability to respond, study, and/or investigate the marine environment in the future. I think that it is important to at least maintain our current level of extended endurance ships.

2. I think that it should be addressed, but I am unsure of how.

3. I tend to think that current numbers of large and small ships are adequate. Smaller ships are needed in order to fulfill specialized roles while still keeping costs and thus turnaround time down. However, larger ships that can remain at sea for extended periods and can operate in extreme weather conditions are crucial in order to conduct some studies--at high latitudes for instance.

4. I think that the regional class acquisitions should be made earlier--there doesn't seem to be much overlap between the retirements and the acquisitions.

5. I think that as long as the ship can remain completely seaworthy and the fleet size remain the same, or increase, then I think it is a good idea to refit ships if that will keep costs down. It will just be important to make sure that the refit is worth the cost. Sometimes it is better to just build a new ship. However, I'm more concerned about having ships available than I am whether or not they are new or a refit.

6. Good question. I think that growth of some kind can be assumed, given the need for greater understanding of ocean processes (especially in regards to food production and climate change). Again, this is why it is important to NOT reduce the number of ships in operation.

7. Yes. Monterey Canyon is an example.

8. Overall, I would rather have one that could be scheduled easier. However, I'm willing to wait if I have to.

9. I think that they will increase demand. New knowledge and data will require more observation and study. Plus ships will be needed to maintain and support Argo and NEPTUNE.

10. I think that we need to look at current usage. Projections should at the very least match what we have now. Realistically, scientific needs are only going to increase. Funding is the big question--for which I don't have an answer.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Last 13 years, Director of Marine Operations , prior to that I averaged 180 days at sea per year supporting shipboard science and manned submersible operations dating back to 1973. My responses are from an operator's point of view.

**Responses**

1. Assuming the Knorr and Melville actually retire by 2010 ( most vessels don't retire on schedule ), there could be over subscribing on the remaining Global Class vessels.Some of the science could possibly be accommodated on Ocean Class vessels, with the larger ones that have the capability and the science berths.We all know that there is more science requests for ship time than there is money,which means that some ships are under subscribed , creating higher daily rates in order to break even.In addition repair and maintenance costs , not to mention fuel and insurance ,are driving operating costs up compounding the problem. With careful planning the Ocean Class and Regional class vessels could be replaced in a manner that would keep the capacity at an adequate level.

2. Without a doubt new vessels should be awarded competitively,however if a vessel is regional the field of competitors is greatly narrowed, sometimes to one. Institutions that operate their own vessels(non government owned or purchased)are faced with the possibility of not being able to replace a vessel upon retirement due to the difficulty of raising funds. If this happens it could further reduce the size of the fleet.

3. Berthing is an age old problem that unless every person has his/her own room will never go away. Vessels are only so big so it's always going to be a tradeoff between staterooms and lab space. The smaller coastal or regional vessels conduct shorter cruises so one only has to endure multi- person staterooms for a short time.This also effects the crew as well. Lack of privacy,lack of space,more noise,etc.,all contribute to the crew well being as well as that of the vessel in general.The larger Global and Ocean class vessels are much better.Generally there are several single staterooms and a number of two person rooms,making life more bearable for longer periods. A number of existing intermediate class vessels were constrained by tonnage rules(<300),under the new rules it won't matter because most new intermediates will be inspected eliminating the need for rule beaters which tended to reduce the berthing capacity.

4. No institution wants to retire a vessel until there is the possibility of a replacement.

5. Mid-life refits are definitely a good way to not only extend the life of a vessel but to improve her capabilities. Also stretches can add valuable deck and lab space and in some cases berthing and tankage, not to mention better fuel economy and increased speed.This is more cost effective than new construction,but does not double the life of the vessel so while it buys more time for the fleet,there still needs to be vessel replacements in the wings.

6. I think we should take a cautious approach. Hopefully the Navy and NOAA needs will continue to grow.Perhaps other agency's (DOE,USGS,MMS,ETC.) will come to the table with greater needs.The emphasis on the Gulf Of Mexico recently should generate more demand for shiptime.

7. I don't think "coastal" and "shallow draft" should be synonymous , larger vessels (intermediate or ocean class) can perform quite well in coastal areas and provide a more stable platform for operations. (Example coring and small boat support)

8. No comment

9. Yes to a certain extent, existing vessels could service the buoys ( fuel ,maintenance). I believe a vessel with a greater capacity for heavy weight handling will be needed to deploy/recover the equipment.

10. Funding or rather the lack of will be the determining factor. Like it or not it's a fact of life.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Have been at sea frequently for classical hydrography (CTD) since 1972, and occasionally with Seasoar since 1992, and with GLOBEC NEP interdisciplinary cruises since 1997.

I am responding as an individual.

**Responses**

1. No, I am not convinced that fewer larger ships will adequately meet the needs of the community. We do need a few larger ships, but we also need some medium-sized highly-seaworthy ships that can be scheduled with a bit more flexibility. One of the trends in recent decades is to deploy freely floating instruments some of which need to be recovered for servicing (e.g. floats, gliders, etc.), and these cruises need only a few people, but a lot of flexibility in timing and duration (because one needs to allow time for weather, for the possibility of large displacements from target location, etc).

2. Factors which should be included in consideration are:

1) support facilities available at the host institution (pier, staging, management, etc)
2) the track record of the quality of operating existing or prior vessel (personnel, management, safety, etc).

3. I am very concerned by the length/sci-berths numbers in the table in the draft document; particularly for Regional Class and Ocean Class vessels. More then 20 scientists on a ship only 44-55 m long puts scientists at sea without adequate lab space, or without adequate deck space, or without adequate crew, or on a vessel has some new design that may not be sufficiently robust to survive the severe storms and severe sea states that occur off Oregon, Washington, and northern California with great regularity.

The interdisciplinary cruises which require large numbers of scientists also require a large amount of lab space.

One of strengths of the UNOLS fleet is its excellent safety record. I do not see how we can maintain this safety record with that many scientists on ships that small (20+ scientists for a length of 40-55 m; or 25+ scientists for lengths of 55-70 m. long)

4. I am not an expert on lifetimes, and note only that the lifetime of the hull, berthing facilities etc might be expected to be longer than the lifetime of laboratory facilities. It seems to me that some refitting will be required at intervals shorter than 30 years, but that the basic hull, engine, etc., should last at least that long.

5. yes, improvements should be made on an ongoing basis to the extent that this is feasible.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding as an individual.

I served as the Chairman of the University of Alaska ship committee for 23 years. I have been active in UNOLS for 26 years and served on the Fleet Improvement Committee. I have used UNOLS vessels, ranging from the smallest to the largest, primarily in the Pacific. I am an active, seagoing researcher.

**Responses**

1. I believe that there will be increased demand for coastal vessels but with increased capacity to accommodate more interdisciplinary research. We will still have need for deep ocean work as we venture into new process oriented studies there. The choice in this question is either/or as it is stated rather than a whether we will need both large ships with extended capabilities AND more smaller vessels. Since future demand is uncertain and large ships can be used where small ships would suffice but the reverse is not true, we should go for large, very capable ships that can be used for open ocean and coastal work.

2. The open competition for research vessels fraught with problems. Without funds for research vessel construction in the federal budget in either NSF, Navy or NOAA, then it requires a direct political process to get a vessel built. The organization that will get the vessel must spearhead that process. For example, the Alaska Regional Research Vessel, possibly the Alpha Helix replacement, will require about $50 M for it's construction. Who will be walking up on the hill to request those funds, science community members from the State of Alaska, California, Texas, etc.? Once construction funds are placed in the federal budget by this process, will this vessel be awarded competitively?

Ideally, one of the federal agencies should incorporate vessel construction costs in their budget and the UNOLS community should then match up the plans for fleet improvement with the funds available. At that point, the ship could be awarded in a more open, competitive manner. The entire UNOLS community could lobby their congressional representatives for these construction funds without having to resort to individual political interventions.

3. We will probably need more berths on fewer vessels but we will need to also have increased ability for multi-ship operations such as specialized operations for fisheries and ROV work.

4. R/V Alpha Helix should be replaced as soon as possible. Construction funds need to be identified.

5. Who has modified a 20 year old car rather than buying a new one?

6. I applaud the efforts to keep the capacity of the fleet maintained by looking to other sources of funding for ship operations. However, the academic community should not be operating vessels that are not tied to the mission of the university. Unless the primary purpose of the vessel operation is to provide a sea-going research platform for university faculty, it should not be operated as a UNOLS ship. New vessel construction should be done to satisfy research needs, not other service as a charter vessel.

7. It should be recognized that the needs for coastal vessels vary around the U.S.. Generally, the a shallow draft coastal vessel is not needed on the west coast, Alaska or Hawaii.

8. Since my research field program began on the 85' R/V ACONA in the winter in the Gulf of Alaska, I have a bias toward having smaller, more available platforms available even though I have used 279' vessels, too. This generally runs counter to the newest generation of oceanographers that usually prefer larger vessels with more berths and amenities such as 7/24 Internet access. With more interdisciplinary research programs more likely in the future, larger vessels are inevitable.

9. I believe that these new systems will change the type of work that our vessels will do. We will be doing more process oriented work and less expeditionary and monitoring work. The new sensing systems will increase opportunities for more interdisciplinary field work that will require research vessels.

10. We must have vessels that are flexible to the changing needs of the research community remembering that a newly built ship will be operating in 2030. Our present vessels reflect changes in oceanography that have taken place since the 1970s. While they are basically the same hulls, they are much more capable at ocean sampling than they were initially. In this sense, fleet capacity is not a static quantity. The fleet is there to serve the science community and they are the ones who will have to define capacity. Unfortunately, the time required to design, fund and a research vessel is about 10 years and the vessel lifetime of 30 years is a strong mismatch with the changes in the directions and funding of science. The fleet must be capable of satisfying needs that unknown at this time. UNOLS should also include other platforms for ocean sampling in addition to conventional research vessels.

11. I am concerned about a possible trend for less sea-going activities in the oceanographic community. This might be due in part to improved remote sensing capabilities, the completion of major ocean programs such as WOCE and JGFOS, more historical data available, and disconnects between ship operations and the scientists. I sense that there is less interest in going to sea among students.

Previously, UNOLS vessels were a source of pride for the operating institution and their young faculty members were encouraged to utilize those facilities. The process that made UNOLS vessels available to all in the academic community, which is good, also diminished the participation by local scientists in their ship operations. Presently, many institutional ship committees, if they exist, do not involve local scientists. Instead, UNOLS has done an excellent job of providing platforms for the science community without requiring their active involvement. UNOLS needs to get scientists involved in the ship operations to assure that those ships meet the needs of the scientists and foster their interest in sea-going activities.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I respond as an individual, one who worked at sea only briefly and years ago, before my research took me into non-seagoing territory. As Associate Dean I am sensitive to the need for graduate students and young scientists to get experience in observational oceanography. The decline of Cold War pressures could be matched by a desire for comprehensive knowledge of and stewardship for the world oceans; if scientists could improve their communication with nonspecialists this might lead to an increased role for science in the discourse on the environment. Thus, even though I don't go to sea I am supportive of a fleet which is capable and readily available, even if that means it is expensive.

**Responses**

1. The analysis which underlies the recommendations seems sound, but may underemphasize the importance of flexibility: a fully utilized resource inevitably translates to longer waits for access and very likely to missed opportunities to respond to unexpected events.

2. Saying more will not reduce the role of intervention.

3.

4.

5.

6. While the cautious growth assumption seems prudent, it also seems clear that seagoing observations should play an increasing role in the science, and that all opportunities for funding should be pursued and compromises of ship availability should be avoided as much as possible.

7.

8.

9.

10. My response on Q1, relating to flexibility, may apply here as well.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
somewhat less than occasional ship user, on behalf of myself

**Responses**

1. How are the needs of seagoing oceanographers served by only one ship replacing three? We need one class I ship and a somewhat smaller one for the North Atlantic. The latter would serve in place of both Endeavor & Oceanus

2. No matter what the institutions want, and no matter what makes sense, the decisions will be made in Congress.

3. Why is it either/or? If two ships are built for the Atlantic, it seems more appropriate to outfit one with endurance and berthing capability, and a smaller one for more restricted operations.

4.

5. mid-life refit works for me

6.

7.

8. In general, more sea-kindly makes for better science; the ultimate answer depends on the availability of Transderm scopolamine.

9. My guess is "increase", if only because the more one looks, the more one finds new research opportunities and more questions to ask.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
My response is a personal one. It is based on my experience over the past 30 years and my hopes for the future. I have used a wide range of UNOLS ships including Endeavor, Wecoma, Knorr, Gyre, and the Atlantis II. I have also worked on NOAA and Navy ships. As a chemical oceanographer with interests in the interactions among chemistry, physics, and biology in the ocean I have found substantial limitations because we greatly under-sample the oceanic processes we seek to understand. Studying a system once or twice a year from a ship is not enough.

**Responses**

1. I will take exception to a number of the premises contained in the FOFC paper. While I will respond to this survey's questions I would like to incorporate some broader views in my answers. The proposed reduction in the number of ship platforms available for U.S. ocean science is a great concern. There seems to be an assumption here that over the next few decades our scientific community will focus on a smaller number of problems which require more bunks per ship. Clearly we do not want to over-build the academic fleet. We also need a fairly wide range of platforms. And we want them to be as cost-effective as possible. The FOFC paper lacks a vision of where we should be going in ocean science. Given the need for improved knowledge of the ocean to address issues such as climate, over-harvesting of marine living resources, greater recovery of non-living marine resources, impacts of human activities on the ocean, etc. we should be planning for some reasonable growth in this field. The FOFC paper cites the real growth of NSF ocean science as 20% over 28 years (1972-2000), as quasi justification for fewer ships. Is this the basis on which we should plan for the future? I think not.

2. The selection of which institutions operate the ships should not be a factor in defining what the fleet should look like. We need good geographic distribution of ships and operators for efficiency. We should not end up with two or three ship-operating institutions. We should be open to the possibility that a ship may not reside at an institution for its entire operational life. It appears that an ice-hardened ship is needed in the Pacific, but not in the Atlantic. Why is this? If we have such a ship maybe it should spend some time in both oceans, and maybe in the Southern Ocean too. The FOFC paper seems to make this ship synonymous with being an Alaskan ship.

3. The FOFC paper seems to relate productivity at sea with the number of berths on the ship. We should have some Global Class ships in the fleet, but having an oceanic fleet with only Global and Ocean class vessels will reduce the opportunities investigators will have to explore new areas of our science.

4.

5.

6. I was surprised that while the FOFC paper acknowledged that NOAA and the Navy are making use of academic ships, we should not consider this as a factor in defining the future fleet. I don't know how the NOAA and Navy investigators have viewed use of UNOLS vessels, but I would think we should consider these ships to be an important national capability that can meet the needs of mission agency science needs as well as those of the academic community.

7. In my experience you use shallow draft vessels when you have to, but you sacrifice seakeeping ability, and restrict the conditions in which you can work. Coastal and shallow-draft should not be considered to be the same.

8. For some parts of the world and for some types of research I would like to be able to request a large, sea kindly ship with lots of bunks. But for a larger number of research objectives I would be happy with a less capable ship that would be more available and cost less per day.

9. Argo, NEPTUNE, satellites, volunteer observing ships, moored arrays will not reduce the need for ships. The need for ships will depend on the level of resources the US invests in ocean science. If the funding rate for proposals is 25% of those submitted, then P.I.'s will be spending lots of time writing proposals, they won't have much time for research or using ships.

10.

11. The FOFC paper should be examined in terms of what capabilities will exist for important areas of the ocean. Their paper seems to say that we will not be studying the Atlantic much in the next couple of decades, except for US coastal waters. Two of the major ships identified to be based in the Atlantic are really world ocean ships due to their specialized type of operations: MG&G and submersible investigations. There is no sense in the report that our future oceanographers will be working in places remote from the US such as the Southern Ocean, the Indian Ocean, etc.

While I have not seen statistical summaries to support this view, I have the sense that the US is playing a smaller role in the advances in ocean science globally than it did 10 years ago. This is based on the author affiliations of journal papers in our field. European institutions have a larger presence than they did 10 years ago. The same is true of China. It is good that other countries are joining in the effort to study the ocean. But are we keeping up? The FOFC paper does not lead us in a direction that will enable us to keep up.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Operation or support of NOAA Ships 70-'94, OSU Ship Operations since '94. My responses are mine, not necessarily those of OSU.

**Responses**

1. I suspect more smaller, regional ships will more suit science needs, at least in the Northeastern Pacific, than a few larger ships. There seems to be an increasing demand for work during the spring-summer-fall timeframe all fairly close to US west coast ports -- large size, high endurance is not needed to support this work. There are also more projects requiring multi-ship operation to get simultaneous spatial sampling.

2. Depends on what "competitively" is interpreted to mean. Does it include things like: Availability of physical facilities (piers, science staging areas, shops, etc.) to support a resesearch ship and research? Successful history of safe, efficient and effective ship and marine technician program operation? Accessibility to science programs using vessel? Location of home port w.r.t. likely operating areas?

3. Berthing is rarely an issue on our "intermediate" with 18 science berths. Deck space and lab space are more critical. We've divided some cruises into two legs to accommodate deck space and lab space constraints. I'd think "more, smaller" is better for regional work where the costs of getting to/from the work area are comparatively small.

4. 30 years seems arbitrary. The USCG has kept buoy tenders in service for 50 years, NOAA's present fleet includes a number of ships put into service in the 60's, etc. Service life is as likely to depend on science needs as any physical aspect of the vessels.

5. My impression is that the current fleet does undergo ongoing improvement as far as science equipment and capabilities, habitability, replacing auxiliary machinery, etc. Others can probably comment on the Knorr/Melville work, Atlantis repowering, etc. I would think that the example of modifying a vessel to improve acoustic properties could be prohibitively expensive since machinery isolation, shafting, propeller speed and shape, etc. would probably be involved.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been a frequent user of UNOLS vessels and also operate two non-UNOLS vessels at my current institution. I have responded primarily as an individual.

**Responses**

1. If global ocean observatories are installed, we will need large ships to service them. Probably a number at near the current level will be about right. Coastal observatories can be serviced by smaller boats, but I am not sure we will need more of that size class than we currently have. I use seismic vessels, so am happy to see anticipated a replacement for the Ewing.

The needs of interdisciplinary ocean science and exploration will push us to use large vessels, even for relatively short trips (2 weeks).

2. Political interventions have been a problem in the past, and will probably continue to be a problem no matter what we say.

3. Someone needs to do a cost analysis on this. I imagine a future in which spatial coverage is obtained via AUVs deployed from ships. In that case, one large ship will be more cost effective that several small ships. This result would not hold for experiments where it is better to be in several places at once, and AUVs won't do the job.

4. No expertise.

5. My own experience with a major ship refit is that it might have been better to start over again from scratch! Sometimes the cost effectiveness of a refit is demonstrated on paper using an optimistic scenario, and it doesn't materialize in practice. One exception to this is good experience I've seen in acquiring relatively young industry vessels during periods of downturn. UNOLS can get good ships for pennies on the dollar, and use the leftover money for minor refits to make the ships suitable for science.

6. I think the non-classical sources could be more important and a critical source of revenue for maintaining a more diverse research fleet. That is why I get really upset when I hear of cases where oceanographic institutions have been "punished" for raising outside operating money by having their UNOLS days reduced.

7. Absolutely. See the FUMAGES report on this very issue!

8. I'd wait for the bigger ship. Can't afford to be weathered out or have the experiment fail. I usually wait a year or two anyway, so what's the difference?

9. Argo probably won't impact ship use, except as PIs follow up on interesting features seen in the data. NEPTUNE will require a semi-dedicated ship (at least during the NE Pacific weather window) with an ROV for servicing the equipment installed in the array. Other ships of opportunity will probably do more complex experiments within the NEPTUNE installation.

10. Fleet capacity probably needs to be measured in ship days, but in that case it cannot be just one plot. There probably need to be two plots, one for coastal vessels and another for global vessels. Other capabilities such as ice breakers, etc. also need to be considered.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am sea-going physical oceanographer that has used many UNOLS ships over the last 12 years. I am responding on my behalf.

**Responses**

1. First, in the proposed plan, it is stated that the fleet (over 130 feet) will be reduced from 13 to 10 ships. However, one of the new ships is a replacement for the Moana Wave which is not listed as a ship taken out of service. The present number of Intermediate/Global-class ships has served well the scientific needs of mine and the country. I mainly use the Intermediate-class ships since their size (including berths) and capabilities meet my needs. There has only been a couple times when tightness of ship schedules affected my research. The future will require at least the current number and, more likely, more ships to meet the anticipated demand of servicing and deploying the new sensor platforms. This was the conclusion of the Cowles et al report cited in the FOFC paper.

I am a bit concern about the replacement plan proposed. In the northeast, the replacement of three ships by one is unacceptable. Under the draft plan no general purpose global ships would be based in the Atlantic. In the North Pacific, there will be two Ocean-class and one Global-class ship. There is a clear need for at least two new ships for the North Atlantic. 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 other ship would be a less expensive but extremely capable (e.g. winter North Atlantic operations) general-purpose work platform as we have in the OCEANUS, ENDEAVOR and WECOMA. In view of North Atlantic weather this ship needs to be rugged and stable, beyond the capability of a Regional class.

2. I think a competitive peer-review process is required to determine the operators of the replacement vessels. The decision should be based on geographic needs, ability of the institution to operate a ship, institutional support and the quality of proposal. It would be probably best to have a semi-permanent panel of scientists and operators to provide continuity in the multi-year replacement schedule.

3. While it is true that recent trends suggest more scientists are going to sea as programs become multi-disciplinary, there is still a need for a single or small group of investigators to undertake open ocean work. There will clearly be a role for a capable cost-effective workhorse type ship with modest berthing (i.e. 15-20 berths). A balanced fleet with ships of multiple capabilities is necessary to address the variety of investigative chores foreseen.

4. The 30-year period seems reasonable as a first estimate. Many ships operate longer than that but how many ships are 45+ years old.

5. The economics of major modifications to a ship as suggested by the question versus the cost of building a new ship is beyond my knowledge to make an informed response.

6. The inclusion of ship time use including "non-classical" sources is appropriate and should be continued at about the current level as long as it doesn't significantly affect the scheduling of basic research cruises. 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.

7. Most of the Ocean(Intermediate)-class ships can operate in the most of the coastal region. The difference in draft of these ships and the Regional class is usually only 5-10 feet. The question really relates to maneuverability of the ship in small areas.

8. I would prefer more Intermediate/Ocean-class ships. It is hard enough to get funded to go to sea in the year you desire. Imagine how complicated budgets would be if you didn't know whether your cruise would be delay a year or two until after you were told you were funded. You need to keep your sea-going support staff employed. Do you budget the most extreme case? Our technicians have certain skills and we can't lay them off for a year or two and hope to get them back.

9. These new programs will increase the need for ships. For example, look at the ship time used just to service the TAO array. Some of the new 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.

11. Fleet capacity should be defined in terms of whether the scientists are getting to go to sea at the time and place they desire and on the ship they desire. Most scientists would ask for the smallest ship that they need. Maybe, statistics based on the ship request forms of the funded projects. The actual scheduled ship time takes in other factors for economical usage of the ships. For example, on one cruise, we were scheduled on a GLOBAL ship for a scientific part of 7.

The fleet capacity could be significantly higher if research funding available increase. NSF Program Managers have consistently stated that more proposals are worthy of support than what they can fund. I would expect these worthy proposals contain sea-going proposals. Thus, as long as the funding for science programs continues to rise, albeit slowly, the fleet capacity must remain the same of increase in the number of ships.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have gone to sea on oceanographic research cruises since 1980. These cruises have been on Canadian, American and Russian research vessels. My research has been conducted on small (<50 feet), intermediate and global class vessels. The opinions expressed are my own.

**Responses**

1. The proposed plan states that the fleet (over 130 feet) will be reduced from 13 to 10 ships. The present number of Intermediate/Global-class ships has served the needs of the oceanographic community well. It is my belief that future ship requirements will be at least equal to those today and in all likelyhood greater. In the future, more shiptime will be required for the calibration and servicing of new scientific platforms (e.g., observatories, AUV's). As well, future large-scale, multi-investigator programs will probably include the involvement of two or more research vessels, requiring more of an investment of ship days per program.

The current ship replacement plan is unacceptable as it now stands. In the northeast, three ships will be replaced by one and no general purpose Global-class ship would be based in the Atlantic. There is a clear need for at least two new ships for the North Atlantic, one of which should be a general-purpose work platform like the R/V OCEANUS and R/V ENDEAVOR.

2. A competitive peer-review process should be required to determine the operators of the replacement vessels. The decision should be based on geographic needs, ability of the institution to operate a ship, institutional support and the quality of proposal. It would be probably best to have a semi-permanent panel of scientists and operators to oversee the replacement of vessels in the fleet.

3. Recent trends suggest more scientists are going to sea as programs become more multi-disciplinary. However, there is still a need for ships to host single or small group of investigators (i.e. 15-20 berths) undertaking studies in oceanic environments. A balanced fleet with ships of multiple capabilities is necessary to best serve the oceanographic community.

4. The 30-year lifetime of a research vessel seems reasonable, given present day shipbuilding capabilities and materials.

5. One mid-life refit, including major alterations to a vessel, and a 30-year life cycle has proven quite successful and should be continued.

6. The inclusion of ship time use including "non-classical" sources is appropriate and should be continued. Maintaining this buffer leads to a more robust fleet and one that allows flexibility in ship scheduling. These funding sources help to hold down costs that benefit NSF and ONR funded investigators.

7. Most of the Ocean(Intermediate)-class ships can operate in the most of the coastal region. The difference in draft of these ships and the Regional class is usually only 5-10 feet. The question really relates to maneuverability of the ship in small areas.

8. More Intermediate/Ocean-class ships are needed. The inclusion of more of these vessels into the fleet should be a priority of the ship replacement program.

9. These new programs will increase the need for ships. When satellites came on the scene, a decline in ship use was predicted. This did not happen.

10. Fleet capacity should be defined in terms of whether the scientists are getting to go to sea at the time and place they desire and on the ship they desire. If research funding increases significantly in the coming decade, then fleet capacity will also need to increase.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
14 years as Master of regional and local research vessels in Louisiana and Bermuda. 7 years as Marine Superintendent in Bermuda. All of the above comments are my own view of this subject.

**Responses**

1. Reducing the number of large expensive ships would better fit the current ship usage. More smaller ships with expanded capability (science party and science space}would reduce transit time.

2. To help limit transit time an effort to strategically locate the ships should be attempted. Political interventions seems inevitable.

3. Berthing should be at least 50% greater for a given size vessel then at present and an equal increase in lab and possibly deck space should be allowed for as well. A larger number of lower endurance/larger berthing capacity ships would shorten the duration of some cruises. This could be accomplished by having the slightly smaller ships better distributed along our coasts thereby reducing the amount of transit time. These ships should also be more economical to operate.

4. Modern ship construction, great maintenance, and limited "on the job" damage can allow R/V's a greater than 30 year life. Good examples are "Atlantis II", "Alpha Helix" and "Sea Diver". A flawed or obsolete design on the other hand might make a 30 year life a blessing.

5. Yes to "feasible improvements in the existing ships". I agree with the rest as well. One point to contemplate is that it might be cheaper to test a modification on an existing hull than on a new class of R/V's.

6. Not my area, but the obvious efforts in co-operation between "classical" and "non-classical" ship users over the last few years has been impressive and is a credit to those involved.

7. Bigger and wider might allow a shallower draft than the present intermediate class.

8. Not my area.

9. Not my area.

10. Not my area.

11. Should we come up with one coastal research vessel (instead of an ocean vs. regional class) that would uniformly cover our coastal zone? Put another way, do we want a less capable regional vessel spaced in between two ocean class vessels on the far corners of the east and west coast?

This might save during construction due to economies of scale. It would also give all coastal areas quick access to a common work platform. Large projects could draw equal assets from neighboring areas.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:

I am responding on my own behalf. I have sailed as a scientist on large and mid-size vessels, and have used mid-sized vessels extensively in my research, including a number of stints as Chief Scientist on Endeavor.

**Responses**

1. The ships currently available for seagoing research are heavily utilized. A decrease in the number of ships would negatively affect the ability of scientists to get to sea where they need to be and when they need to be there. The situation would be particularly serious in the northeast, where the FOFC plan recommends replacing three vessels with one, which would not be a general purpose class I/Global ship. This would impose a particular hardship on individual investigators in this region, who currently use Endeavor and Oceanus. The proposal to replace 3 ships with one in this region is simply not acceptable.

2. We should not be asking this question. More ships will be needed in the future.

3. Some seagoing research is personnel intensive. Some is not. Ships are needed which meet both needs, i.e., larger (more costly) vessels and mid-size (more economical) vessels. I support a balanced fleet with ships of multiple sizes and capabilities distributed appropriately among geographic regions.

My own experience is that more berthing capacity is needed, particularly on mid-size vessels. As our seagoing instrumentation has developed and become ever more complex, increasing numbers of personnel, including ships' marine technicians, are needed to operate and maintain the gear. On most vessels, these people occupy science berths. In addition, research programs have become more interdisciplinary, increasing berthing demand as well as increasing the need for lab space and storage capacity.

4. If a particular vessel is seaworthy, scientifically capable, and cost effective, it should not be retired at 30 years.

5. According to my institution's Marine Office, the model of a single mid-life refit and a thirty year lifetime has proven to be successful and economically feasible. The greatest concern is that major improvements after 30 years have not been cost effective.

6. I believe that a balance of "classical" and "nonclassical" ship use is desirable. Use of the academic fleet by "nonclassical" sources should be continued at approximately the current level. This provides a buffer against variable funding from the traditional agencies and permits maintenance of a larger and more flexible fleet for all users.

7. Most of the present intermediate class ships are able to operate in most coastal regions. The question should be reversed: can ships designed specifically to operate in very shallow waters operate successfully in deeper waters?

8. Because of the nature of my own research in a seasonally varying pelagic environment, I personally would prefer maximum flexibility in scheduling. However, due to the large diversity of research needs, I believe that the academic research fleet needs adequate access to both large and smaller vessels. All vessels should be as seakindly as possible.

9. I believe that new sensing systems will only increase the demand for research vessels. New sensing systems will ultimately reveal new phenomena that will require ships in order to perform detailed investigations. Ships are also needed to deploy and service the sensing systems.

10. A fleet with adequate capacity will provide the appropriate vessel at the appropriate time for all funded scientists, including both "classical" and "nonclassical" users.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I regularly conduct my science at sea, usually from Intermediate or Regional sized vessels. Responding as an individual.

**Responses**

1. More INTERMEDIATE class (not regional) vessels with some expanded capabilities over those presently found.

2. The process should be merit-based, first, foremost, and finally.

3. I basically agree with the notion of fewer ships w/ more endurance and berthing, provided this doesn't mean that we loose the flexibility of smaller ship ops.

4. No

5. Modifications and improvements to existing hulls make great sense.

6. The NSF Decadal Planning Committee has recently posted its preliminary report addressing some of the frontiers of interdisciplinary oceanography: ( http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/publications/decadal/ ) If a significant part of these big problems is to be addressed in the near future, significant ship resources will be required. We do not want to shut off promising research avenues for lack of ship resources.

7. Perhaps.

8. If I am working off the west coast of the lower 48, a properly fitted INTERMEDIATE-class vessel would generally be satisfactory and preferred from the scheduling perspective. However, open-ocean work, including of the sort conducted in recent years by JGOFS and WOCE, will require the large-capacity vessels with their attendant scheduling challenges.

9. In the coming decade or two, I suspect that such profilers and observatories will slightly increase the demand for research ships. In my experience with development of an AUV, we required multiple trips at sea in all phases of instrument development and testing, and this continued into the deployment phase. The capability to transmit real-time data ashore is often of principal value if it then becomes possible to mobilize research vessels to respond to unusual or interesting 'events' or features. In the longer term (20-30 years), as such technologies becomes extensive and widespread, there may be a slight decrease in demand for shiptime.

10. No comment.

11. Inclusion of very stable multi-hull vessels for regional studies would be of great benefit to the UNOLS fleet. This would open up the possibility of conducting more elaborate measurements in shipboard laboratories, of certain benefit to biological studies and probably to other fields as well. Stable, maneuverable platforms with adequate lab space that can move at high speed should be given serious consideration. The use of multi-hulls should not be damned altogether because of past problems with one particular design.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself. As Executive Secretary of UNOLS and Marine Superintendent at URI I have been intimately involved in UNOLS ship operations for over 22 years. I have attended every national level scheduling meeting held by UNOLS during this period as well as dozens of regional meetings. I have taken part in 10 or more science cruises.

**Responses**

1. The report suggests that 13 ships are being retired and replaced by 10. In fact, 14 ships will be retired when including Moana Wave or a 24% reduction in the fleet (of ships over 130ft.). What is more alarming is that the plan calls for the retirement of the only general purpose Global ship in the Atlantic with no replacement. The Atlantic also will lose 5 intermediate ships and gain two Ocean class and one Regional class for replacement. Overall the Atlantic will lose 8 ships replaced by 5 or a 33% reduction (of ships over 130 ft.). This loss of capacity and capability will severely impact the ability of investigators working in the Atlantic and Gulf.

2. No Comment

3. More science berths equate to more expensive ships. The new Ocean Class needs to have multiple capabilities. Some ships in this class must be capable with many science berths while others should be very seaworthy yet less expensive to operate. As an example, mooring work requires a robust, seaworthy ship yet requires few science berths. This is also true of ships that will service observatories. The key here is a balanced fleet.

4. For the purpose of this report, a 30 year lifecycle works.

5. One mid-life refit during a 30 year ship cycle seems to work well.

6. It is very important to continue with the "non-classical funding sources to give operators options during slow funding periods. This has the obvious affect of maintaining a fleet with a wide variety of capabilities, both scientists and operators win.

7. No Comment

8. By continuing the process of maintaining non-classical funding, as discussed in 6 above, the fleet numbers can be maintained at a level to provide flexibility in scheduling and accommodate the needs of most science programs.

9. Yes, these systems will stimulate science questions that will need answered. In addition, they will alert investigators to episodic events that will demand investigation. Thought should be given to placing a ship or ships in a standby mode able to respond to such events.

10. Fleet capacity must stay in step with science funding levels. As science funding increases, in real dollars, so must capacity.

11. The plan is mute as to who will fund the new ships. In the plan 4 ships, currently owned by institutions, will be replaced by 3. Does this suggest that the federal agencies are taking on the purchase of three ships not currently their responsibility?

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responding myself. Many blue water cruises, including Nordic Seas, Arctic Ocean, North Atlantic Ocean, Southern Ocean, and South Pacific Ocean.

**Responses**

1. I do not see a declining need for large ships. The trend is to put more science on the ships, whether "all ocean" or not. The designation "all ocean" is less crucial, over the fleet, than the ability to put a wide range of equipment types and weights over the side and to host a large scientific party. Usually the ships that can do those best are "all ocean" simply because once you have a ship that large it's rather a waste not to also build in some real endurance. Another way to look at it is that the regional ships will be larger, and will by default be able to work farther afield. I also think there will be increasing need for some special purpose ships, i.e. ships which are optimized to do a difficult, important mission well. These are national assets, neither institutionally or regionally bound.

2. The situation is akin to military base closures. Congress will meddle with any plan unless it is their plan and they vote that they must abide by it, similar to the way that they handle the base closures. This suggests that Congress must somehow come up with a plan to add and remove ships - hopefully with lots of agency/community guidance - and then put into place rules which keep them from meddling with it themselves. ???

3. Not all ships need to have maximum berthing. I think that instead of only going generic we should specialize at least some of the present or new ships. Perhaps we could have one or two R/V Gargantua vessels, with a ton of berths and lab space from here to eternity, but there are others of us who need super endurance, or specialized, heavy weather over the side capabilities, or whatever. If I were trying to best enable future science, I would look, nationally, at how we could institute pockets of specialization, while maintaining the concept of individual UNOLS operators.

4. It seems to me that ships have a useful lifetime longer than 30 years, but I am not a maritime expert. If we end up decreasing ships, we cannot take ship A offline until its replacement is ready to do science, that's for sure.

5. Some of the specialization could be done to existing hulls. This would especially appropriate for a special need that one could not reasonably expect to go on for more than 10-15 years.

6. Tough one. If NSF/OCE funding rises faster than inflation, NSF use of ships should be assumed to increase at at least that rate. There is definitely pent up, unmet demand. Some really good proposals remain unfunded. Some of these use ships. If NSF ever makes progress on the proposal pressure issue, we can expect concomitant increases in ship use. One big unknown on academic use of all-ocean vessels is NOAA. If NOAA itself does all the resurveying for CO2, which will go on a _long_ time, then there will be fewer WOCE-like cruises on UNOLS vessels. But NOAA has been an inconstant partner, at best, for example in WOCE.

7.

8. To work in some regions I could go only on a sea-kindly vessel. It's a cruise by cruise choice.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have spent 5 years at sea, including 4 years on various Global (100 m) Russian ships in the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans, and two GLOBEC Georges Bank cruises on the Endeavor.

**Responses**

1. The FOFC approach is too conservative. There will be a need for MORE LARGER ships (Global class) with all ocean capability and extended endurance, capable to work in the Arctic, northern North Atlantic/Pacific and in the Southern Ocean. There will also be a need for MORE SMALLER ships (Ocean and Regional class) for near-coastal, shelf and shelf-break studies. The current plan to leave just one ship for the Northeast (instead of the current three) should be revised to add one Global ship (for the North Atlantic studies) and at least one more Ocean ship to replace the capable Endeavor and Oceanus.

2. Each oceanographic institution should have at least one ship, no matter how small is the ship. This is almost axiomatic.

3. As stated in 1, we will need both: more ships of smaller berthing capacity and more ships of larger berthing capacity.

4.

5.

6.

7. A shallow-draft, specialized vessel (or several vessels) might be a good idea. An example: Georges Bank, with extensive shallows inaccessible for Endeavor-type ships.

8. I would wait for a larger, more seakindly ship. A good ship is worth the wait.

9. New systems are unlikely to decrease the demand for research ships. More likely, the demand will increase. First, the Argo system would never substitute for high-resolution hydrographic sections, not to mention multi-disciplinary studies with huge and versatile sampling demands (biology, geochemistry, ocean-atmosphere interaction etc.). Second, most forecasts of the future robotic/unmanned ocean exploration systems are overly optimistic. A relatively recent (1993-1995?) NERC plan called for a fleet of 1,000 Autosub by the year 2000. Where is this armada? Third, the rapid deployment capability of the future UNOLS fleet should match the much better capability of the future in situ and remote sensing observational systems of detecting new, unexpected phenomena, thus directing oceanographic surveys. Fourth, satellite data revealed a variety of new phenomena to study in situ such as ubiquitous fronts over continental shelves and shelf-breaks, and vast (1,000 km across) upwelling frontal zones that extend much farther offshore than anticipated. The front studies require more ships capable to track these dynamic objects and study their structure. Read Rob Pinkel's reply 9 posted on January 24.

10.

11. I have come to appreciate the capabilities of large (Global class) ships. One of the most obvious advantages of larger ships is a much larger lab space. MORE LAB SPACE! Take the Endeavor: During two GLOBEC Georges Bank cruises on this very capable ship, it was impossible to find a single desk to work with a 3' x 4' bathymetric map! During the ScanFish tows, two persons (pilot and researcher) had to occupy a little lab space intended for one person only. Moreover, adaptive surveys of time-varying coherent features (fronts, eddies, squirts) require more observers per watch (hence more berths and lab space) than conventional hydrographic surveys with fixed station locations (a la WOCE). This is a much more challenging task and the UNOLS fleet should be up to the challenge! Read Rob Pinkel's reply 11 posted on January 24.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself. I've been on three research cruises (11 days, 20 days and 35 days respectively).

**Responses**

1. I believe more ships would be needed, instead of fewer.

2. I hope this will not happen - more not fewer ships are needed.

3. Should take a balanced approach.

4.

5. It is important to do technical upgrade at the mid-life refit. Later (after mid-life) upgrades have to consider cost/benefit factors.

6.

7. I think current ships are capable of coastal ocean studies.

8. That depends on the nature of the research projects.

9. Increase.

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

POSTED 1/30/01 (11 responses)
Name: Carl Friehe
Institution: University of California, Irvine

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Ocean Ships -- Oconosota; Coast Guard Class 326 Mellon
Spar Buoy: FLIP
I am responding on behalf of myself, per discussion of FLIP users about a replacement for it.

**Responses**

1.

2.

3. Fewer ships with larger berthing (and associated lab, etc., space) is appropriate as more and more multi-disciplinary science will be conducted on a given cruise.

4.

5. Make provision for good meteorological observations out of the way of major flow distortion. Study the flow distortion.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. Open the discussion of vessels to include submersibles, manned buoys (such as a replacement for FLIP).

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been on over 35 cruises on UNOLS vessels over the past 29 years. I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. I *strongly* disagree with the FOFC report's recommendation that calls for a reduction in the size of the academic fleet. I see no reason to conclude that the demand for shiptime will decrease in the future. To the contrary, with the establishment of ocean observing systems and the need to maintain and service these systems, with the expansion of the scientific ocean drilling program as envisioned by IODP and its need for site survey and drilling-related studies, and the needs of programs like MARGINS and RIDGE2000, if anything I see an increased demand for shiptime in the future.

The mix of small, intermediate and large ships in the UNOLS fleet has worked well in the past. I currently don't see any obvious reason to change this formula in the future.

2. UNOLS has served the academic community very well for many years, and its model of distributed management of these assets should be retained. Ships should be awarded competitively on the basis of what is in the best interests of the community as a whole - i.e. which institutions can provide the highest level of technical and operational support for the lowest cost. Political considerations inevitably enter in to these decisions, but we cannot let politics drive the decision making process at the expense of the scientific capabilities or operational efficiency of the academic fleet

3. The larger UNOLS vessels currently have more than adequate berthing for most G&G-related field programs. For smaller and intermediate vessels more science berths would be desirable. I would rate multi-ship operations as a low priority - they are difficult to schedule and are relatively rarely required.

4. The 30 year lifetimes assumed in the FOFC report seems to ignore the significant and extensive mid-life refits which may vessels have either undergone (e.g. Knorr, Melville, Oceanus, Wecoma, Endeavor) or will undergo soon (Ewing). From an engineering perspective these are relatively young ships - it makes no sense to retire them at an arbitrary 30 yr date. Given the long lead time in building new ships, the premature retirement of these refitted vessels could result in some significant dislocations to the academic fleet that seem unwarranted.

5.

6. Predicting future funding is likely to be about as successful as predicting next month's weather. UNOLS should continue to facilitate the utilization of UNOLS vessels by Federal agencies other than NSF & ONR, including NOAA, USGS, EPA, and MMA.

7. Not all coastal regions are shallow, so this certainly deserves comment.

8. My most important criteria is not ship size, "sea kindliness" or scheduling, but whether the ship is properly equipped to carry out the scientific mission required by my program. This might mean a ship equipped with a multibeam sonar, or airguns and streamer for seismic work, or DP and ROV handling gear. General purpose vessels (whether large or small) are less attractive to me than ships which have the specialized equipment needed for the work I wish to do.

9. It is *completely* wrong to assume that the establishment of ocean observing systems will decrease the demand for ships. Cabled or buoyed observatories will require ships to install the observatories in the first place, to deploy sensors, and to maintain and service both sensors and observatory components. In addition, the existence of ocean observing systems and the data they collect will inevitably raise new scientific questions which will motivate additional process-oriented studies that will demand more ship time. Thus I believe that it is very possible that the establishment of ocean observing systems will increase, not decrease, shiptime needs.

In addition, ocean observing systems will likely require increasingly specialized ship capabilities. For example, emplacement of sensors at observatories will require dynamically-positioned ships with ROV systems. Large ships with specialized handling gear will be required to deploy and maintain large moored buoy systems.

10. In order to measure fleet capacity against potential future needs reference should be made to the many community planning documents, such as the NSF-sponsored "Futures" reports, the Tim Cowles/Larry Atkinson report entitled "Assessment of Future Science Needs in the Context of the Academic Oceanographic Fleet", Peter Wiebe,s soon to be issued report and the Brewer/Moore report entitled "Ocean Science at the New Millennium, as well as reports such as COMPLEX, RIDGE2000 and MARGINS science plans.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Participant in many [60+] G&G cruises over a 25 year period. My own opinions.

**Responses**

1. I think there's a good balance in the fleet at this stage, and that an even replacement schedule [1:1] needs to be maintained. Any planned reduction in the fleet will be a risk to near future users, and certainly a deterrent to any growth in seagoing funding. We should not compromise the programs that require high endurance and large deck capacity with a 'replacement' fleet of many 'smaller' vessels.

2. No comment

3. I don't think the 'size' of the fleet should be determined by berthing capacity.. but by the comparison of users needs and vessel capabilities. Two small ships that sleep enough hands are not necessarily capable of what a larger ship [with more endurance] might be.

4. Cost to operate and maintain, usefulness and of course operational safety effect the final decision to retire more than 'projected' life. We must have some basis for the model however, especially in a process like this.

5. Unless extreme 'conditions' prevail.. it seems clear that a single mid-life works well for ships of the UNOLS type.

6. Commercial and independent users may grow in the future... but I really don't know the 'answer'.

7. No comment.

8. Most often this is mission dependent. Big ships are specified by equipment requirements, endurance, and capacity.. not often their seaworthy nature.

9. Increase..with little doubt.

10. This certainly needs to be a flexible definition, based on a complete rendering of the constituent vessel capabilities and the potential for the growth of major programs, 'traditional' requirements, as well as recent statistical experience in utilization.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have participated in many research cruises over the last 30 yrs, as a student, investigator, and chief scientist. My experience includes cruises on large ships in remote locations with big programs (JGOFS), intermediate-sized ships in multi-ship operations (GLOBEC on Georges Bank), and submersibles (Alvin, SeaLink). My field is biological oceanography. I am responding on behalf of myself and the University of Rhode Island.

**Responses**

1. A mix of ships is best. In the northeast, the proposed replacement of 3 ships by 1 ship is not acceptable, and the present plan would result in no general purpose ships in the Atlantic. There is a clear role for at least 2 new ships in the northeast. One ship might be ice-hardened and with fisheries capabilities, especially for Arctic work. The other should be a less expensive but very capable general-purpose work platform, especially suitable for single investigator/small group programs and mooring work. This ship needs to be rugged, stable, economical and responsive.

2. Competitiveness should be evaluated not only on the basis of cost alone, but also on the basis of quality of service to the scientific investigator.

3. A mix of sizes is best. Much high quality work is being done (and planned) for ships of intermediate size, in addition to the largest (and costliest) vessels. Intermediate-sized ships (15-20 bunks) are more cost effective for moderate-sized programs than large ships, as long as there are high quality labs. Multi-ship operations are also extremely effective when investigators require both a synoptic view of a phenomenon (survey mode) as well as detailed process studies at single locations. These operations can be done simultaneously with two ships, but don't necessarily require large ships or lots of bunks on both ships. Also, an increasing concern is responsiveness to investigate episodic events on short notice. Several smaller ships would more likely meet this need, in contrast to a single large ship tightly scheduled and frequently far away from port.

4.

5. Refits can be done up to a point, but eventually the ship and its facilities probably become too trouble-prone and obsolete to make continued maintenance cost effective. A 30-yr planned lifetime seems reasonable.

6.

7.

8. We need a balanced mix of ships so that programs can be accommodated on the most suitable vessel within a reasonable time frame.

9. I expect that new sensing systems will increase demand for research ships, both for servicing the facilities and for direct investigation of new questions generated by the remote data.

10. Fleet capacity should be the ability to provide the appropriate platform in a reasonable time frame for funded investigators.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself, not my organization. I have been going to sea for 20 years, and have been requesting and receiving sea time of my own for the last 8 years. I have been on cruises on the Valero IV (USC, back in the old days), New Horizon, Knorr, Edwin Link, Seward Johnson, Sea Diver, Pelican, Thompson, Discovery (British)and Oceanus.

**Responses**

1. This plan would meet my needs, and those of most of the biological oceanographers I know, but I can't speak for the physical oceanographers. For my purposes, and I believe this extends to others doing similar kinds of research, more smaller ships in the intermediate class would be the best solution.

2. To lose a ship with no prospect of replacement means that you also lose the support staff for that vessel. Most institution have systems in place for running and maintaining vessels. The longer these systems remain dormant because a vessel is not replaced, the more difficult and expensive it will be to reinstitute that system. I believe this is a matter of saving money in the short run, and paying two to three times as much in the long run if we adopt the "await the outcomes" attitude.

3. I feel that more vessels of smaller berthing capacity - vessels in the intermediate class vs. those in the global class - are more appropriate. Often times on the larger vessels, larger berthing capacity does not have a linear relationship with greater lab capacity, i.e. there is more lab space/scientist on the smaller vessels than on the larger vessels, and it is the lab space that's the limiting factor on the 70-odd cruises I've participated on.

4. No comment - this seems more relevant for the marine operations groups at the various institutions.

5. For my purposes, it's always more time effective to go out on a vessel I've used before than having to deal with the vagaries of an entirely different ship. Therefore, I would much prefer that modifications be made to existing ships rather than that a new vessel be constructed. It appears that this would be more economical as well, although I'm not the appropriate person to judge this. Based on what I've heard from colleagues concerning going out on a new vessel, it appears that it takes from 1 to 5 years for all the "kinks" to be worked out of a new vessel, and I, for one, would not want to waste my valuable cruise time working out the kinks.

6. No knowledge base for comment.

7. Again - this is more relevant for the ship operation personnel.

8. Because my funding depends on the research I conduct out at sea, I would definitely choose a smaller, less sea kindly ship. I can always get something useful done on a cruise, no matter how "unkind" the vessel, but I can't get anything accomplishing sitting back on land, waiting a year to get sea time.

9.

10. I think the best gauge is probably looking at the number of proposal requesting shiptime in the last 10 years, including all the agencies that fund sea time, not just NSF. If there is a trend for an increasing number of requests over this time period, one could probably estimate what the request level will be over the next 10 years. It would also be important to look at the delay between the request and the actual cruise to determine if the current capacity is sufficient to meet most of our needs, or if we should request additional funds for additional vessels. Looking at the number of sea day/vessel in each size class, as well as the quantity of downtime, is probably another good estimate of whether we're meeting our needs or not (or possibly exceeding them as well).

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself. I have participated in approximately 65 oceanographic research cruises, about 2/3 of which were on UNOLS vessels, and have served as Chief Scientist on 36 cruises and 9 vessels.

**Responses**

1. I believe that the need for global ships will remain strong, but it appears, based on the projected retirement schedule, that we will have enough of these to meet needs over the next couple of decades. My prognosis is that ships of intermediate size will be requested more than the global class ones, and there should be a clear plan to replace these intermediate ships.

2. I would favor a mechanisms for deciding on replacements which takes the decision out of politics, but cannot envision such a mechanism.

3. "Large berthing capacity" and "small berthing capacity" are not defined in the question. I would prefer more vessels with a berthing capacity on the order of 12-18 scientists that could easily accommodate one or two programs at a time. Bigger s hips with more berths can become unwieldy when trying to meet the needs of all scientists and programs. Moreover, wire time, sub time, lab space and other limiting resources must be considered in addition to the number of berths.

4. I am alarmed that the chart indicates no plan to replace any intermediate class ships, which I view as the most useful size for most projects involving individual P.I.'s.

5. I strongly favor upgrading and repair of existing ships except where ships are so old and dilapidated that comfort and working conditions of the scientific party would be compromised for expediency.

6. I have not reason to suppose that non-classical sources will increase in importance. Ships require big money and there are few non-governmental organizations willing to commit these kinds of funds.

7. Many of the existing UNOLS ships are already used for coastal research. Shallow draft boats are really only important in a few limited areas such as the Florida Keys. Most shallow-water research can be and has been conducted from small boats based at marine labs or deployed from larger vessels. I see no reason to change this.

8. This issue is too complex to reduce to a simple dichotomous choice. For example, I would probably favor a more sea kindly ship for long expeditions, but easily scheduled vessels for coastal work or seasonal research in which timing is important but cruises are short.

9. These systems will require ship support for all sorts of unforeseen maintenance problems as well as routine scheduled servicing. I predict that ship usage in some classes will actually increase as a result of these new technologies.

10. I am not familiar enough with the definition of "fleet capacity" to comment.

11. No.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responding on behalf of myself. My opinions do not reflect those of my institution in any way. I have been involved in numerous research cruises aboard 3 UNOLS vessels.

**Responses**

1. If there truly is acquisition of 10 highly specialized research vessels as 13 vessels currently in use are retired, I do feel that this plan would meet the needs of oceanographic research community. Unfortunately, what is proposed is not always carried out and if these retired vessels are not replaced with better equipped ships, I do foresee significant problems meeting the needs of the research community. I believe that there has to be a balance between the incorporation of truly oceangoing vessels as well as smaller-range ships as both fulfill individual niches.

2. This point should be addressed as early as possible as it will not be an easy issue to settle. Political interventions on behalf of individual institutions are likely already underway for those having ships that will retire soon. It would be far easier to have a pool of money set aside for renovations/new constructions than to have individual institutions bring political pressure to bear over the next 20 years.

3. In my experience, the laboratory space is more of a limiting factor than berth space. Providing sufficient space for all scientists to conduct their research is more of a priority than the number of berths available. Again, there has to be a balance struck between global vessels and smaller more local research ships.

4. Research vessels have previously been kept in use because there hasn't been funding available to replace them. With new technology, both for research applications and for ship design, vessels should be retired when they are requiring more effort and money to keep afloat than what is realistic. The new designs are far more energy and space efficient and should be utilized when current vessels are no longer remaining safe and functional. This means that a 30 year lifetime is more realistic for many vessels. Unfortunately, due to usage patterns, it is difficult to retire a vessel without having another vessel to replace it immediately.

5. Mid-life refits work for some changes and just aren't possible for others. Use them as much as possible to prolong the lifespan of the vessels but recognize needs for more advanced technologies in the not too distant future.

6. In my experience, non-classical sources of funding are already lessening and reliance on this support will end up hurting the future of oceanographic research.

7. Yes but probably not with significant emphasis at this juncture.

8. The larger, more seaworthy ship would obviously be the first choice but funding agencies have put pressure to bear on time scales and availability, making a request for the less attractive vessel more likely to secure funding.

9. I don't foresee an immediate change in ship demand as a result of these technologies.

10. There is no easy answer to this question. Use historical information on usage, funding patterns, and introduction of previous "new" technologies to address these issues.

11. Lessening the size and capacity of the fleet would severely cripple oceanographic research but replacements for vessels has not been forthcoming. Hopefully these issues will be realistically addressed.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responding as ship user, 1 or more cruises each year, deploying surface moorings and carrying out air-sea interaction and upper ocean dynamics process studies in diverse locations, presently west of northern Chile, off Oceanside, CA, and south of Martha's Vineyard.

**Responses**

1. I believe we will need more larger and a number of medium ships. Several programs, including CLIVAR, the carbon cycle program, and the deep ocean observatories program point toward ships capable of doing repeat hydrographic sections (US commitment is 4 per basin with discussion of more rapid repeat of one line for the carbon program) and capable of mooring deployment/recovery cruises for long time series stations at diverse global locations. A cruise to service several deep ocean surface moorings (3 m diameter buoy hulls, 10,000 lb anchors, wire and synthetic line, glass balls) fills Revelle, Thompson. I would anticipate the need for such ships in each ocean basin. At the same time that CLIVAR plans broadscale ocean basin sampling (ARGO floats, moorings, repeat hydrography), it is also planning extended regional studies with extensive in-situ campaigns in, for example, boundary current regions and a number of process studies, which could be shorter, multi-ship programs like EPIC 2001 which will use New Horizon and Ron Brown in Sept-Oct 2001. Ships that can take several groups at once will play a role in these process studies as well as the medium-size ships that might have 1 to 2 science groups but can still go to remote locations. The ocean class ships would fill the need for carrying these process studies and possibly some of the regional studies. The NSF push toward observatory science will also require ship time, and if the moored elements are large and in remote locations, the need will be for large ships.

2. Attention should be paid to implications of maintaining shore-side infrastructure for running and manning ships. Retirements that leave gaps in need for shore-side support may lead to long-term erosion of capabilities and inefficiencies of having to spin back up following a gap.

3. As the ships' crews are made leaner and new crew with less experience with mooring work come in, the science groups need to take more people to get the deck work done. For surface mooring deployments, on some ships, 6 to 8 people are needed, so more berths would be good. It would allow for other programs to be done on the way to and from the mooring sites as well as at the mooring sites. But there would need to be upgrade to the steward's dept to deal with more people. And with more people, you would need more lab and storage space.

4. 2005 to 2010 should be busy years for CLIVAR. Hopefully the phase in the ocean class is done so that capacity of medium ships doesn't drop below what is needed. There should be plans to replace Thompson, Melville, Ron Brown when the time comes. The need for large ships may increase if global programs and observatory science go ahead.

5. Across the fleet what one finds on board in terms of standard instruments and computing facilities and how they are supported varies widely. For example, from virtually no networking of underway instruments to well-done integrated, readily available data streams and displays. What one finds is institution and platform dependent. It would be of great help to have a higher, common level of technical capability. This would seem possible via the mid-life refit and not require new construction. SeaBeam is of great help in mapping the bottom to find anchor sites for surface moorings. Good underway ADCP, thermosalinograph, navigation, meteorology AND good real time, scrolling displays of these quantities are critical. Ability to launch radiosondes would be good addition. Visual access to underway data needs improvement. Ship IMET systems may spit numbers to a video display, but without a plot, the failure of sensors is not noted in a timely way by science party and ship's tech. It is impossible to get a quick look at the last 24 hours of ADCP data to judge if there is a strong tidal current unless you pull the data files (if you can) and plot them.

6. Not much to say about non-classical sources.

7. No comment

8. For surface moorings far from home - choice would be larger ship. For local work and process studies that had to happen at a specific time - choice would be smaller ship.

9. Increase. ARGO is part of the global broadscale sampling effort, will need repeat hydrography and moorings. Observatories will include subsurface and surface moorings and ocean bottom installations - will need ships to deploy and maintain.

10. New programs such as CLIVAR and the NSF ocean observatories initiative have time lines and implementation plans. Can these plans be brought together to look at potential demand, then some further input based upon estimated funding availability be added?

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been involved with oceanographic research since 1980 with more than 25 cruises under my belt on all types of vessels, both UNOLS and foreign. This is my own opinion.

**Responses**

1. I believe that the need for all oceans capability ships will be at the levels it is today or maybe even larger. I think that with the development of ocean observatories and cabled systems that deep submergence access will demand both the sea keeping (dynamic positioning), sea state, and winch capabilities of larger vessels. So my view is that for the next 20 years the larger vessel fleet should be maintained at or near its current level. Any retired vessels should be replaced.

2. Clearly, competition is healthy, but politics probably rule. From a purely naive viewpoint, as ships are retired I think individual institutions will need to assess how serious they are about running an oceanographic research vessel in todays funding climate. The institution making the best case AND with the best track record of support should receive the winning bid. Who decides, tats the political part of the equation.

3. I don't see multi-ship operations as being a solution for the long term. While the need for more science berths has gone up over the past decade, I think that this trend will turn around. Sensor development and increased realtime access to platforms at sea will reduce the need for berths. Chemical sampling and sensors still need people but automation of analyses should lessen the load in the future. Biological sampling will still need human presence. I think the levels of endurance and berthing we currently have are adequate right now. I think going with fewer ships with such capabilities would, however, put severe constraints on the pace of marine science and technology. I see the need for the regional (coastal) vessels to have greater berth capacity. I also see the need though for the ships to be out in winter months (thus perhaps swath technology is appropriate).

4. I guess I believe the UNOLS numbers and projections as being closer to reality.

5. Yes, ongoing upgrades and midlife refit are part of the equation. I am not sure a distributed process is better.

6. Cautious growth is realistic. I am not sure how you could quantify "non-classical funding".

7.

8. What is the point of going out and trying to use a ship that can't hold station, for example, if that's what the science demands? I guess I would always go with the ship that could maximize the amount data I could get back from a cruise. If I have to wait, what's new, it seems waiting has become the norm. It seems to me that getting ships to parts of the world to carry out science activities is getting harder to do, especially if one wants to go to "off-the-beaten-track" places. Admittedly for deep submergence science, the availability of the deep submergence assets are a key part to scheduling, but the appropriate ships have to be available and that is getting harder for non traditional areas (Indian Ocean, south or western pacific).

9. Yes, I believe they will increase the demand. At least over the next 20 years until the seafloor and ocean becomes "wired". Installing these systems and their maintenance will be a full time job. It might need a dedicated fleet. Furthermore new science directions and capabilities will undoubtedly be developed to use such ocean infrastructure. This is a demand that is not here yet but by the time 20 years are up a significant number of ships could be simply maintaining this infrastructure. Thus, I see the demand increasing with these technologies coming online.

10. I think ship days and operating days are a valid way to measure fleet capacity. The trend since 1980 of about 100 days per year growth looks reasonable to me. I can only believe that the oceans importance to science and government interests will increase in the future. The new technologies of cables and observatories will result in greater needs for ships as mentioned above in #9.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responding on behalf of myself only ... I have gone to sea via UNOLS approximately 12 times between 1980 and 2000, on eight vessels. I have also worked off private and Canadian vessels. I have worked alone and as a group member. I am a physical oceanographer/acoustician.

**Responses**

1. I believe that the cutting back of the number of vessels is allowable if the new vessels are well designed and have as much or more usable space and human capacity than the current vessels. Large ships will be needed for global work and smaller ships will be needed for coastal work at reasonable cost.

2. I have nothing to say on this except the fact that an institution operates a ship does not entitle them to have one forever.

3. I prefer a mix of larger and smaller vessels. Each is appropriate for various operations.

4. no comments

5. Any cost-effective improvements to vessels would be a wise investment. Seaworthiness and cost of upkeep are the issues that determine the life of a ship, I believe, so the types of modifications mentioned above may not have much impact on the `life of the fleet'.

6. I can't say what will happen with "non-classical funding sources". It may fluctuate unpredictably.

7. A distinction should be made between shallow-draft vessels for extremely shallow water and vessels intended for coastal use, i.e. those lacking endurance. They are distinct classes, but there may be an intersecting set.

8. I would request the ship which would get me to my destination at the required time, provided it could do the work.

9. These will not impact demand in a known manner. These operations require ships and may stimulate new field work, but as they ramp up they may temporarily use funds which would have supported field work.

10. I'm not sure what you are asking, I'll give this a shot. Fleet capacity should reflect the number of person-days of at-sea work each vessel allows. It should be reduced for ships which can't work in bad weather or can only perform limited duty. It should be increased for ships with special equipment capabilities. It should also reflect endurance, which can allow longer-term observations, longer transects, or work in more remote places. It may be desirable to sum up the capabilities of the ships, with the correct pro-rating for any limitations or restrictions, to reach a sum - the 'capability'. It may be best measured relative to capacity of a past fleet alignment, for instance the fleet of 1984.

11. none.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am a sea-going experimental physical oceanographer with experience on many research vessels over a period of 35 years. Last year I was on three deep ocean cruises for a total of 60 days at sea. These remarks are my own and do not represent either Oceanography or APL at the University of Washington.

**Responses**

1. I favor an increase in the number of intermediate research vessels over larger ones. Improved instrumentation and marine technician capabilities permit the use of smaller vessels where larger ones might have been required in the past. This trend will continue, at least in PO. If the replacement of the Endeavor, Oceanus and Knorr by a single Global vessel is envisioned, I question that decision. The Oceanus class vessels have been essential to my science, and their replacement must be part of the plan.

2. I have seen the benefits of competition in the allocation of ship time and in the attitude of ship's personnel. Prior to UNOLS, institutions largely split shiptime among its own scientists. This limited access to scientists from other institutions. The ship's crew saw no direct connection between pleasing users and getting future work. There was no incentive to cooperate because you were captive to the institution's ships. Perhaps it is because I am now older than most of the captains and crew members, but I think we get much more cooperation and cheerful assistance from all members of the ship's personnel and shore management. So I favor not concentrating operation and management of ships at a few big institutions. All goes better when the operators and crew want your business.

3. I do not agree that we need bigger ships with more berths. I am sure there are instances when this is true, but they are the exception not the rule. Most of us can not justify or afford a global ship to do our experiments and surveys. I mostly operate free-fall profilers which require many deployments and recoveries per day. I cannot do this safely from the high freeboard of the global class vessel. Moreover, I neither need nor can afford to fill the extra berths big ships. This situation is typical of smaller, PI-directed field work.

4. Only to the extent that smaller is better!

5. Refitting older hulls is fine. I recently spent a month on the RRS Discovery whose hull was built in 1962. The topsides were were rebuilt about 10 years ago. It is a fine ship, especially for the high latitude work it often undertakes. Experiments to improve acoustic systems (multi- beam, ADCP, float tracking) should be undertaken to improve the capabilities as long as mistakes are quickly corrected. There are notable examples of changes to improve ship performance which have backfired and users had to live with the consequences for a long time (e.g., the old Thompson, now retired).

6. I suppose the cautious approach is warranted considering the long-lead time involved in fleet development.

7. Coastal and shallow are not synonymous and working in shallow water places unique requirements not needed in general coastal (continental shelf) research.

8. Flexibility is needed. With such great funding uncertainty (20% probability of funding in NSF PO program at any panel) and the need to have less expensive (read shorter, lower personnel costs) grants makes it difficult for scientists to coordinate grant funding with shiptime scheduled. Unless there is flexibility, only large national program with long and stable funding will be shiptime users.

9. I think autonomous vehicles can increase the need for shiptime. First, new oceanic phenomena will be discovered which require follow-up cruises. Second, the deployment and recovery of such vehicles will require shiptime. Third, the maintenance and upgrading of large, fixed measurement systems, such as DEOS and NEPTUNE facilities, should require much shiptime. Fourth, the bottom and moored systems will be producing real-time observations that should often be followed up with a cruise. I think as we learn more, we will need to have more comprehensive observations and require more vessel usage.

10.

11. I am concerned about providing vessel access to young scientists with new or unproven ideas and instruments. How does a scientist early in his/her career get the opportunity to pursue a vision? Almost by definition, breakthroughs come from new ideas and results. Such progress is hard to achieve through the funding and ship scheduling processes today. It seems to me that oceanography has lost much of its funding diversity. This is especially true at the individual PI level; NOPP, JGOF, WOCE have not made up for the reductions in ONR and NOAA support for individual PI research. The result is that it is much more difficult for a young investigator to pursue a good idea. The lack of shiptime and flexibility in scheduling makes the task more difficult. I find that few of our graduates intend to pursue a career with a significant observational component. We should find a way to encourage sea-going observationalists. Should NSF give preference to sea-going proposals? Probably not, but an expansion of a young investigator or SGER grant program with access to shiptime could be considered.

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

Name: Michael Gregg
Institution: University of Washington

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding only for myself and am not in any way representing the University. My outlook results from 35 research cruises over the past 30 years. I have worked on vessels ranging from Thompson and Revelle to 50-foot boats in 10-m-deep estuaries. The focus, however, has always been process experiments

**Responses**

1. This plan will definitely not meet my needs nor those of most of my immediate colleagues who do process experiments at sea. We need to field experiments with several ships working together, sometimes in close quarters or near coasts. The Global and Ocean Classes are too expensive and unwieldy for this type of work.

2. It would be better to develop a plan that meets foreseeable scientific needs to forestall political intervention. There has been too much political intervention in the recent past and it is affecting the nature of the fleet and where they are located.

3. We have more than enough large ships carrying many scientists. Although the Thompson class ships are new, they are fighting rolling layups for a year, which means than none of them can keep good crews. Future resources should go to replacing the Oceanus Class, which allows scientists to be spread across several ships for simultaneous operations. It is still very hard to have more than one wire in the water at a time -- tying up the Thompson for SeaSoar or microstructure profiling is foolish when both often need to be done at the same time and place.

4. The pattern looks more like a natural phenomenon than something planned by human intelligence.

5. Yes, the technology for work at sea improves continuously and the fleet should improve with it with minimum delay. Distributed ship modifications would work much better than one mid-life refit.

6. I have no way of evaluating this.

7. Yes, most coastal work is in depths accessible to Thompson class ships. In some cases, the ship size is more of a factor than its draft, such as working in the Pacific Northwest inland waters.

8. The smaller ship. Instrument development requires frequent trips with advance notice of only a few weeks. Following up on scientific ideas requires flexibility -- to modify the work, and shift the schedule -- relative to the original proposal.

9. Autonomous profilers are going to develop slowly and require frequent, unscheduled, trips to retrieve them when they malfunction and don't simply sink. Eventually, they should decrease needs for ships. NEPTUNE, on the other hand, should increase ship needs for work to be done around the fixed array.

10. NO comment.

11. From above, I do not think that flexibility in scheduling was considered sufficiently. Some experiments need ships with considerable open time, e.g. studying storm responses or following the evolution of spring blooms. These are important scientific questions and the work cannot be fit into schedules set a year in advance.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:

**Responses**

1.

2.

3. Larger berthing capacity requires larger lab space to be effective. More people on the ship at the same time often leads to wasted time (as people wait around for their turn at the wire). UNOLS should not overlook the merits of ships with lower berthing capacity, or perhaps a flexible trade-off between lab space and berthing.

4.

5.

6. The cautious growth assumption is the only reasonable way to go. I don't believe in Santa Claus.

7.

8. Ouch! Is this choice really necessary? Aren't small SWATH vessels supposed to be sea kindly? But phrased as you put it, I see a need for smaller ships that have more flexible scheduling.

9. Based as a percentage of total research activity, ship use will decline. But other types of sea-going studies (chemical, biological) will replace the shiptime use formerly taken by physical properties that are measured by autonomous vehicles. The total use of ship time will not decline.

10.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have typically worked at sea about one month per year, and I hope these opportunities continue for many more years. I have been Chief Scientist on Large, Intermediate, and Regional vessels. My response is on my own behalf.

**Responses**

1. I've been Chief Scientist on Large, Intermediate, and Regional research vessels. My sense is that the demand for ship time will increase, not decrease, in the coming 20+ years. The reduction projected in this report could lead to gridlock in ship scheduling. In this report, ship capabilities were particularly underplanned for North Atlantic work. The "Ocean class" (somewhat larger hull size than present "Intermediate class") is a good concept. Big advantage in operating cost. Needs to be able to work in the North Atlantic in most of the year; needs a hull size compatible with SeaBeam and acoustic transducer arrays for geophysics; needs a big working deck; comments on number of berths below.

2. For Global and Ocean class ships, serving the wide community, the design-institution should have a track record of good ship design and operations. Experience is required to choose wisely between adapting new ship-design concepts vs avoidance of gimmicks. For Regional and smaller ships, local familiarity with ship requirements is essential to good planning. Like NASA's formula for successful congressional support, it is wise to spread the demand for ship support to many states.

3. Certainly a mixture of berthing capabilities is required, now and for the future. The UNOLS community should take care to avoid the "Detroit-syndrome" in which desirable utilitarian compact or midsize designs grow in subsequent model-years to behemoths. We need a small number of "all-capability-expensive-to-drive" vessels, and a large number of "economical-suits-many-purposes" vessels. My preference is the Ocean class with about 20 berths.

4. This is not a bad fleet-wide estimation tool. There is a wide range of variability from platform to platform. Beyond the trump-card of safety considerations, the main considerations affecting ship lifetime are adaptability to new scientific needs and cost-effectiveness.

5. Yes of course, based on cost-effectiveness of the investment. But a limiting example may be worth noting: research vessel design is trending to wide-beam monohulls or swath vessels, for stability and seaworthiness and adaptability. Neither is a simple mid-life refit of an existing vessel.

6. It seems desirable to recruit "non-classical" support and demand for UNOLS vessels.

7. Local determination of design seems crucial. The coastal region especially is NOT a one-design-suits-all world.

8. Prefer: Flexibility of scheduling a ship that is capable of the task. It is unacceptably wasteful of human resources -- wasteful of scientists and technicians -- to seek a formula which builds in delays of one or two years.

9.

10. The concept of a nearly "fully-utilized" fleet IMPLIES underutilized scientific brainpower -- scientists and skilled technicians waiting in GRIDLOCK for their chance to move their science forward... It is essential to retain some degree of ship scheduling flexibility, rather than seek a fleet size which has bumper-to-bumper cruises year-in, year-out. The concept of "fleet capacity" should encompass the capacity to develop and build upon, not waste, the brainpower of our scientists.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
The research we conduct requires access to a wide variety of vessels in different physical oceanographic settings.

**Responses**

1. It,s not entirely clear to me whether economy or science is driving this suggestion for fewer ships operating more in the expeditionary mode. Certainly the big programs such as WOCE, JGOFS etc have required large ships for extended multidisciplinary cruises and they have been very successful. We will no doubt see future activities where this will be needed. At the same time the intermediate class of vessels has also been enormously successful in their own right at much lower operating cost. They provide a flexibility, a mobility, and a range capability that can match the large vessels when needed. I think we are getting a bit presumptuous if not comfortable in insisting on the largest vessels whenever a large party needs to be accommodated. As usual, necessity is the mother of invention, and this shows up in the expanded laboratory and berthing capabilities of the intermediate class vessels over the years. In my view there is quite a future in building upon what works well. In other words, perhaps you should turn the argument around and encourage the development of methods and techniques so that the efficiency of the I/C class can be further improved. We all know there is a lot that can be done here. I simply cannot fathom where you got the idea that the community would endorse the idea to replace the Oceanus, Endeavor and Knorr with a new Knorr-class vessel. Were you to do this I can guarantee you that there will hear very severe complaints later at the lack of flexibility. You may have saved some money but you will not have improved the sea-going capabilities of our science.

2. See my response to question #6

3. My response to this question is embedded in that to #1. It seems to me we need to continue a healthy mix. Of course we still need L/C vessels for MG&G, for intensive interdisciplinary biological studies, etc., but I am astounded at the idea that we can do away with the flexibility of the I/C vessels. Just look at the development and use of instrumentation that has facilitated research at sea. Similarly, moored instrumentation of a wide variety and range of sophistication will continue to evolve and require service. Of course large ships are more comfortable platforms, but remember that the Oceanus class was in no small measure developed with this kind of support activity in mind and has been extremely successful at it. (The other two vessels, Wecoma and Endeavor evolved the design towards a more expeditionary role and they too have been enormously successful.) Drifting instrumentation will continue to undergo enormous development. Today,s ARGO float is a very primitive device compared to what you will see 10 years from now. Same is true of surface, middepth and bottom following drifters, not to mention the new moored profiling techniques, bottom platforms, etc. Without precluding expeditionary vessels in certain cases as mentioned above, I/C vessels will be superbly positioned to handle many of these needs.

4.

5. Should you remodel a house in toto every 30 years or in smaller increments? The question answers itself, it depends upon the need and the possibilities. Same here. I don,t think there is a simple one-size fits all answer to this question. If institution X shifts its focus towards acoustics and their ship is not quiet enough, you can be sure they will look into ways to alleviate the problem. And so it goes.

6. If non-classical, sources significantly improve the chances of acquiring a vessel, then that will be the new game. If the federal agencies think that this is an unhealthy trend, it won't. It is a trend that certainly won't level the playing field, a consideration you should keep in mind given that no matter how you slice it oceanography is a federal activity. And all the more so when the discussion revolves around the virtues of L/C vs. I/C vessels.

7. Exactly. Let's be careful not to get too carried away with the shallow-draft, requirement.

8. See response to question #1

9. Silly question, increase of course.

10. Why has funding for oceanography remained so static over the years when it has become so relevant for so many aspects of society? The science is incredibly fascinating, and has never been more important than it is today. I get the feeling that we are not doing enough to this message across to society at large.

11. I worry that the tone of this questionnaire reflects a static way of thinking, including a diminishing interest in and skill at working at sea. (Yes, I like to.) There is a self-fulfilling prophecy, at work here. We can economize sea-going expenditures rather painlessly if we just make sure that enough of our graduates have little sea-going research interest. We will only need the largest ships equipped with a separately trained cadre of technicians to operate dredging, coring and drilling equipment. An exception to the above is of course the biological community for it, by definition, needs a hands-on capability. Perhaps more than any other group it showing tremendous initiative in developing new and very productive sampling techniques. As for physical oceanography, we are getting so skilled at remote sensing that we can let the satellites, the moorings and floats telemeter in their data and we will assimilate it all into a wonderful virtual reality for the world to follow on our webpages, right? On a related subject, the merchant marine offers a seagoing capability we have barely touched. Notwithstanding routine weather observations, we take XBTs, surface salts, and a couple of ships operate ADCPs. Yet even within these limited activities some very important insights about the ocean have emerged. However, the reason we don,t use this incredible global resource is because we don,t have the instrumentation optimized for use on these vessels. And because of this, we have never attempted to set up the administrative infrastructure to work with commercial shipping companies, which means that no incentive exists to develop this resource, a simple catch-22. I have no doubt that with the technologies today, we could develop sampling techniques that could operate without any demands on the ship and its crew and require only routine service when in port. The beauty of the merchant marine is that these vessels operate along predetermined routes allowing us to do in-situ repeat sampling of the same waters or section on a regular basis. These vessels can provide invaluable support and complementary information.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
30 years of going to sea at WHOI and on vessels operated by UNOLS and other institutions. Mostly over the side operations with large tripods that sink to the bottom and are recovered as free vehicles or on a tether. My response is personal.

**Responses**

1. The global and ocean class seems reasonably planned. There will be a need for more regional ships than planned because testing is done on these and new techniques need such testing.

2. Access by everyone to UNOLS ships is necessary. But that doesn't mean every institution needs a ship. I think competition for running ships will mean that the expert ship operators will and should dominate the fleet.

3. I personally don't support the increase in number of science berths. (At 6'2", I support the increase in size of individual berths however.) But I acknowledge that multidisciplinary cruises on the global and ocean class ships requires a lot of berths.

4. Clearly, plans for replacements must start before the actual needs are known. I believe operating costs are the size limiters of the fleet, not the construction costs or the needs.

5. I think extension of service life by upgrades are less cost effective than a new ship but necessary because the lead time for a new ship is too long to serve all our requirements.

6. With Dubya in office, who knows. I suspect that sources outside NSF, ONR, NOAA, and small amounts from other government agencies are not a solution. The ships will require federal support.

7. No. Range, scheduling, duration, and size of scientific party are more important in defining coastal vessels. Shallow draft may in a few cases be a problem but then barges may be required. I think the concern is that not all coastal regions are deep. Deep is easy.

8. For instrument testing, the more easily scheduled ship. For tricky deployments of an array, the more sea kindly ship.

9. Increase. Autonomous arrays and fixed observatories will increase our observational capability by orders of magnitude with only a tiny increase in our need to get out on ships but the increase will be there.

10. Sorry, no response on this question.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
The following comments were prepared individually by members of the Department of Oceanography and the Geochemical and Environmental Research Center of Texas A&M University and were not discussed jointly. Comments were merged by Worth Nowlin and have come primarily from the following individuals: Douglas Biggs, Piers Chapman, Wilford Gardner, Mathew Howard, Mahlon Kennicutt, Worth Nowlin, and Gil Rowe. All are active, sea-going oceanographers who, collectively, have spent several years at sea in international, national and local programs.

**Responses**

1. The report calls for one new Global Class ship when two are retired. The report also says that it is the Global class ships that are used at "maximum" capacity (90% of the time) while the Ocean (or Regional class ships have been used at only 70% of available capacity during the past decade. [However, a rough calculation from the charts provided in the report indicates ship usage to be: Global 80%; Ocean 70%; and Regional 80%.] If the Global class ships really are used at maximum capacity most often, cutting back on the number of such ships makes sense only if the need for them is envisioned to decrease in the future. The future will indeed see an increase in the percentage of data collected by remote means, but it will be necessary to have large vessels to service moored sensors unless most of the sensors are placed near-shore, in which case we could argue for more smaller ships that can make frequent trips to "moorings". Indeed, I think LEO-15 is serviced by smaller ships and the same is done for most coastal observations, as in the Gulf of Mexico. The requirements stated in this plan, particularly for regional/coastal vessels, appear to be in their most preliminary stages. One area that should be pursued further and in some detail is the current usage patterns in terms of missions and the likely future missions if additional capabilities such as long cores and multibeam are made available. As stated elsewhere in this response, it seems unlikely that the assessment of current and future needs for the Gulf of Mexico are accurate. There is a clear need to develop assessments of current and future needs for regional, and perhaps coastal, vessels in concert with regional users. [See also our response to Question 6, which bears on this question.]

2. There is little doubt that political influence will be employed by institutions in efforts to secure new vessels. The consequences of such influence might be lessened if guidelines for competition were established. Suggestions are that competition should be based on experience in R/V operations, use of the vessel for education as well as research and cost sharing from the region, state, or institution. The document mentions the need for "common facilities" that will presumably rotate around the different vessels as required. A major question arises as to who will ultimately be responsible for such equipment, how it will be financed, etc. This issue is not discussed, but it may well develop into an extremely contentious point unless firm decisions are made.

3. Most research projects will continue to require single-ship use rather than multiple-ship use. This has proven to be the case even in the largest projects, e.g., WOCE, where commonly only one ship is used at a time. Therefore, single-ship use should drive the type of ships built. Berths should be maximized on all ships. That is less often a problem on large ships than small ships, but there seems no justification for decreasing the number of berths. It is to be desired that institutions utilize their vessels for the training of students and for the collection of data, sometimes collateral to principal projects, needed for student research.

4. If adequate refits and upgrades are provided, 30 to 35 years of service for a vessel is feasible. However, funding for such upgrades must be assured as part of a realistic operational approach. It should be noted that technological advances may argue for earlier replacement of research vessels in order to achieve enhanced capabilities or savings in operating costs, even though vessels remain structurally sound. Of greater concern is the estimate of needs in the Gulf of Mexico. The report states there are three aging vessels (one Intermediate and two small Regional vessels) that combine to handle about one operating year of work annually. The operating days or projected use of these three ships for 2000/2001 were/are 199/200 (Gyre), 251/268 (Pelican) and 106/192 (Longhorn). Using the FOFC standard of 180 days for a full operating year for the proposed Regional vessel, this would suggest that 3.0/3.5 ships would be needed in the Gulf. Even with the FOFC standard of 275 days for an Ocean class ship 2.0/2.3 days would be required. Clearly a new Federally-funded vessel is needed in the Gulf of Mexico where presently there is no federally-owned vessel in the UNOLS fleet. The Gyre (built in 1973) will exceed the 30-year age in two years and the Longhorn is already 30 years old, so a replacement ship is needed sooner than scheduled in the FOFC report. Again regarding the Gulf of Mexico, the draft plan states that in the period 2001-2005 "design studies for eventual construction of a Regional Class vessel to support science in the Gulf of Mexico would be initiated." What does "eventual construction" mean? The R/V Gyre will reach reasonable retirement age by the end of that period. She is carrying out some 200 days of work per year. If the implication is that just the preliminary design studies would be underway by 2005 (i.e., new construction would not occur until 2005-2010), there will likely be a 4-5 year hiatus during which another intermediate-size research vessel probably will need to be brought into the Gulf of Mexico.

5. This appears to be a question requiring the expertise of engineers or architects as background to frame truly intelligent, adequate answers.

6. Some of us believe that the ship replacement policy offered in this plan is based on present usage but that it should be based on a determination of what the ships are being used for and why, and likely trends in the future. The document does not offer discussion on why the fleet has its present structure or what likely will be needed in the future. Admittedly, such discussions may be in Schmitt et al. (1999) and Cowles (2000). It is certainly true that many oceanographic data will, in the future, be collected routinely from platforms other than dedicated research ships, but it does not seem true that "the role of ships as the primary source of collecting data at sea will diminish" as is stated on p.5 of this document. Rather, it seems likely that the emphasis of ship use will shift from WOCE-type long line surveys, where many parameters are collected throughout the water column, to more process-oriented (e.g., JGOFS-type) expeditions, where a smaller region is studied more intensively. This is particularly the case for chemical and biological research, where multi-disciplinary teams are needed to tease out the underlying relationships within ecosystems, or geological research where I foresee multi-disciplinary work being performed, e.g., around an underwater laboratory over a hot spot on a mid-ocean ridge. This kind of work will still require large scientific parties, equipped to do many different types of research simultaneously. Indeed, the Cowles report acknowledges this in the statement on p.5 that humans will still be needed on ships for chemical and biological research. If the U.S. accepts the recent report from the carbon community of the need for continued long lines to monitor anthropogenic carbon dioxide invasion, even WOCE-type hydrography will still require up to half a ship year of a large ship annually on a continuous basis. Thus, it seems strange that the main target of the document is the reduction of the largest ships. At present we have six Global-class ships in the UNOLS fleet, but two of these (R/V Ewing and R/V Atlantis) essentially are reserved for marine geology and geophysical work and as a tender for Alvin, respectively. After about 2005, the remaining four ships in this class will be reduced to two, as R/V Knorr and R/V Melville are retired. Several other ships in this class are mentioned peripherally ("Other vessels" on p. 12), and it seems to be assumed tacitly that these may be available to take the place of R/V Knorr and R/V Melville, but presumably they are already well used and will likely be used to the same extent in future. While the pendulum is swinging towards more inshore work at present, it is likely that there will remain the need for such large ships. One obvious result of the loss of two large ships is a lack of flexibility in scheduling. Although the fleet as presently composed will be reduced from 16 to 13 ships by the end of the study period, the document contains the somewhat amazing statement (p.15) that "the total ship days available will remain approximately constant over the next 20 years as vessels are retired." This is only true if one assumes that the three largest classes of vessel are only used (as at present, Fig. B), for about 250, 200 and 160 days each instead of the theoretical standard maximum operating years of 300, 275 and 180 days assumed by Schmitt et al (1999) and that the total number of days required at sea will not increase. It also assumes that in future, each ship will be used at optimum capacity, which seems unrealistic, given the vagaries of funding for oceanography projects. Fewer ships will likely mean somewhat less efficient usage than at present, as the vessels will need to move more frequently from one region to another, necessitating additional deadheads.

7. As noted in the draft report, a recent workshop supported by NSF (Cowles, 2000) asked the academic community to consider the future trends in oceanographic research and its implications for a changing mix of tools. Among the workshop recommendations were the need for a new generation of ships serving as highly capable sea-going laboratories and for improved heavy weather capability. For a relatively large region such as the Gulf of Mexico, much of which is deep water rather than coastal, the minimum length estimate (40 m) for a new Regional vessel is going to be inadequate. The maximum length estimate (55 m) is probably more realistic in order to accommodate 20+ science berths now being regularly utilized aboard the R/V Gyre, as well as to allow the necessary degree of station keeping/seakeeping in force 4 to force 5 sea state (common in winter in the Gulf of Mexico).

8.

9. One might argue for 1-2 ships that are designed more to deploy and recover moorings and drifters rather than provide lab space for measurements and analysis. I believe the TOGA/TAO array went to using just one ship for servicing the many moorings. Even these ships should have the capability for some CTD/water-collection/lab work if they are traveling to remote places. For coastal/margin work ships will still need to be able to do both deployment and sampling, but they may not be on the same trip because of deck space and berthing limitations.

10.

11. This appears to be the third "long-range" plan to be developed since 1960 by the federal agencies responsible for ensuring the viability of the academic research fleet. It is discouraging that the responsible parties have waited until much of the fleet is badly aged before instituting this process. It is to be hoped that continuing efforts will be forthcoming to implement, and revise as necessary, this plan. To ensure credibility, the historical perspective given as a lead-in should be correct. As drafted, there are errors and omissions. Rather than offer a revised version, some examples are given. During the 1960s several (perhaps 4) military FS class freighters were partially or fully converted to service as oceanographic research vessels-the R/V Alaminos was one such full conversion. During the early 1970s, Navy built R/V Gyre and R/V Moana Wave. It is suggested that someone intimately familiar with the history be asked to rework this section; possibilities are Art Maxwell, Feenan Jennings, or T. K. Treadwell.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been going to sea for 19 years. I have participated in 39 research cruises, 20 of these as chief scientist. I'm responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. I believe there will be a greater need for smaller ships with regional capability.

2. Experience counts for a lot in any ocean-going endeavor. Any "competitive" award needs to be heavily weighted toward past performance.

3. For my research lab space is far more important than berthing capacity. In my experience intermediate class vessels provide the best ratio of berthing capacity to lab space.

4. No comment

5. I'm very much in favor of on-going modifications and improvements. New ships are notorious for having "bugs".

6. My crystal ball is on the fritz - no idea.

7. Not by me.

8. The smaller ship. Rough time is still better than no time.

9. In my opinion they'll increase demand.

10. I would like to see fleet capacity driven by science needs but recognize that this is probably unrealistic given the history of funding priorities. However, as scientists we have an obligation to use our knowledge of deteriorating environmental health and the importance of the oceans to life on this planet to anticipate a need that current funding does not reflect.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Use of large UNOLS vessels for the past dozen years, on about 15 cruises, with roles spanning from graduate student through chief scientist.

**Responses**

1. This plan would not meet my needs as an expeditionary scientist, nor do I think it would meet the needs of the entire community. Looking forward over the next decade or two, I think that members of our community will have strong scientific incentive to perform studies with truly global distribution. It is difficult now to get scheduled for funded US programs in "non-traditional" ocean basins (e.g. south Atlantic, Indian) unless one is part of a major initiative. If Global-class ships are to play some role in deploying/servicing of remote observatories and if the recent levels of Navy and NOAA usage continues, then the ability to support individual UNOLS investigators (or small groups) to perform global science with a smaller Global fleet will suffer dangerously. I suppose some of my concerns would be allayed if I knew more about the Ocean class, in particular, if a significant number of them could operate with the geographic range and sea-state parameters of the retired R/V's Conrad, Washington, Moana Wave.

2. I don't see these items as being integral to this "Chart of the Future..."; that said, if the agency folks want to point to a statement of new-ship awards in this discussion paper, I would like to see a) a statement saying that this situation (non-replacement) would come up under the existing recommendations but needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis (rather than a 10-20 year planning document) and/or b) a statement saying that those with decision-power on awarding of new ships have an obligation to keep scientific issues at the fore.

3.

4. The NSF Fleet Review tables certainly seem more realistic across-the-board than the 30-year duration. The fleet retirement/renewal projections in the FOFC discussion paper would certainly change if the Fleet Review table (or an updated version thereof) was used. I would be loath to see, as an outgrowth of this FOFC report, a recommendation to retire some of the ships earlier than Fleet Review (or other, presumably more careful) projections.

5.

6. I don't know enough about the "non-classical" sources to anticipate how they might wax and wane. I didn't get the impression that the report considered that flat or slow-growth of funding was particularly "cautious"; it sounded like they considered this growth to be realistic. I'm disappointed that this 10-20 year charting of the research fleet's future does not at least consider as an option the scientific benefits which would arise from projecting greater growth. This report accepts the premise that increases in observatory science will come at the expense of non-observatory science, to some degree. I would not like to see this be the case.

7.

8. A year or two *always* goes by before you are accommodated on a large-ship, unless you are very fortunate that your port needs are compatible with a gap in a suitable ship's schedule, or that you have some significant constraint such as time-series work. Some work (over-the-side, deep-tows) requires more-stable platforms and plenty of cruises require large amounts of deck and/or lab space. If ships are sent to areas at the limits of their tolerance and sea-state limits, then science-days will be lost and everyone loses.

9. If they require UNOLS ships to deploy/service them, then they will increase demand for research ships. Of course.

10.

11. Just an editorial comment: The bottom of the 4th paragraph under "Fleet Capacity and Usage" was confusing to me. I think they mean "Over-capacity" of ships; as-written, I first thought it as "Over-capacity" of usage (which is opposite of the message in that paragraph). This sentence should be clarified.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Experience: 22 cruises on large U.S., Australian, French, and Japanese vessels, and the JOIDES Resolution. Responding on behalf of: myself.

**Responses**

1. This plan would meet my needs. Personally, I favor fewer larger ships with all oceans capability and extended endurance, because I tend to work in remote regions.

2. I believe that politics will always be part of the process--witness military base closings--so I don't think anything more needs to be said on this point.

3. I agree that fewer ships with more endurance and larger berthing capacity are appropriate.

4. My only comment concerns the Ewing retirement and replacement. Industry seismic vessels are typically built to last for 15 years, as technology changes relatively rapidly. Given the cycles the geophysical service industry experiences, some temporal flexibility should be built into the Ewing's retirement, so that a new or relatively new replacement seismic vessel could be acquired from industry at the bottom of one its cycles, e.g., 2001!

5. I prefer ongoing modifications and improvements, such as those which happen on the JOIDES Resolution, as opposed to a single "mid-life refit".

6. I don't know--my crystal ball is opaque!

7. Not from my perspective, but I appreciate that others will think differently.

8. If difficult only means a year or two, they I prefer a larger, more sea kindly ship.

9. I suspect that they will increase demand.

10. I believe that scientific capabilities should define fleet capacity.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself. I am an occasional user of ships for marine geophysical studies and deployment and recovery of ocean-bottom seismometers. Nearly all my usage has been of global class ships on cruises of duration 40 days or more. Most of my recent cruises have been interdisciplinary, involving geochemists and petrologists in addition to geophysicists.

**Responses**

1. Current usage of global class ships has remained fairly steady over the last decade, at roughly 90% of capacity, yet 33% of that capability will be lost over the next five years with no plan for replacement. In contrast, intermediate or ocean class ships have averaged usage at about 70% of capacity, yet 86% of that capacity will be replaced in the current plan. Perhaps some of the loss of global class capacity can be replaced by usage of ocean class ships, but the priorities here seem to be reversed from what the usage pattern dictates.

2. Institutional balance should be one consideration, but not an overwhelming factor.

3. If the global class is to lose 33% of capability, then more endurance and larger berthing capacity for the ocean class is needed.

4.

5.

6. These non-classical sources are going to be dependent on the economy and not too many people are very good at forecasting such changes - I have no idea whether they will wax or wane and believe that the cautious growth assumption is the most sensible approach.

7.

8. Would prefer in most cases easier to schedule to larger, more kindly.

9. Systems such as the Ocean Seismic Network and deployment of arrays of ocean-bottom seismometers will demand regular servicing that will likely increase the demand.

10.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have spent about 10 months at sea over the last 20 years, mostly on intermediate and large ships. I have served on UNOLS/FIC, and I am presently a member of ARVOC. I was a member for the last 10 years of the SIO Marine Operations Committee. I am responding for myself.

**Responses**

1. The intermediate class ship (Oceanus, New Horizon) will probably see more use in future. These ships have reasonable range and endurance. I think they could be improved in terms of habitability for long range and endurance by designing them with smaller singe scientific staterooms. The Oceanus class in particular drafts deep, is acoustically quiet, with good seakeeping characteristics.

2.

3. The newest UNOLS vessels have high endurance and berthing capacity and are probably sufficient in the near term to satisfy the "large expedition mode". I think we need more capability/flexibility through more small and intermediate size vessels.

4. How are lifetimes determined/projected? A good working ship should be maintained as long as is practical.

5. Yes, mid-life refits are a good idea.

6. Cautious growth

7. Coastal is not very defining in terms of vessel design.

8. It depends. I would request the smallest ship that could do the work. But this includes trying to minimize loss of science days to weather and safety considerations.

9. I think the ship demand/usage will stay about level -- at present I think it is limited by the level of science funding. New observing systems will still require ships for deployment and maintenance. Experiments to fill in the measurement gaps (still large) that will require ships will continue to be proposed.

10.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have spent 1 to 2 months a year at sea for the last 18 years - mostly on the larger ships. I am an individual respondee.

**Responses**

1. The ocean and its resources are tremendously undersampled and if we could build up the fleet ten-fold it still would be. As the demand/fishery resources ratio and our need to understand the details driving the climate, droughts, and storms increases, so will our need for doing science at sea. Unfortunately, we live in a time when science is funded by a rich, somewhat fickle patron - the government. I agree with Fornari comments above; in some ways, it's not a much different situation than it was in the 1700's. In addition to government funding a UNOLS fleet, I think it makes good sense for the industries who use the information, or harvest the resources that the information illuminates to pay directly for the science that makes it possible to collect. Two examples: Insurance companies could pay for physical oceanographic research and monitoring (they can work it into their actuary tables). If the fishery industries were granted permits based both on their level of monitoring the resources, and the results of that monitoring, we'd have a much better system of resource management with built-in feedback. I think the reasons to do research at sea will continue to grow in the future, as should our capability to do so.

2. The experience of the crew is an important ingredient that makes it possible to do science at sea. Keeping seagoing facilities from shrinking (in terms of numbers of ships) is necessary to keep and train able scientific crew.

3. More and smaller, but not so small a ship that it can't do blue-water science.

4. In the case of the Washington, I think we got rid of her too early. I'm in favor of well maintained and long-lived ships.

5. Definitely do it!

6. I think our government and international agreements should put pressure to bear on industries to pick up part of the tab. (see 1.)

7. I suppose regional vessels should be designed for the region they are intended.

8. This is a funny question. I would choose to take out the more sea-kindly ship now, thank you. But if it is unavailable, I'll take the other.

9. I would almost bet it will increase the demand.

10. I think it should be based on the global, societal need for the products of seagoing science.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responding on behalf of myself. My experiences in using oceanographic research vessels has been excellent with one exception (R/V Fred Moore).

**Responses**

1. The work that I do requires the larger ships. The problem that I have faced is scheduling. With fewer ships will difficulty will only increase. It is particularly challenging because the locations I work in are remote. If the community moves toward global experiments as suggested by Futures documents the need for expeditionary ships would become increasingly important. Fewer ships would make such efforts difficult.

2.

3. Berth space has not been a large concern for my field programs, but if one examines the forecasts by the various Futures documents, the need to support multi-disciplinary science would argue in favor of more science berths on ships. If we are indeed going to continue the trend toward multi-disciplinary science projects we will need to accommodate more people in the field. Whether this is by using multiple-ship approach or by using ships with large capacity for berthing will depend entirely on the type of science that is to be performed. Some projects require all involved to be on the same ship others don't.

4.

5. Good idea.

6. Cautious growth

7.

8. A year's wait (or more) is standard now. My work will require larger ships, so I really have no choice.

9. I think the push toward establishing such sensors and long-term observatories will only increase the demand for ships. Furthermore, if time-series studies continue to enjoy funding successes they are likely also to increase demand for ship use. Currently there are more successfully funded cruises than scheduling opportunities.

10.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding as an individual. My comments do not reflect an official institutional response. I have used UNOLS vessels extensively for over 20 years, with most of my work on intermediate and expeditionary class vessels (Eastward, Knorr, Melville, Oceanus, Endeavor, Wecoma, Washington, Revelle).

**Responses**

1. In my opinion, the proposed fleet renewal plan will fall short of meeting the science needs of the community. The proposed plan makes the assumption that increased use of observational systems will result in reduced shiptime requirements by the ocean-going community. I disagree. Even under the reasonable additional assumption that funding for ocean science and ship operations will only grow modestly, the increased proportion of total fleet days that will be devoted to the deployment, servicing, and recovery of the next generation of observing systems may reduce significantly the number of days available for focused studies of ocean processes. I think the science needs of the next two decades will result in increased demand for shiptime, particularly on intermediate class vessels that could be used in coordination with other vessels/observing systems. I favor the flexibility of intermediate vessels over the extended endurance or greater berthing capacity of the larger vessels.

2. A well-framed and thoroughly-discussed fleet renewal plan should reduce (but never eliminate) the political maneuvering on behalf of specific institutions. A serious community discussion of the assumptions and realities of a renewal plan (especially the geographic distribution of the fleet) may help minimize the pursuit of pork.

3. Until we see research vessels that can accommodate multiple simultaneous over-the-side operations, there will be little benefit to having 25+ scientists on an intermediate vessel, let alone 35+ on a global class vessel. We can more easily meet the needs of multi-investigator, interdisciplinary projects with 15-20 scientists on each of two intermediate or large regional vessels than we can with 35+ scientists on one expeditionary class vessel. This issue is particularly important as our science questions mature to demand resolution of spatial variability within study areas.

4. The assumptions that support a 30 year retirement schedule are not clear. It seems reasonable that mechanical and structural systems on ships have a finite life, but that mid-life and late-life refits could extend that a few years. I defer to those with a better understanding of wear and tear on ships. The timing outlined in the proposed plan seems reasonable, although I would add another Ocean class vessel and another Regional class vessel to the proposed plan. It is sobering, however, to think about the funding implications of the proposed timing of acquisitions (renewals) over the next 15 years (not 20!!), as displayed in Figure C of the FOFC plan. Within the next 10 years alone, we need funding for the Alaska vessel, 3 Ocean class, and 1 Regional class vessel. That,s $40M within 2 years for Alaska, then another $120-150M for the remaining vessels within the next four or five years if the vessels are to be completed by 2010. (These are my own wild-ass guesses and may be $10M high or low per vessel others in the community can make more informed cost projections). The 2010-2015 window requires funding and completion of 1 global, 1 ocean, 2 regional vessels, at least another $100M. The message is pretty clear that the ocean science community must work with the agencies to create the compelling case for appropriation of at least $30-40M per year of new money, solely dedicated to fleet renewal (new vessels, refits, technical enhancements, etc.)

5. We should do what we can to extend the life of vessels and improve capabilities through refits. Those decisions, however, should be based on the best cost-benefit analysis possible.

6. It seems reasonable to assume modest growth in funding.

7. I suggest that the terms "coastal" and "shallow-draft" be refined when the science mission requirements for the vessel are developed. The proposed renewal plan should just talk about coastal.

8. The choice between a large, stable vessel vs a smaller, less stable vessel would depend on the science mission. My own research would benefit more from a flexible scheduling process rather than from a larger vessel.

9. I think demand for ships will increase. See #1, #10, #11.

10. Several issues here. Fleet capacity in each class is now based on a uniform assumption of the same full operating year, (FOY) for each vessel in that class. Should a vessel used primarily in higher latitudes (>40, for example) have the same FOY as a vessel used primarily in the subtropics? Should we track efficiency of use (% of berths used per cruise) for each class. Lots of anecdotes about global or intermediate class ships sailing with very small science parties. Does that happen very often, or often enough to bias our assessments of ship days used, per class? Funding assumptions of modest growth in the proposed plan suggest that the ocean science community must define clear objectives for efficient future use of limited vessel resources. Are past usage patterns of the fleet the best predictors of future usage? Perhaps we should turn the question around and ask: Do the science needs of the next two decades require us to alter the definition of fleet capacity? Can those science needs be articulated to Congress in a compelling fashion so that the necessary funds will end up in the right budget category? The various Futures reports, the new Decadal report, start that process.

11. We need to think of our ships just like the astronomers think about big telescopes or the particle physicists think about accelerators. What resources will be required to address the highest priority science questions? We make the best case we can for those science issues and for the fleet resources required to address those questions. Our ability to address our compelling science questions will be defined by whatever fleet capacity and capabilities are in place. I think the scheduling process will need to evolve to become more responsive to short-time scale phenomena as the more extensive and higher resolution time-space coverage of the ocean via new observing systems reveals intermittent events and processes.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
My experience is limited to coastal waters with very short duration cruises, except for one long mid-Atlantic cruise. I am responding on my behalf as an oceanographer.

**Responses**

1. In the northeast where the plan calls for one ship replacing three, there will be a serious shortage in the ability of scientists to perform their research in a timely manner and at sites of choice for the best answers possible to questions asked. 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.

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

4.

5.

6.

7.

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.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Extensive experience working at sea.

**Responses**

1. Economical vessels with a deep sea capability are essential to maintaining a vigorous oceanographic capability. It would be a serious step back to decommission ENDEAVOR & OCEANUS without building suitable replacements.

2.

3. My personal experience with ENDEAVOR and WECOMA is that this class of vessel is ideally suitable for process oriented oceanography and the best possible size on which to train future generations of oceanographers. These vessels can handle foul weather better than some larger ships and are very convenient for instrument deployment and recovery. Much larger ships are too expensive and too bureaucratic for most process oriented studies. I have rarely felt the need for extra berthing space in the ENDEAVOR class, but a modest increase might be helpful. The important outcome is that this very effective size of vessel continue to be available.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. It is hard to see how new observational systems can be developed and used with confidence if without effective seagoing capability. Ships will be essential for complementing the more restricted observational capabilities of autonomous and fixed systems. Servicing such systems will also require shiptime.

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

Name: Craig M. Lee
Institution: Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am a sea-going physical oceanographer with experience on both intermediate and large UNOLS vessels. I spend an average of 3-4 weeks per year at sea, and have participated in multi-investigator, inter-disciplinary efforts. Recent work has involved towed profiling (SeaSoar) and free-fall profiler surveys. Future efforts will use similar instrumentation as well as autonomous vehicles (gliders). I am responding on my own behalf.

**Responses**

1. I believe that we need a large number of intermediate class vessels in addition to a small number of large, 'global' class ships. The smaller ships provide flexibility in scheduling and can efficiently support individual projects. They may also represent the most versatile platforms for supporting the new generation of autonomous vehicles. Large, stable platforms are needed to support inter-disciplinary operations, for work in severe conditions and for use by investigators whose efforts are labor-intensive and/or require extensive lab facilities. Mooring work (including the support of long-term observing systems such as NEPTUNE) will also require large, capable platforms.

2. Some form of peer review process is needed to govern the award of new operating contracts. It might be prudent to establish this process now, as this might help reduce (though certainly not eliminate) the political facet of new ship awards.

3. I don't believe that this should be an either/or question, as the answer depends on the nature of the research. For much of my work, I would prefer a larger number of intermediate size vessels. However, larger, inter-disciplinary efforts require more berths and larger lab spaces. I believe we will see an increasing number of these types of programs in upcoming years. I expect that the berthing and lab space needs of our biological, chemical and geological colleagues will be quite different than those of most physical oceanographers.

4.

5. Refitting older hulls seems like a good approach, provided that such refits are cost effective relative to new construction. The idea of implementing on-going upgrades rather than extensive mid-life refits seems sound, and could allow the community to more rapidly benefit from advances in technology. Ultimately, I do not have the background to properly judge the merits of the two approaches.

6. The current funding environment warrants the 'cautious-growth' assumption. I would hope that non-traditional funding sources continue to play a role, but do not have sufficient information to speculate.

7. It seems that vessels in this class are likely to be small, regional ships. As such, designs could be tailored to meet specific requirements- shallow draft platforms where required and general-purpose hulls elsewhere.

8. Provided that the poorer riding vessels provide a stable enough platform to carry out operations, I would prefer a larger number of smaller ships. Our current funding cycles, which often specify 3-year programs, cannot easily accomodate 1-2 year delays in field operations. Flexibility and improved availability are far more valuable that a good ride. That said, there will always be projects that require large, stable platforms. I've recently been involved in two towed profiling (SeaSoar) efforts that required operating in poor conditions. Operating from a large, stable platform (Revelle) we lost no science days despite severe weather. Operating from an intermediate class vessel in slightly kinder conditions, weather forced us to cease operations for approximately half our allotted time. Clearly, we would have been better off with a larger platform, despite the additional up-front costs.

9. I would expect increased demand for a different mix of services. Autonomous vehicle operations would be best served by numerous small, fast, flexible ships. Extensive networks such as NEPTUNE will require platforms that can handle large deck loads and that are capable of full-depth mooring work. Networks of small, autonomous vehicles might require flexible, opportunistic support while NEPTUNE-like efforts could utilize regularly scheduled service cruises. Operational sampling will also reveal new processes requiring focused studies. I (personally) hope that ship demands for process-oriented studies will not decline with the advent of these large-scale observing networks.

10. The definition of fleet capacity needs to account for availability (can a platform be provided for the time period and location specified in the original request) as well as simple measures of ship days used relative to ship days available. Upcoming autonomous platforms would also benefit from increased flexibility in scheduling. Unfortunately, I have no easy suggestions for incorporating these factors into an absolute measure of capacity. Clearly, if funding levels increase (and funding for observational work tracks the trend), demand for ship time should also rise. Large observatory programs, such as NEPTUNE, should offer reliable, support for ship capacity. Perhaps these programs can provide a buffer to smooth out other oscillations in demand.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I respond on my own behalf. I am a new PI and have used vessels from all 3 size classes (and anticipate doing so in the future).

**Responses**

1. I believe that there will need to be more and not fewer ships in the future. In particular, more Ocean and Regional-size ships. Although there will likely be more un-manned platforms, these will stimulate more field-based research. Un-manned platforms will be used to augment field research and not replace it. Oceanographic data collection is limited because of access to the ocean environment. Less access means even less data. Laboratory experiments are useful but results need to be verified in natural systems. In the future, methodological improvements may allow much more work to be done at sea.

2. There will be politics. For regional ships, award them on a regional basis so that there is good coverage and cost-effectiveness.

3. There needs to be a mix in the fleet because of the different research objectives. Big ships with large berthing capacities may yield better looking statistics (i.e., number of days per year at sea), however; this can be a false economy if many of those berths are empty. More regional ships that are strategically placed and have some scheduling flexibility might yield a higher efficiency in terms of research projects and individuals accommodated. As noted in the FOFC Plan, there is more multidisciplinary work being funded and so there needs to be adequate berthing, lab space and endurance to complete these projects even if they are in one's "local" ocean.

4. This really relates to question 5 and how one defines the life of a ship (e.g., does it float? or can one do the proposed work on it?). I'm not really sure why there were such big differences or what were the criteria used (other than 30 years).

5. Some of these questions are best answered on a ship-specific basis. I think some ships can be greatly improved by refits but others probably can not be improved cost-effectively.

6. Modify the cautious growth assumption to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy. Given some of the global issues currently being debated, there will be a growing need for field-based research. Don't limit the types of research questions that can be asked by limiting the growth of platforms to work from.

7. I think the concept should remain a coastal vessel so that all of these vessels can be used to do shelf work. While these may not be able to get into shallow draft areas, small boats can offer access to these areas.

8. If it allowed me to do timely research, I would choose the smaller, less "sea kindly" ship provided that does not mean putting people in danger. Many oceanographic events (e.g., algal blooms, physical disturbances, etc) that are important to "catch" in a research program are unscheduled. I think that some flexibility would be useful to better describe sporadic events or those that do not conform to a calendar date.

9. See question 1. I think that they will increase ship demand, not just for servicing, but because they will provide core or ancillary data that will be useful for planning process-oriented field studies around.

10. I think that its going to be difficult to count beans and come up with a fleet capacity measure. But, if ships are not built and replaced, one can be sure that the research can't be done.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Ten years at WHOI as Associate Director for Marine Operations, responsible for operation and upgrades of Knorr, Oceanus, Atlantis II, Atlantis, Alvin, Argo/Medea/Jason/DSL-120. Twice a member of the UNOLS Council. Served on or advised various UNOLS related committees. Prior to that, I was Oceanographer of the Navy. This input is my personal response (I wouldn't presume to speak for WHOI), but the thoughts expressed were derived from numerous meetings and discussions within WHOI.

**Responses**

1. This could be the wrong question. While it is agreed that UNOLS is evolving as it always has, "fewer ships" does not necessarily mean "less need." Every report/study on this subject that I have seen says that oceanographers foresee the future need for research vessels either remaining constant or slightly increasing. (Tim Cowles/Larry Atkinson report entitled "Assessment of Future Science Needs in the Context of the Academic Oceanographic Fleet", Peter Wiebe's soon to be issued report and the Brewer/Moore report entitled "Ocean Science at the New Millennium"). There is general agreement that large (Global) ship needs are well-served and will continue to be satisfied by the Navy AGORs. In the context of the eventual decommissioning of Knorr, Endeavor and Oceanus, there is considerable support among WHOI researchers that one of their replacements be for a more capable intermediate (dubbed "super-Oceanus class at WHOI); this seems to conform to the FOFC's "Oceans" class. In general terms, the "Oceans" class will be more capable than today's intermediate and less capable than global ships. Operating costs can be expected to fall in the same bracket. "Size-creep" is consistent with past trends in UNOLS and we should anticipate that smaller (Regional, Local) vessels will also be larger than their predecessors. It would be realistic to understand that the ultimate overall size of UNOLS will be controlled as much or more by available research and operating dollars as by science requirements (the ideal). Having said all that, I tend to agree with the concept of the future-UNOLS as laid out in the draft FOFC paper - some number of Global ships able and expected to cover remote areas; perhaps an equal number of super-intermediates ("Oceans" class); and a large-enough number of regional/local vessels. Most ships will be general-purpose R/Vs with a few special-purpose ones to fulfill those needs. All ships to be distributed in a manner that continues the excellence of UNOLS and services future science needs both anticipated and unanticipated (Bear in mind that the PIs on those ships are just entering kindergarten).

2. First of all, UNOLS works. Its efficacy has been repeatedly endorsed. We should take care in the process of "making it better" to not break it. The Schmitt Report "The Academic Research Fleet" makes a strong case for retaining UNOLS, while making it better/stronger/more modern. The structure of UNOLS is a widely distributed fleet with two larger fleet concentrations: (1) SIO and (2) WHOI. There is value in both modes - the distribution increases the efficiency of regional and intermediate ship operations by reducing dead-head transits and, importantly, by expanding the constituency of Oceanography in this country at the Institution, State and Regional levels. This is a very important and unique feature of UNOLS that leads directly to its strength. The larger fleet operators (notably Scripps and Woods Hole) have also made major contributions to the quality of UNOLS over the past decades. The physical plant of these "large fleet operators" serves the entire academic and education fleet in this country. In the last two years alone, WHOI has invested several million dollars in its docks, shops and associated cranes, trucks and forklifts. During this period 66 vessels have used those docks while mobilizing/demobilizing hundreds of individual cruises. Government agency operated/leased ships use our facilities. There are no charges for such uses. WHOI's waterfront infrastructure is the best in the country east of the Rio Grande. And the entire academic community is its user/beneficiary. (A similar case can be made for Scripps MARFAC.) Temptations to tame the giants and spread the wealth ought to be tempered by acknowledging the benefits that accrue through the critical mass that is made possible by the waterfront activity of multi-ship operations. Importantly, the large operators (SIO, WHOI) have served as incubators for people with ideas on how to improve UNOLS facilities and the wherewithal to see those ideas through to fruition. People like Spiess, Vine, Pinkel, Shor, Grice, Dinsmore, Leiby, Ballard, Walden, Sutherland, Knox, Coburn and so forth.

3. "Science berths" is but one metric to assess fleet capacity requirements. The trend to so-called multi-disciplinary experiments generally drives larger science parties per cruise and science berthing has occasionally been an important limiting factor in the "marketability" of existing UNOLS general-purpose ships in the intermediate classes. On the other hand, many (most?) cruises do not fill up available berths on single ships. Ship size/capacity is driven as much or more by other science mission requirements besides science party size (multi-disciplinarianism). Factors such as seakeeping/kindliness, deck and lab space, payload, endurance, acoustic quieting, ice capability, cranes, winches, coring also control ship size and configuration. And during the design processes, the tendency is to see vessel size go up, not down as design reviewers (scientists) ask for more capability. Federal agencies will occasionally force cruises into smaller ships for financial reasons and to spread the wealth to chronically under-utilized intermediates. Similarly cruises often combine several PIs on to one leg for the sake of economy - this is efficient for ships but not necessarily for the PIs. However, it does tend to foster interdisciplinary cruises. As a practical matter, combining PIs is the only way to reach remote research sites with existing ship and funding constraints.

4. The listed ship decommissioning dates is the only significant flaw in the draft FOFC paper. The decommissioning dates derived by UNOLS are much more realistic. In particular, the decommissioning dates for Oceanus, Endeavor, Wecoma, Melville and Knorr should be re-examined. Knorr and Melville underwent extensive and expensive (~$52M total) conversions just a decade ago. They were re-engined, repiped and rewired; extensive sections of hulls were replaced and added. From an engineering perspective, these are relatively new ships. It makes no sense to decommission them at an arbitrary 30 year age date. One of the justifications for the "Knorr/Melville project" was service life extension of those ships. Similarly NSF has recently invested $12M-$15M for intermediate ship mid-lifes. These ships are simple in design and in excellent condition, easily able to continue in service for at least the next 7-10 years or longer. Moving the retirement dates of these ships to the left would create a serious shortage of ships and attendant fleet renewal problem that would be untenable. "You can't get there from here" - as they say. It is unrealistic (and unnecessary) to plan to replace (or renew) that many expensive ships in less than ten years. Past history argues strongly that these things take much longer. So FOFC should do itself and academe a favor by postponing the retirements as follows:

RETIREMENT DATES	FOFC	RECOMMENDED
OCEANUS	2008	2009 plus
WECOMA	2008	2010 plus
ENDEAVOR	2009	2011 plus
MELVILLE	2007	2014
KNORR	2007	2015

5. It is true that in the past too little attention has been paid to factors such as maintainability and cost of operations in designing ships. While we do try for automation and minimal manning, very little design effort ($'s) or attention is paid to those factors. The process established by NSF and ONR for ship and instrumentation upgrades has been very effective and has resulted in a UNOLS fleet that is modern and robustly capable. I believe that the existing UNOLS care and upgrade methodology should be the model for the future.

6. One would hope that the Oceans Commission will lead to "kicking it up a notch" - "it" being the ocean science funding. History also says that in the next decade or two the Navy will be faced with another crisis that will lead to its "rediscovery" of oceanography as has happened episodically in the past. Similarly, climate change and especially abrupt climate change could change the imperative for oceanographic research and attendant access to the sea. Without stimulus such as the above, planning assumptions should remain conservative. It is worth remembering that today's UNOLS fleet size and composition was based upon mid-80's Washington assumptions that included: (1) major growth in climate change research and concomitant increases in NSF and other agency (ONR, DOE, NOAA) ocean research programs and (2) continuation, even deepening of the Cold War. Big programs like WOCE, JGOFS and RIDGE were the wave of the future. Instead, the Cold War ended and the Navy budget was cut 40%; NSF funding has been flat and other agencies' programs such as DOE's carbon cycle have been axed. NOAA's fleet modernization program has struggled to say the least. The academic fleet represents a large investment of federal, state and private dollars. It not only makes sense but should be obligatory that these assets be used maximally to serve national needs. Federal agencies other than NSF and ONR should satisfy their seagoing needs through utilization of UNOLS. Those agencies include but are not limited to: other Navy than ONR, other NSF than OCE like OPP, USGS, MMS, NOAA - all branches, EPA and USCG. FOFC should help put in place funding and scheduling instruments that encourage and facilitate those uses of UNOLS. (At present, conflicting contracting rules and regulations inhibit rather than enable this process.)

7. Ship configurations including hull design, draft and so forth should be driven by science missions and the anticipated operating environment. "Coastal" does not equal "shallow" necessarily. Coastal waters in New England, for example, include Georges Bank and the storm-tossed continental shelf as well as many Bays and Sounds. The challenge in coastal research vessels is putting safety and effectiveness into an available and affordable package. As a practical matter, all existing "small" research vessels in the northeast are fair weather craft which is fine so long as the scientists do not need to do research during times when the weather is not ideal. (There should be more careful definition of coastal regions, and it is suggested that a good starting point would be the six regions defined in the report from the UNOLS Coastal Facilities Workshop held in Williamsburg.)

8. Larger does not equal more seakindly necessarily. ("It's the hull design, stupid!" to coin a paraphrase.) Thought must be given to designing ships that are capable of safe, effective (and efficient) research in the full range of environments our future scientists wish to go. (We recently had a Chief Scientist whose goal for a cruise was to find five days of continuous 50-knot or higher (storm force) sustained winds so that he could study air-sea interactions. This is not the kind of work one sends small craft or a poorly designed/operated larger ship to do.)

9. It is illusory to think that technologies will completely replace or supplant research vessels. In the past, new technologies such as tomography, thermometry, ships of opportunity, buoys, space-based sensors, drifters, observatories, AUVs have been touted as obviating the need for ships while in reality the use of ships has steadily increased. That is not to say that the kinds of work done on research vessels and their instruments have not evolved. There have been huge improvements and upgrades; the field is constantly evolving. But to think that we understand all of the oceans' secrets and can now change to a remotely monitoring mode is completely unrealistic. Oceanography is still in the discovery mode and ship-borne scientists and their instruments is the essential enabling research tool. To quote Cowles/Atkinson, " . . . new observational tools will extend the reach of the fleet, but will not replace or reduce the fundamental use of vessels . . ."

10. An academic renewal plan is essential. This FOFC draft report is an excellent beginning toward creating a plan and is to be applauded. In view of the urgent need to begin the acquisition process for these vessels, it would seem to be appropriate for NSF and ONR to begin funding design studies for the next generation of vessels. These studies should include examining a variety of mixes and distribution of vessels to satisfy anticipated "fleet capacity" projections. It is also recommended that endorsement of Fleet Renewal be requested of the coming Oceans Commission.

11. It is very important to remember while planning for UNOLS fleet modernization that a primary strength of UNOLS is not its ships or technology; it is people both afloat and ashore who care for and operate those vessels - people who are dedicated and knowledgeable about the art and craft of going to sea and committed to helping oceanographers achieve their research goals. Whatever we do in the process of making UNOLS better, we should ensure a stable and nurturing work opportunity for those people. Care should be taken to avoid over-capitalization with attendant lay-ups and lay-offs.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on my own behalf.

I have been involved with about a dozen sea-going operations on a variety of ships - Oceanus-class, Atlantis II, Ewing, Knorr, and Joides Resolution. All of my cruises have involved coring and hydrographic surveys.

**Responses**

1. Larger ships are needed for some kinds of sea-going operations like long coring. The early loss of Knorr and Melville will mean that there will be only two ships remaining with sufficient length along the starboard side to deploy a 30-m piston core - Revelle and Thompson. A new global-class vessel may be suited for this task, but the plan as it is described would omit a global-class vessel from the Atlantic. I think this would seriously limit some types of activities in the Atlantic basin. The ocean-class vessels alluded to in the review probably will not be capable of this type of long coring.

2.

3.

4. The early retirements of Knorr and Melville will significantly limit certain types of sea-going operations like long coring. See question 1 above.

5. I would support continuous refitting to extend the life of the vessels.

6.

7.

8. I have needs for both types of ships, depending on the project. Large berthing capabilities are generally not important for my cruises, but large ships usually are necessary.

9. I think these new sensing systems will increase demand for research ship operations. In addition, new programs like IODP will create new demand for global-class vessels for geophysical and coring operations.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been the ship operations manager at WHOI for the past 13.5 years. I was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the Knorr-Melville refits and in the Oceanus class mid-life renovations.

The comments are my own.

**Responses**

1. I note that the 10 replacement ships are in fact replacing 14 retirements. Moana Wave was not considered as a retirement.

2. If assignment is not addressed up front, the process will not be trusted and institutions may be tempted to play the politics trump (for some) card.

3. I have no opinion. This depends on science needs. I note that passionate opinions have been expressed on both sides. Not surprisingly.

4. The 30 year lifetime is a reasonable, general starting point, but it needs to be adjusted for actual conditions. UNOLS has already made those adjustments and therefore the retirement scheduled developed by UNOLS is more realistic.

5. A system for continuous upgrades already exists in the Ship Inspection Program, Shipboard Scientific Support Equipment grants, the Instrumentation grants, and construction and upgrade projects. If these efforts are reasonably funded along with full maintenance funding, then creeping obsolesce can be delayed. The mid-life refit approach has been and can continue to be effective. In spite of the pain the Knorr-Melville mid-life renovations produced ships which have been very successful in global scale (and even in some regional) research projects. The Endeavor-Oceanus-Wecoma mid-life refits clearly met the objectives of extending useful ship life and enhancing support to science. (We added a third objective, to not screw up an already proven design and were successful in that one as well.)

6. No opinion

7. Coastal is not necessarily shallow draft.

8. As a ship operator, I have no opinion. However I note that cost and availability issues have driven many of the responses to this question. This begs the issue of the value of a better ride - more operating days in a given weather window and more comfortable and therefore more effective scientists. Some programs are clearly pushing to extend oceanography into unfriendly, even extreme conditions.

9. The Cowles' report and several others clearly make the case for increased demand.

10. Fleet capacity ultimately should be measured by how effectively the needs of science are met. The disparate needs mean there is probably no simplistic metric.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I primarily participate in cruises on the Regional and Intermediate class vessels, but have also been on numerous cruises aboard the NSF and NOAA world-class vessels (Discoverer, Malcolm Baldridge, Melville, Thompson), as well as many private research vessels. I am responding for myself.

**Responses**

1. I think that, on the west coast at least, there is a real issue with existing ship availability. Many of the programs I have been involved with require Intermediate Class shiptime due to the lack of bunk, deck, and lab space in the Regional ships. At the same time, many day-cruise and instrument maintenance cruises must rely on Intermediate, Regional, or chartered vessels, and don't fully use those ship's capabilities. The proposed plan to replace the existing Regional vessels with more capable (double bunk capacity, etc.) would certainly help. I would prefer to see a combination of more and better supported Local/Regional vessels and a few more Ocean Class vessels, so that multiple programs can occur at once. As an example, the R/V New Horizon is frequently used for mooring deployment, meaning that process-study or time-series cruises must rely on smaller vessels if they are to operate at the same time. The process-study cruises often need more bunk space, while using the New Horizon for mooring deployment underutilizes the personnel capacity.

2. This is a really tough issue. Clearly, institutions that have operated ships in the past have the experience, but the track-record (user satisfaction in particular) should be closely examined before providing another ship with no questions asked.

3. I would like to see more Regional ships with increased capacity. Many ongoing programs rely on multi-ship efforts, allowing, for example, process- and time-series studies concurrently. I'm ver concerned that fewer, larger ships will drive the scientific questions asked (since there will be pressure to fill the ship to capacity), and has the potential to severely limit regional multi-PI efforts. We need to maintain the capacity to keep several mid-sized (smaller than JGOFS, larger than local, single PI studies) going simultaneously.

4.

5. If there are significant improvements that can be made without seriously affecting ship scheduling (e.g. removing the only Intermediate-Class ship from a region for 12-24 months to enable the "minor" refit), then yes, absolutely. I'm a little concerned that cost overruns might end up making this much more expensive than anticipated, though, both in terms of ship availability (taking longer than expected) and financial costs.

6. It seems to me inherently difficult to predict the availability of "non-classical" sources of funding. If they become available, then great, use them. But for planning purposes, it seems unwise.

7. Absolutely. Much of the west coast requires large Regional or Intermediate vessels for even near-shore work. Coastal vessels would be better described by the anticipated region of operation. Design requirements for a Gulf vessel are very different from those for a vessel operating in Oregon.

8. We frequently run into this issue. Often we choose to use the smaller vessel, in part because of past experience with variability in ship operations from institution to institution. This really comes down to the specifics of the situation. If the proposed research will work on the smaller vessel, then I'd probably go with the smaller vessel.

9. I think demand for multi-use, mid-sized vessels will increase. As more automated systems are employed, there is a corresponding need for more shiptime for maintenance and validation. At the same time, automated systems provide convenient bases for process-study work in the same region.

10.

11. Some thought should also be given to providing new technologies to the fleet as they become available, possibly on a loan basis. The increase in the use of undulating vehicles and AUVs has so far been somewhat limited to larger institutions who can afford to develop, own, and operate them. It would be a tremendous advantage to PIs at other institutions to be able to request an NSF-operated AUV or SeaSoar for a cruise.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Manager of Marine Technician Group for R/V WECOMA. I am answering for myself only.

**Responses**

1. I believe that the tradeoff in the FOFC paper between fewer/larger and more/regional is about the best outcome. Ships slightly larger and with more science bunks than the OCEANUS class ships are probably needed. However, it looks like this plan will meet the needs of science today, and not for the future. The FOFC paper presents a fleet in 2020 with 50% less shipdays available on general-purpose Global-ranging ships (4 today vs. 2 in 2020, excludes ATLANTIS and a Seismic ship), and 15% fewer shipdays available in 2020 vs. today in the Intermediate/Ocean class. But, the paper states that some of these Ocean class vessels may be "specially configured to accommodate" specific missions. It is likely that the Ocean class ships will pick up some of the work normally reserved today for the Global ships, but there is also the possibility of confronting an underbuilt fleet in 2020. Where will the Global ship capacity based in the Atlantic come from? Under the FOFC plan, there will be two global vessels based in the Atlantic, both of them special purpose (ATLANTIS and a Seismic vessel). Will this lead to inefficiencies in scheduling?

2. The politics cannot be avoided, and it is obvious from the FOFC report where the blood will be spilt. The problem of a single-ship institution losing a ship with no prospect of replacement impacts more than just the politics - where will the technical expertise go? Where will the equipment go? Who will support the equipment? What is to become of these resources?

3. The major problem with more science bunks is that more lab space is required for these scientists to work. More labs = larger ships = more costs. In reality, it is more efficient to assign multiple, cheaper ships to a large program instead of a single, larger and more costly one. The science person-days might be the same, but more work will actually get done.

4. Under current usage patterns, it seems likely that new ships will need to dovetail with existing ships in order to avoid service disruption to the science community.

5. The major problem with modifying existing hulls in a significant way is regulatory. The tonnage rules under which the OCEANUS-class ships were built are no longer in force. Substantial change to the internal volume of these vessels will bring current regulations into play. In that environment, it is unlikely that the existing OCEANUS-class hulls could be refit in a cost-effective way vs. new builds. In fact, I would argue that it will be cheaper to build new hulls than to refit.

6.

7. A "coastal" ship in the Gulf of Mexico is working in a very different environment than one in Northern California.

8.

9. Those things have to get out there, and they have to be serviced, and they have to be brought back. Deep observatories will not magically appear on the ocean floor.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am a professor of oceanography and I am representing myself.

**Responses**

1. I feel that there will more need for regional vessels, in part to meet growing education requirements. It is important to note that "regional" does not mean "fair weather" and I would like to see these vessels have the capability to "work" during gale force winds/seas.

2. In terms of the broader University community, I think that it acceptable for the mix of facilities at a University to change in response to faculty, student, etc. needs. Examples include the loss of the Iselin by Miami, an accelerator at Maryland. My understanding is that in both of these cases, the funding agencies provided the institutions with some flexiblity so that they could move into other areas.

3. My sense is that the FOFC paper is correct---that more berths are needed across the size classes.

4. I don't have much to add here except that I think that institutions that do a good job of maintaining their vessels and extending their useful life should be recognized/rewarded.

5. A flexible approach is always best. But does UNOLS have a good track record here? The re-engining of the AII and the modifications to the Knorr and Melville?

6. I think that a cautious growth assumption is best. If the UNOLS fleet and the academic community can meet the research needs of other federal agencies (DOE, EPA, USGS, etc.), I think that the current political philosophy would dictate continuing this practice vs. creation of civil service labs/ships.

7. I think that it is important to note that coastal is not shallow and it is not "fair weather". Thirty minutes from port, we can find 2 km of water! (and 50 knots of wind)

8. I would choose the smaller vessel.

9. I think that it will increase the demand for research ships, both to help service the facilities, but also to explore the processes/phenomena that are "detected."

10. Creation of new knowledge? Education of students? Creation of data bases to address societal issues? I am not sure that I understand this question.

11. There are several comments regarding "chartering" of research vessels. Will Universities be active in this area? How will this mesh with traditional UNOLS activities? I enjoyed the report. It seems reasonable.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
In the past 12 years I have spent about a year at sea on US and Canadian ships. My experience on US ships is limited to intermediate class vessels. I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. The current number of ships seems to work well today and, I believe that more, not fewer, will be needed in the future. Replacing three ships with one in the northeast would not be acceptable. It would severely limit scientists' ability to get to sea. I also like the current mix of ships and I think this needs to be maintained.

2. Ships should be awarded on merit. If it is possible to keep politics out of the equation, this should be done.

3. I would like to see a balance maintained. With fewer ships and larger berthing capacity, wire-time will limit productivity.

4. Replacing three ships with one in the northeast would not be acceptable.

5.

6.

7. Yes. It will depend on region and season. For example, Georges Bank in winter requires a much more sea-capable ship than most other coastal regions.

8. I would request the smaller ship.

9. I believe they will increase demand. These systems will need to be installed, maintained, and retrieved by ships. They will also identify new processes/events that will require investigation.

10. Capacity, however it is defined (days at sea, bunks), should be defined separately for each ship class to ensure the proper mix of ships. There should be enough flexibility built in so that ships are not operating at full capacity otherwise there will be many scheduling conflicts. Many types of science are time dependent (e.g. plankton dynamics studies) and if the scientist can't be at sea at the right time the science will suffer.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have gone to sea since 1982 on UNOLS vessels. I have been chief scientist on several recent cruises. This represents my own thinking.

**Responses**

1. I think that the science community needs at least the same number of large ships as there are right now. I see the demand for these types of ships increasing in the future with programs such as MARGINS, IODP, and RIDGE 2000 coming on line. The demand will also increase as we move towards seafloor observatories. Some of these observatories are likely to be in remote areas. Instruments will need to be deployed and serviced. For my own science I never go out to sea on a ship without multibeam bathymetry capability. Currently, that means I need to go out on a large ship. Another aspect of this is that with the Melville and Knorr scheduled for retirement and the Atlantis dedicated to Alvin there will not be much choice for many of us.

2. I agree that we need competition without politics. How that is done I don,t know.

3. I find that the berthing capability of the existing ships is OK. I also thought we were going towards a future where scientists could have a "virtual" presence on the ship. Although I advocate scientists going to sea and collecting their own data, such a future would allow many more scientists to play an active role in a cruise without being on board. I do not want fewer ships with larger berthing capacity.

4.

5. I think that modifications and improvements to existing hulls is a very practical way to go. Many of the ships scheduled for lay up have a lot of good years of service left in them. I also think that a schedule of "upgrades" that take place on a shorter timeframe than a mid-life refit will allow the ships to keep pace with changing science needs and technological improvements, ultimately making them more useful for a longer time period.

6. I don,t think that in this case we can judge the future from the past. There is an increasing interest in the oceans nationally, and that should lead to an increase in funding. I also would hate for the community to adopt an assumption that is not positive and might in the long run lead us down the wrong path. Assumptions are sometimes taken as givens.

7.

8. The right ship for the job. The science funded should dictate the ship that is required. We often wait 2+ years now to on the ships schedule so that would not be a big change.

9. As mentioned above I think that the new technology and seafloor observatories will increase the demand for ships. The needs might shift perhaps we will use the ships to map the seafloor to provide the basis for choosing the sites for observatories, or as base maps for AUVs to either navigate from or compare subsequent data to. Ships will be needed to support the observatories, and they will be needed to deploy some of the instrumentation

10. It seems we need to take into account science trends, new tools, and an upbeat expectation of funding. This latter would come from the public,s and government,s perception that the oceans need to be explored, monitored, and understood. It is our job to make them realize this.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I answer for myself, I am a very infrequent user, participating as PI in a cruse only once every few years on average. But I strongly support a strong US observational committment.

**Responses**

1. Yes, the present plan meets my needs

2. Anything to avoid political interventions is important. Political involvement in this exercise will ultimately weaken the present high quality of ocean science.

3. Literally, the lowest cost per berth consistent with the high quality science support and the required payload is probably the most important objective.

4. No

5. None, leave this to the engineers

6. No, cautious growth is wise and non-classical sources are not major contenders for ship support at present.

7. No

8. Smaller more flexible schedule is better for me.

9. No change

10. Basically if the ratio of ships to ocean scientists should remain about the same and available research dollars per ocean scientist should remain constant. These two constants were at a healthy level in the 1970-2000 time frame and should be maintained. If either were to decrease significantly, ocean scientists could not go to sea and get data there, but would have to use remote or inexpensive, subprofessional methods and the US ocean sciences would decrease in quality.

11. There is always the question of specialized vessels, sub tenders, drilling platforms and acoustic vessels to consider. How many, etc.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. I see the development of multi-investigator, multi-disciplinary programs. Such programs can benefit from multiple ships because a greater diversity of research projects can be accomlished. I think that the balance between larger, global class ships and smaller, ocean/intermediate ships that we have at present is very useful and should be continued, rather than leaning towards a configuration that emphasizes one class. Furthermore, the plan calls for an overall reduction in the number of ships in the Atlantic (including Gulf of Mexico) with an increase in the number of ships in the Pacific (including Alaska and Hawaii). With the exceptions of the Atlantis (which actually operates extensively in the Pacific) and the Ewing, both of which are specialized ships, there will be no global class general oceanographic ships home ported in the Atlantic by 2010. The number of ocean/intermediate class ships in the Atlantic will decrease from 5 at present to 3 in 2010 (two of which are the Link and the Johnson which are not as sea kind as the Endeavor/Oceanus/Wecoma class) to 2 in 2015. By contrast, in the Pacific there are at present 2 ocean/intermediate class ships which will increase to 4 in 2010 and 2015. If this type of plan is adopted, the new ships MUST be multi-ocean in order to accommodate and encourage oceanographic research in the Atlantic Ocean.

2.

3. The plan underemphasizes the utility of the Intermediate and Oceans class ships. Much of the interdisciplinary, multi-investigator research that was conducted as part of GLOBEC Georges Bank utilized intermediate or similar ships, often with deployment of multiple ships during a common period. We could not have accomplished a similar scope of research with fewer, or one, larger ship. Although larger ships may appear to be more efficient and economical, science can suffer. With multiple projects and PIs on a single ship, sampling plans and strategies and wire time for individual projects may be severely compromised. Multiple, intermediate/ocean class ships can achieve a greater diversity of sampling plans and research projects and a greater density of data collection than a single, large ship with increased berthing. I have been very happy with the Endeavor/Wecoma/Oceanus class ships; they ride very well and can accomodate a comfortable number of scientists and projects. The proposed Ocean class ships sounds good; we should add 1-2 more to the plan.

4. See comments in (1)

5. Yes, of course we should CONTINUE to improve our existing ships.

6.

7.

8. I would prefer the ship that best fits my needs, which would be defined by the type of instruments I wish to deploy, the number of projects and scientists that would need to be accomodated, the technical capability of the ship, and the timing of my project. Large does not necessarily equate with greater "sea kindness". Both Endeavor and Oceanus ride quite well. Waiting for a larger, more difficult to schedule ship may not mesh well with the funding periods that an agency can offer to an investigator; this could easily drive decisions regarding which ships to use.

9. I don't think that autonomous sensing systems will replace ships during the period under discussion, at least not for biological oceanography. Autonomous systems need further technological refinement before they can replace conventional sampling techniques. Biological oceanography in the next decades will continue to be a partnership between conventional sampling and newer, autonomous or high-resolution sampling methods. Hence, ships will continue to be necessary to conduct our research. In addition, these autonomous systems too will require ships for testing and deployment. Such activities are not necessarily consistent with the sampling strategies of other types of projects, which would make it impossible to occomodate more than one project on a single ship.

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

Name: Susan E. Humphris
Institution: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on my own behalf. I have sailed on, and been Chief Scientist, on numerous cruises investigation the geology and geochemistry of mid-ocean ridges and hydrothermal vents. My experience has been on the larger vessels, often using deep submergence vehicles and the submersible.

**Responses**

1. I do not believe there will be a need for fewer Global Class vessels. I see three developments over the next few years that will require ships that can handle a wide variety deep submergence vehicles, can carry multidisciplinary scientific and technical parties (i.e. more people), and can work in remote parts of the world:

1) the move towards a multidisciplinary approach to studies of the seafloor, as exemplified by the planning documents for the proposed new RIDGE program. Having participated in cruises to study vents that require a large technical/ engineering staff, as well as a broad disciplinary range of scientists, lab space, deck space and berthing to accommodate the required science party for optimal operations is always extremely limiting. Smaller ships will not make this better.

2) the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) plans to conduct riser drilling that will require three-dimensional seismic surveys. Seismic surveys will also be required for the non-riser drilling ship. Hence, good seismic survey ships will be required.

3) the move towards observatory-type science will not decrease the need for large ships but, rather will likely increase it. Installation and maintenance of downhole instrumentation for drill holes will likely require large ships that can handle heavy equipment; seafloor observatory maintenance will probably require ROVs with large fiberoptic cable winches. Add to this the fact that some of these observatories might require an annual commitment to have a large ship in a specific geographic region, and a decrease in the number of large vessels severely limits the ability to conduct other types of science requiring large vessels in other regions.

2. There should be an effort made to ensure there is adequate coverage of the US coastal areas by Regional Class ships to cover the regional needs -- this is the level at which distribution should be key. For the Ocean and Global Class ships, the issue becomes distribution and the costs of setting up Marine Ops groups at many institutions vs. clustering vessels at fewer locations for more efficiency and (hopefully!) reduced administrative costs. I think the current set up of a few universities on both coasts having large vessels is appropriate -- with UNOLS as the oversight body.

3. See my answer to Question 1 re: berthing. Berthing is important, but it needs to go hand-in-hand with deck and lab space, dynamic positioning needs, seakeeping, ability to work in bad weather, etc. Provision of more multi-ship opportunities would not help the type of science that I do: it would make logistics more difficult, it would cost more to get 1+ ships to some of the remote areas I work in.

4. I was surprised to see the retirement years of the Knorr and Melville so early when they have both been through major refits. These ships are generally the size that I use, and I foresee a major gap in available capabilities should the proposed retirement dates be followed as new, large ships would likely be unavailable by then.

5. I do not really feel qualified to address this issue. The one comment I have concerns the placement of the transducers on the hulls of the ships (in particular, the Knorr). On several cruises, there have been problems with dropout of signal caused by bubbles under the hull. I suspect that with a different shaped hull, or different placement of the transducers, these problems could be avoided.

6. Ocean Science has not been well funded over the last few years. Research vessels have not been fully utilized, not because of a lack of good science, but a lack of funds to conduct many large field programs. If NSF manages to increase its budget to the levels proposed by its Director, then demand may increase although in a conservative way. So I would endorse a cautious growth assumption.

7. No comment

8. Since I just waited five years for a ship -- a wait of a year or two does not seem unreasonable! I would hold out for the larger, not because of sea kindliness (since I have been on much smaller vessels that are more sea kindly), but because I usually need DP, lots of deck space for deep submergence vehicles, and lots of lab space and berths for the size of scientific party needed to operate efficiently.

9. They will increase the demand for research ships for deployments, maintenance, and subsidiary ship-based measurements in the areas. They will also restrict the geographic range of the class of ship they need if those ships are needed every year during a specific season (for example, operations in the Northeast Pacific occur only in the summer). This will compromise our ability to work in remote areas.

10. No comment

11. No comment

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have participated in many coastal (shelf, shelfbreak, marginal sea) field experiments, CODE, SMILE, AMASSEDS, SCOPEC, PRIMER, GLOBEC, mostly on intermediate sized vessels but some on large vessels and some in boats. These answers represent my own thoughts.

**Responses**

1. The Oceanus class vessels have served science and the community well. They can handle heavy mooring deployments, interdisciplinary studies with large net operations, and a host of other operations in moderate to rough weather so that very little time is lost due to a) lack of deck and lab space and carrying capacity (as would be the case with the smaller regional vessels, which would require multiple legs), and b) rough weather. The new plan seems to want to replace the Oceanus-class with larger (global-class) and smaller (regional class) vessels. While the regional vessels will play a critical role in near-shore and estuarine work, I think they will simply not be adequate for shelf and slope research, where there will be continued research interest. Using the global-class vessels for this work will be too expensive and very difficult to schedule because of the demand on them for long open ocean work. I strongly urge the committee to reconsider and place emphasis on replacing the Oceanus-class vessels with similar intermediate-sized vessels. For example, consider the recent nsf-noaa u.s. globec northeast Atlantic/Georges bank field program. This was a major effort to study the Georges bank ecosystem, and especially the connections between physical processes and zooplankton and larval fish ecology and survival. This program involved in effect 3-4 intermediate ships (Oceanus, Endeavor, Albatross, Seward Johnson). It simply could not have been conducted using regional vessels like the Cape Hatteras, the Henlopen, the new UNH or UConn vessels, or even the new WHOI swath. Getting the large vessels together to do a 5-yr program like this would also be impossible to schedule and support. SO, without continued support for Oceanus-class vessels, this kind of multi-year, interdisciplinary research will not continue, just when the science and technology is getting to the place where this research is now possible and of major importance both science-wise and for resource management and understanding.

2. Any well thought out plan should consider where the ships may end, and what the consequences to the scientific community, the institution, etc caused by this cutback.

3. See 1. Adding berths to the Oceanus-class vessels have made them better suited for multi-disciplinary cruises, which might have many groups onboard doing a variety of tasks. Again, I can not emphasize enough that having one or two global class vessels, which can carry everyone, will not help the experiments in which two-ship operations are required and best done by intermediate class vessels that are better suited to the separate operations. One large vessel would not have been able to replace the science done by two intermediate vessels in the Georges bank globec program.

4. I believe that each institution should be given incentives to keep their vessels in the very best of shape, so that for example, if URI is keeping the Endeavor in A1 shape, and that as a result, the ship can stay online for an extra 5-10 years, then UNOLS should reward this and keep the Endeavor as part of the active UNOLS fleet. The idea of discarding a vessel (especially the intermediate class vessels which have no planned replacements) just because of some initial design life guideline does not make any sense in this funding climate. The Oceanus-class vessels are quite efficient, and if they can be made to go an extra 5-10 years, the cost saving will be large and science will benefit immensely.

5. See previous answer. Anything that extends the usefulness of the intermediate class vessels should be actively pursued.

6.

7. See above comments. Much of the shelf and slope regions are beyond the capabilities of the "coastal" and even "regional" vessels for safe work, thus, my emphasis on retaining the intermediate class vessels in the fleet. Nearshore work has already blossomed in many areas, look at how many new "coastal" vessels are now available between NY and Maine (UConn, WHOI-swath,UNH,UM,etc.,). Because of the much lower cost and shorter time to build such vessels, plus the desire for local labs to own and operate their own, I think unols should not put much effort into this area, but rather work on keeping the intermediate class vessels alive in the long-term.

8.

9. I think the demand for research ship time will remain steady or increase, especially in the areas of shelf/slope/adjacent deep water dynamics and biology (including ecology, fisheries, whale behavior), acoustics, .... With the accelerating development of coastal observing systems in the next 5-10 years, the demand for scientists to study phenomena imbedded in these areas will grow, and these efforts will be quite visible to the public. Cutting the fleet capability to do this work by not replacing the intermediate class vessels will be quite visible to both the scientific community and the public.

10.

11. See above. I strongly urge a) extend life of Oceanus-class vessels, and b) develop plans to replace them at the end of their extended live. Too much good science will be lost without keeping this capability in the unols fleet.

Name: E. D. (Ned) Cokelet
Institution: NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Chief Scientist on several cruises in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. My responses, where given, are on behalf of our Fisheries Oceanography Coordinated Investigations (FOCI) group at NOAA/PMEL, Seattle.

**Responses**

1. Our Fisheries Oceanography Coordinated Investigations (FOCI) program at NOAA/PMEL, Seattle, works in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. We use UNOLS vessels on occasion. The work in rough seas requires a large and capable vessel for North-Pacific-class mooring deployment and general station keeping. We used a UNOLS Intermediate Class vessel in May 1998, and its performance was compromised by rough seas. Low freeboard meant the deck was awash - sometimes waist-deep when we tried to extract the CTD - in conditions when a larger vessel might have kept working. Perhaps the planned Alaska Ocean Class vessel will meet our needs, but it must be more sea-kindly than present Intermediate Class vessels. NOAA has only one Global Class vessel (the Ronald H. Brown), and we need more. For 2002, 457 sea days have been requested for that vessel! Therefore I see a need for MORE large ships, not fewer. As we increasingly understand how to relate weather and climate to the ocean, I believe that our ship operations will move away from the "calm" equator to higher latitudes where more sea-kindly ships will be needed.

2. No comment.

3. Larger ships, which I favor for our North Pacific work, imply larger berthing capacity. If multi-ship operations are pushed, there needs to be a better method for SCIENTISTS on those vessels to communicate with one another while working at sea. Ship radio ops. are not satisfactory for this.

4. No comment.

5. As a research scientist, I am not qualified to comment on the feasibility of hull-form or propulsion changes. People who are qualified in this regard should be consulted regarding modification and improvement to existing hulls.

6. If I knew the answer to societal and economic questions like this one, I'd be rich from stockmarket investments!

7. No comment.

8. The LARGER vessel because sea conditions dictate it. Build more, and we won't have to confront the scheduling issue.

9. INCREASE. The more oceanographic work we do, the more we'll have to be out there doing it. It's like freeways and miles driven - they rise together. New sensing systems will raise more questions, and we will want to investigate more using more resources. Ships will be one increasing element of this.

10. No comment.

11. No comment.

Name: R. P. Dinsmore
Institution: WHOI

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am mostly retired, but have served on research vessels from 1951 to 1999. I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. Insofar as Global and Ocean Class ships are concerned, I believe this plan is realistic. In terms of regional ships it falls far short of the mark. More regional ships are needed. This paper has not given adequate treatment to the regions. It talks in terms of only three regions whereas the Ocean Class is broken down as NE & SE Atlantic, NW & SW Pacific, Alaska and Antarctic. There should be a better treatment of regions which will bring out the need for more regional vessels.

2. What is said probably is all that can be said; but that is not the way it seems to work (AGOR-26, Alaskan Ship). My belief is that Federal Agencies which have fostered and supported ship operating institutions for decades have some sort of an obligation.

3. No! The concept of multi-ship operations does not mean more and smaller ships; it is the nature of the science. The trend over the years has been to increase the number of science berths on all sizes of ships. This is due to the more complex projects evolving.

4. The list of retirements is not realistic. 30 years is a fair target but other factors must be considered such as material condition and mid life refits. For example, the KNORR & Melville were virtually rebuilt in 1990 and should have a 40+ year service life. Similarly, the OCEANUS Class ships should last longer. The GYRE was built in 1971 and probably has reached retirement about now rather than 2007 as shown. If all these new ships are going to be built, and they should, then some planning had better get started soon!

5. The Draft talks mostly about Mission Capability and has little mention of Platform Capability which includes ship design technology, i.e.propulsion systems, hull design, swath ships, etc.

6. The "non-classical" sources probably will continue as they have in the past. I see no reason to modify the growth assumption.

7. It certainly does. As I stated above, a better treatment of regions should be given which will better define the characteristics of the smaller ships.

8. I would always opt for a sea kindly ship. A less sea kindly ship is easier to schedule because nobody wants to use it. A sea kindly ship does not have to be larger; it just has to be better designed.

9. The notion that data collection will shift more toward non-traditional sources is not new. It has been used before (ships of opportunity, oceanography from space, buoy systems, etc) and has not proven especially valid or has had little impact on R/V use or needs. The need for ships will remain constant and probably will increase. It is their cost which is the determining factor.

10. The best I can say here is that the Full Operating Year (FOY) used here as a measure of capacity can be misleading, and is not realistic for judging the operating performance of a ship. A hard working vessel could exceed the FOY for two years in a row then have a slack year (maintenance, etc) and would show an average utilization below the FOY.

11. The table for ship performance shows 30 days and 15,000 km for regional vessels. Most regional vessels do not need this much, the tankage require would compete with other needed space. Again, three regions should be better defined. In general, this is a good draft and I support it subject to the above comments. It is especially gratifying to see a fleet renewal plan produced by the Feds. Now lets see some action.

Name: Albert M. Bradley
Institution: whoi

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have been on perhaps 50 cruises, a few as chief scientist. I have been on mostly UNOLS ships, but navy and NOAA ships as well. If I have work to do, I want a UNOLS ship. I am responding on my own behalf and our children's (to the best of my ability).

**Responses**

1. We need to maintain the size and mix of our current fleet. With the population of the planet straining at the limits of the environment to support it, now is not the time to turn our backs on environmental science. A severe drought in the US Midwest would have a profound impact on our economy. Understanding of climate fluctuations is fueled by studies of deep sea corrals, Antarctic ice studies, general circulation and now methane ice in the continental margins. We need access.

2.

3. We need to maintain a mix of capabilities. Equipment deployment/recovery work often needs maximum range but minimum personnel. Sophisticated sampling studies needs large crews.

4.

5. Extending the lifetime of a well maintained ship by careful retrofits is a way to get more ship for the buck. But extending the life of a poorly maintained ship could be costly and saddle us with "dock queens" that burn money but don't deliver any science. Often our "retrofits" are fixing some appalling blunder which resulted from going with the lowest bidder who knows more shortcuts then we can imagine.

6. There are two models here. As climate increasingly affects our stressed environment federal funding will change, but will it increase or decrease? When faced with a threat some run like hell and others put on a blindfold. Which will our government choose?

7.

8. People vary so much in their tolerance of ship motion, there's no easy answer to this one.

9. They will increase the demand. The wonderful bandwidth the Neptune fans are crowing about could accommodate over 10,000 sensor systems of the kind we currently use. Could we deploy this many with current assets?

Name: James Irish
Institution: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have 34 years with 100 cruises on ships from the NOAA ship Oceanographer in the mid-pacific, Antarctic research on Eltanin, ONR AGOR north pacific, to 50' boats in estuarine environments. Most of work has been done on Oceanus/Endeavor/Wecoma in recent years in the coastal ocean. I am answering for myself and to some extent people I work with.

**Responses**

1. As I see oceanography in the next decade, we will have an increased need for vessels of all classes to give scientists adequate access to the oceans. With new observational systems coming on line, we will need increased ships to service these coastal observatories, make satellite Cal/Val cruises, deploy/recover moorings and drifting instrumentation and ROV's. We are still information poor, and with real-time assimilative models coming on line, there is an increased need for data for validation and control. The coastal ocean is seeing more pressures and will need increased observations, modeling, management. All these will require at least the capability we presently have. Probably some of these ships will be specialized to service different specialized platforms such as ALVIN or MBARI ROV. I think we will need more regional vessels than in the plan, and believe that a fewer, more capable vessels will be able to service the "blue water" research. The added information that is obtained by "response" to events will not be well served with the plan, and in fact cut below present capabilities. Smaller, faster, more capable boats could serve this need, but at the expense of not being fully booked.

2. Hard question to address. I believe that better service in terms of shore based service can be given at institutions operating several vessels rather than one. This doesn't take into account the "flag waving" and politics involved in such decisions. I think that the concept of institutions having to support and pay for a larger fraction of the ship costs may weed out the people who are not dedicated to supplying a seagoing capability to their institution. We should probably continue with our eyes open and see what happens.

3. In full ocean, long cruise vessels, then the ability to get more scientists access to the ocean is beneficial. For coastal research programs, it is not clear how this works, as it is hard to get resources (e.g. enough over the side line time), to have many investigators working on a boat at the same time, and the added costs of having people sitting around when the ship is a few hours out of port is not cost effective. I would be split on this issue, agreeing for larger ships and disagreeing for smaller.

4. Having used and compared the Oceanus, Endeavor and Wecoma, there are large differences in upkeep and life of these boats because of it. I think the Oceanus should be able to operate effectively for a longer time than listed in table. The plan gives enough overlap that with planning (e.g. not having another Georges Bank GLOBEC), we should be able to get through the transition. The main factor is to have the replacement plan discussed, decided upon so that we can start the process.

5. If the ship is in good shape, then outfitting with more efficient propellers, etc. may be a benefit for the larger vessels. It is not clear how much benefit would come from regional vessels. Improvements that would reduce required number of crew on board would probably be better than reshaping the hull, and leave that technology for the replacement fleet.

6. I see a slightly increasing need, with change in requirements of vessels, and maybe more specific vessels for maintaining observatories and special technology. There will always be these pulses in ship use that we aren't going to eliminate. We should consider how the "non-classical" source needs can be met with the UNOLS fleet. Maybe some of the UNOLS capability should be turned over to the commercial sector for routine maintenance. NOAA Fisheries has specialized needs probably not met by the more generalized research approach taken by UNOLS. I think that the overall cautious growth assumption is reasonable.

7. It does make a difference. If you want to work in shallow waters around Florida and Bahamas then shallow draft is necessary. Working in bays and estuaries reduces the need for high sea state operability. Working in coastal regions at higher latitudes, it is nice to have a larger draft, but construction such as Oceanus/Endeavor may be limiting. Based on users and regional differences, there should be a spectrum of vessels in this category as one type will not serve all well.

8. As a coastal researcher, the smaller, less sea kindly vessel would be choice. With 12 hours to a site, I can delay a day to avoid weather. Generally the ability to work on small or medium size ships doesn't change much if you have a variety of tasks on the cruise, and are shut down due to storms at about the same time. With the options being offered by swath, we may be able to have both.

9. I think there may be a decreasing need for standard research needs, but that decrease will more than be made up by requirements for more specialized support for these new technologies.

10. We are at a stage where technology is radically changing our capabilities to observe the ocean. As new biological, chemical, acoustic, etc. sensors and new technologies to getting our older and these newer instrumentation to sea, there will be increased needs to get to sea that we do not realize now, and are going to have a hard time planning for. The rate of change is going to be great in the next ten years as compared to the past. We should think about more flexible vessels, as well as more dedicated vessels. This makes it more difficult to define fleet capacity. I am not sure how to use these new technologies to predict what we should do.

Name: Robert W. Houghton
Institution: Lamont

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Responding for self. I have participated in numerous cruises in the northeast Atlantic. Recent experience has been with the OCEANUS and ENDEAVOR.

**Responses**

1. My personal needs are best met by intermediate size ships such as the OCEANUS or ENDEAVOR. The work continues to be process oriented but increasingly multi-disciplinary. However berthing for more than 15 and endurance greater than 30 days is not needed. I experience enough difficulty to schedule a ship. Fewer, larger ships would only make it worse. I would be suspicious of "shallow water" boats. Work on the northeast shelf needs a strong seaworthy boat. If the northeast was reduced to 1 intermediate size boat it would be a severe constraint on the present level of work.

2.

3. See above. I would prefer more ships of smaller ~15 berthing capacity.

4.

5. Ship capability should be continually improved.

6.

7. A strong ocean worthy ship is needed for most coastal work.

8. This is a tough one. One wants both. Ships with the strength and stability of the OCEANUS or ENDEAVOR are a minimum standard for all but the most protected near shore work.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Participated in 5 cruises. Myself

**Responses**

1. The current no. of ships seems to be adequate so that fewer ships would be a problem.

2. Await the outcomes.

3. A balance of of ships is needed to be most effective.

4. No comments

5. Continue the modifications and improvements to existing hulls.

6. No comment.

7. No comment.

8. Smaller ship.

9. The demand for ships will increase.

Name: The RSMAS Ship Operations Committee

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
RSMAS ship users met to consider the agency draft discussion paper on "Charting the Future for the National Academic Research
Fleet" and provide comments to the UNOLS Council. Participants included :Tom Lee, Robert Cowen, Kevin Leaman, Dennis Hansell, Jim Happell and Dave Powell. Although the comments were not directly related to the questions in the survey they have been posted according to the best match for the sake of consistency (jmp).

**Responses**

1. It was generally felt that the discussion paper was well prepared and reflected reasonable estimates of future ship needs in terms of numbers and uses of vessels over the next 20 years. However, there was concern about the lack of data in the report. How was it determine that the future fleet should consist of 2 less Global Class and one less Ocean Class vessels? What were the considerations that went into a plan that calls for one Regional Class to replace 3 vessels in the Gulf of Mexico (one intermediate and two small regionals). This appears to be at odds with the recent trend toward greater ship use in the Gulf region.

2. It is not clear how the federal funds will be awarded for new vessels. Will there be separate awards for construction and operation or a single award for both?

3.

4.

5.

6. The plan is based on only slight increases in NSF funding over the 20 years, but what would happen if NSF funding for ocean science were to double in the next 5-years?

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. On page 1, paragraph 3 states: "This initial report does not address smaller coastal vessels, submersibles, remotely operated vehicles, ocean observatories, drifting or navigated sensor packages or facilities" Will these be included in separate plans for developing long-term strategies for these vessels and observational methods? Certainly the report bases much of its future strategy on the use of these new vessels greater than 40m to facilitate operations with these observational methods. Smaller coastal vessels also deserve a long-term strategy, either as part of this report on the larger vessels or in a separate plan. Future trends suggest increases in coastal research and the number of institutional applications for UNOLS Vessel status for coastal vessels appears to be increasing. These institutions need the assistance that can be provided by a long-term plan that addresses coastal vessel issues of design, construction, safety, science mission requirements and technical capabilities to be compatible with those of larger UNOLS vessels.

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

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I conduct field research every 2-3 years, usually with large teams on large ships, but also with smaller groups on medium ships. I am responding as an individual.

**Responses**

1. Some of the most successful programs lately have involved large ships full of interdisciplinary teams of scientists working on important global-scale problems. I believe this trend will continue, so the need for large ships will not diminish. However, large programs are expensive and if the research budget does not keep pace, we won't be able to afford the large programs. In that case, we won't need any ships!

2.

3. We need a mixture of both. There are some large projects where two medium ships might work better than one large ship (so that we can hang more things in the water at once).

4.

5. To the extent that it makes sense economically to conduct periodic refits, or to change a ship's capabilities in some regard, we should do so.

6. The users must lobby for more research funding (in general), and must help educate Congress and the President on the need for this equipment.

7. Keep coastal, and make it clear that ships appropriate to the specific coastal region are needed.

8. I do not experience seasickness, so I vote for ships that are easy to schedule regardless of their "kindliness".

9. People who would rather look at satellite images on a screen will do so. Some people will choose to sit in their offices. But some people will continue to design experiments that require people on ships out in the ocean. We are willing to spend billions on satellite platforms for the people who want to work on that form of science, and we need to continue to support people who need to go to sea to conduct their research.

10. If our field is growing, then the need for ships will not decrease.

11. The biggest issue seems to be one of the efficiency and qualifications of the institutions responsible for home-porting and ship operations. Some schools do an excellent job, others do not do so well. Why should we continue to station ships at schools that have demonstrated their inability to operate ships efficiently? I am thinking about places that tack on ridiculous user charges, or that do not have their basic CTD equipment in good operating order. Some places and some crews act like the scientists are just a nuisance that they have to put up with on each leg. Get rid of anyone who doesn't understand that the science is the whole reason these ships are out there in the first place. There should be a lot more oversight. Let's make sure the funds are used efficiently to provide scientists with the platforms they need.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have served as the Marine Superintendent at LUMCON for the past 18 years. We operate the 105' R/V Pelican.

**Responses**

1. Ocean science has only recently expanded into the coastal region. Now most of the known "bases" in ocean science are being covered. Unfortunately, the vessels needed for full ocean coverage are not available. New coastal vessels should be built in order to guarantee full access to all areas of the world's ocean. We should not, however, ignore the importance of blue water oceanography. As the economic impact of global change issues becomes evident more blue water vessels will be needed. In some cases ocean class vessels may be capable of filling the niches vacated by retired global ships, but we should be cautious not to limit our capability to respond to global issues.

2. The decision for locating global, and to a lesser degree ocean class vessels, should be based on an institutions ability to support these major assets. Geography, along with an institutions support infrastructure are important to the placement of regional vessels. The fact that an institution has operated a vessel in the past is relevant only to the degree that it reflects on that institution's track record as an operator. Some reference to these criteria may be useful, although I doubt that it will discourage an unworthy operator from using political clout to obtain a vessel.

3. As I indicated in #1 above there is a need for more regional (coastal) vessels. The size and capabilities of these ships is dependent, to some degree, on their assigned operating area. As Matt Hawkins pointed out in his comments, vessels working in bays and estuaries on the East Coast will be limited in size and draft whereas coastal vessels operating in the Pacific may not be as constrained by draft. In general I think the specifications generated by the working group are good and will serve.

4. Some figure must be agreed upon as reasonable for the retirement of vessels. I think that after 30 years of service most vessels become good candidates for retirement.

5. UNOLS seems to have a good track record with extending the life of vessels through mid-life refits. I think Joe Coburn,s comments about NSF funded ship upgrade programs are relevant and I would support an expansion to these programs to include scheduled major refits for all UNOLS vessels.

6. No comment

7. The definition of a coastal vessel will change with the region. I think the fact that coastal vessels are inherently smaller and have a shorter range than ocean and global vessels will dictate, to a degree, how many vessels will be needed in a particular region. The needs of the region should determine the vessel's capabilities.

8.

9.

10. I think the suggestions made by this report should be considered as a good base line for maintaining the status quo. The overall reduction in the fleet is a bit troubling given that we have expanded the ocean by adding coastal regions without any planned increase in the number of federally owned vessels. Other than the possible effect of autonomous profilers and deep observatories there is no real reason given for the decrease in demand for oceanographic vessels. Given that we now have a new coastal ocean to study and that we as yet do not have a real understanding of global ocean processes that effect the world's economy, there is not enough emphasis on building a fleet to meet these new demands.

11.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
15+ years on all classes on vessels (approx. 1 year at sea total). Responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. Interdisciplinary programs are becoming more common, which adds to the need for more science berths in all size classes (up to 40+ would be better suited for largest classes). There will be equal or more ship use with new programs, so whether fewer larger ships or more smaller ones is better depends primarily upon duration/distance. Fortunately the larger ships are newer and furthest from retirement. In the table, the retirement dates for Knorr and Melville also seem too early, given the big investment in the retrofits.

2. Strong weight should be given to a plan for optimal ship operation, not just cost of the ship. Replacement should therefore consider new options to reduce operating costs, such as a reduction in the number of ship operating Institutions under UNOLS. This will not be politically easy, but if the UNOLS fleet were run like a business, fewer Institutions would be in the ship operating business.

3. Two ship operations can be an economical way to have a large program operate in regions that are not extremely remote. A few improved Ocean class ships are greatly needed for this type of work whereby one ship might be involved in spatial surveys, and another with detailed process studies at fixed stations. In many cases, this two ship operation makes better use of ship support and provides better platform(s) for scientists.

4. See #1- Knorr and Melville lifetimes should be extended

5. This is largely an engineering and cost benefit issue. Certainly, technological changes might be expected to come along that require more frequent refits, but at some point, changes to hull design and propulsion would seem to imply the need for a different/newer ship.

6. I agree with a cautious growth assumption. New technologies will likely "suck up" any new funds faster than expected, so core research and ship support would be flat. Growth would be in new Programs such as ARGO and Neptune which might require more ship time, but this cost should be considered in the planning stages of new Programs and the use of charter ships explored for these more specialized Programs of limited duration.

7.

8. I would rather wait for a better ship, but the choice is usually not given. Also there is a problem in maintaining a research group for a year or two waiting. IF the science funding were extended to allow for more planning/prep time, then obviously waiting would be OK. The increased science costs would be small, relative to a more inefficient research fleet.

9. Increase due to servicing issues. Also note that many future science programs that have a need for higher resolution data in space and time will increase demand for ships, as state of the art chemical and biological studies are by their nature, not suited to automated sampling/sensors.

Name: Terry E. Whitledge
Institution: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself. Over the past 30 years, I have sailed on 77 cruises on vessels from most UNOLS institutions. I currently am a member of the AICC and FIC.

**Responses**

1. I believe that fewer larger ships will be needed but at least four large ships should be retained to maintain that capability. An extended endurance of intermediate vessels would probably be the most effective way to keep operating costs as low as possible but still provide a platform for major programs.

2. There should be a community discussion about the problem of vessel replacement. The individual states/institutions should not be in the business of providing money to design and build the federal academic research fleet. I would like to see NSF request design and construction funds for UNOLS vessel replacement.

3. I think an increase of berths would be a good idea since it would not really increase operating costs while still providing for more science from the same vessel(s).

4. The intermediate and regional vessel retirements look reasonable but I am somewhat surprised by the global class retirements.

5. Existing ships should carry upgraded technology as it becomes available. The only reason why existing vessels may not be upgraded would be in those cases where a special or costly installation might be required.

6. It is prudent to expect a slow growth in vessel usage however the most severe fleet issue is replacement not enlargement.

7. The shallow draft may not be a "universal" vessel for all oceans but it may be advisable to maintain a minimum draft and still optimize vessel operational characteristics.

8. The answer to that question is very dependent on the project. There are many cases when the timing or area of operation is critical to the science mission. In those cases, a smaller less sea worthy ship that is available would be the best choice. In general, the sea kindly ships are used more when available because no likes to fight the vessel while doing their science.

9. I believe that AUV's and ROV's will increase the demand for research vessels. The placement of moorings and other remotely operating equipment including calibration sampling will also continue to keep research vessel demands high.

10. The fleet capacity should probably viewed in two ways. Ship-days would indicate the fleet capacity without regard to the size of the ships while berth-days would indicate the total number of scientists that could be accommodated. The former is limited by the number of ships and where they can sample while the latter is limited by the number of berths.

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

Name: Craig R, Smith
Institution: University of Hawaii

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:

**Responses**

1. I think the trend towards regional capability ships is wise and cost effective, assuming that the ships are widely distributed around the basins. The concentration of ships at a few oceanographic centers is a poor strategy, unless the ships are "global."

2. I think a major goal of ship replacement should be to distribute ocean and regional class ships relatively widely among institutions to widen the teaching access of ships, and allow all nearly all aspects of ocean research to be addressed with smaller vessels. This also raises the visibility of the oceanographic fleet to the general public, enhancing public knowledge of, and appreciation for, ocean science.

3. I prefer smaller ships with smaller berthing capacity, as long as 3-4 large expeditionary ships are maintained within the fleet.

4.

5. Clearly, if a distributed refit process extends the work and cost efficiency of the fleet, and extends the useful life of the ships, it should be implemented.

6. As environmental problems and global anthropogenic impacts increase, I believe that non-classical interest in, and funding bases for oceanographic research will increase.

7. Yes, to the degree that "shallow-draft" affects to performance of the ship in deep-water or high seas settings.

8. If the smaller ship can do the job, I will always take the smaller ship. It is more cost effective, and exciting science should not be left to sit. This is assuming that enough ship time can be allocated to allow for weather days.

9. Increase

10. This is a complex question requiring a complex answer. Ultimately, required ship capacity can only really be measured by proposal pressure to use certain vessels in particular regions. Capacity must be anticipated from long-range predictions of the types of research to be pursued. However, enough capacity must be maintained to fulfill ship needs for new, unexpected developments in ocean sciences.

Name: Kenneth S. Johnson
Institution: Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I've been using oceanographic vessels for 25 years in coastal and open ocean projects, primarily in the Pacific. I have extensive experience with UNOLS, including serving two terms as the UNOLS Council Chair and several terms on the Fleet Improvement Committee. I am currently chair of the newly established Ocean Observatory Steering Committee. My ship use has ranged from small day boats to multiship operations with Class I vessels, as well as several cruises on foreign research vessels. In the past year, I've been chief scientist on NEW HORIZON, just got off the 56' JOHN MARTIN, am going to sea next week on the 111' POINT LOBOS and am funded for a 40+ day cruise next year in the Southern Ocean on REVELLE. Total sea time is multiple years. My work focuses on ocean biogeochemistry and sensor development. I have used ALVIN extensively in the 80's and ROV's more recently. My comments are on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. The size of the UNOLS fleet has been remarkably constant, since its inception in 1972, at about 27 +/- 3 ships. The one consistent change has been a trend towards larger, more capable ships carrying greater numbers of scientists and fewer crew. I don't believe that this trend is consistent with the idea that we need fewer larger ships with all oceans capability. There is a crying need for more coastal research, but I'm not sure this need will be well met by smaller, regional ships. I started doing coastal oceanography in Monterey Bay on the 80' CAYUSE (now ARGO MAINE). We cheered when it was replaced by the 135' POINT SUR, which we used extensively including a number of 20+ day coastal cruises. I've been using the SUR much less because it cannot accommodate a large enough science party for interdisciplinary studies. Last August we had every berth and every lab bench filled during a Monterey Bay cruise on the 180' NEW HORIZON and we wanted more space for the projects left behind. I think the REVELLE would be the perfect coastal vessel for this region and we can make an excellent case for that.

2. In the best of all worlds, each ship would be competitively awarded. The selection criteria would involve an assessment of the state of the fleet at the time and the needs derived from a broad, community based planning effort. However, I believe that political intervention is a fact of life and we ought to be prepared to welcome new infusions of money. It can be difficult, at best, to push the $10 to $60M budgets needed for new ship construction through the Federal budget process. If dollars fall from above, rather than being pushed up from below, we should be ready to catch it. The best way to do this would be to get in front of the curve and have designs for needed ships ready to go, if money becomes available. These may be acoustically quiet fisheries ships, coastal vessels or global vessels. This requires working with potential recipient institutions to guide the process and it requires that the Fleet Improvement Committee actively be processing preliminary design studies for ships that are likely candidates for replacement. The catch with this is what to do about "extra" ships appearing. Perhaps the best idea is to have a strong plan that identifies the ships that are needed.

3. UNOLS clearly needs a balance in size distribution of vessels to provide geographic distribution and operating flexibility. That said, I've been involved in several multiship operations and, unless the science demands, I find single ship operations on larger vessels more preferable. Small berthing capacity implies a small ship and the constraints on the type of science that allows is fairly strong. Certainly range, deck load, van capacity, etc. are all limited on small ships and it is difficult to coordinate two ships so that all the required horsepower can be brought to bear on a common suite of samples. Science needs drive us to interdisciplinary work with larger science parties.

4. The most important issue is to avoid mass obsolescence with many ships needing to be replaced in a short period. Political support for a massive fleet replacement would be difficult to obtain. Thus, a replacement plan ought to be proactive and start replacements coming in a phased acquisition.

5. If the design warrants it, extensive refits can be very effective ways to extend the life of a ship - the OCEANUS class mid-lifes are a good example. However, the KNORR/MELVILLE experience also shows that this may be quite a quagmire, as well. Bottom line, if a ship is not working well a refit probably won't be very useful (I'm not sure of any good examples where poor ships were made into good ones - but good ones have been made better and their life extended). If it's been a useful ship, a refit may be a good idea to extend the lifetime.

6. Support for strengthening the NSF budget seems to be at an all time high. The 2001 budget increase is the largest ever received by NSF. Ship use requests are also up some 30 % and the fleet is terribly oversubscribed this year. There is a large Federal budget surplus, after decades of deficits, and the predictions are for it to continue. The primary risk to the surplus is increased Federal spending, which would also imply more fleet usage. I think it would not be prudent to assume that fleet support will wane. UNOLS has also inherited a role as nearly the only provider of oceanographic research platforms. NOAA's modern research platforms are limited to the RONALD BROWN and the KAIMI MOANA, which is dedicated to servicing the TAO array. The Navy's survey ships are all forward deployed in areas of potential conflict. EPA's ships are aging and poorly suited to modern oceanographic research needs. All of the USGS platforms are gone. I think that UNOLS will have to continue to provide for these "non-classical" users, such as the NAVO program, because there are no other alternatives in the Federal fleet.

7. As stated above, I think the perfect west-coast research vessel is the REVELLE. Shallow-draft seems a fairly specialized need for areas such as the Chesapeake Bay, and not well suited for the outer shelf. But note the Glosten Associates studies of mid-80's performed for the Fleet Improvement Committee. This work suggests that beamy, shallow draft vessels can provide nearly SWATH-like ship motions, tremendous lifting capacity, large science party size. Maybe "shallow-draft" and "global" are not mutually exclusive.

8. If we default to needing two years to go to sea, there will be such pressure from the community that more ships will be constructed.

9. No. I think that the ocean sciences are so limited by data that we will use as many days as the budgets will bear. New systems such as Argo will not solve the problems and they will not begin to address critical needs in most ocean science fields. The infrastructure of NEPTUNE will likely demand extensive ship time for maintenance and installation of science experiments. I don't see it reducing ship needs.

10. Perhaps the best metric is the delay, if any, in going to sea. If everyone can get the ship they need, anytime they need it (say within one year), there are probably too many ships. If a few people (5%, perhaps) with funded programs aren't getting to sea in the year they request, then perhaps the number is about right. If more funded programs aren't getting to sea, then maybe there aren't enough. This year, I have funded coastal work and can't find a ship. Last year, we couldn't get to the Southern Ocean. I don't know how common this is and some statistics might help.

11. I think UNOLS and NSF need to be more proactive in carrying out preliminary design studies. It's difficult to argue for or against designs until professional naval architects have run at least a few numbers. I think the course of the budgetary future of the fleet will be set by President Bush's first budget and that will give the FOFC more to think about. Finally, I'm surprised that the report says very little about research ship needs of other agencies - this will have a dramatic effect on the UNOLS fleet in the future. The committee had very broad Federal participation, but really focuses only on ONR and NSF issues.

Name: Pierre Flament
Institution: University of Hawaii

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
On behalf of myself. 1990-1997: 112 days on UNOLS and NOAA vessels as chief scientist.

**Responses**

1. Fewer big ships will be a mistake. The present need for large expeditionary ships is temporary, and will decrease as automated autonomous stations (profilers, moored, drifters, gliders) increase their sensor loads, reduce their costs and become widely used. More smaller ships, on the other hands, will soon appear a necessity, as the attention shifts towards problems in the greater coastal transition zones, of more immediate societal interest and importance.

2. With appropriate subcontracting, there is no economy of scale in running a few large facilities as opposed to multiple single ship ones. Thus the remarkable diversity of UNOLS ship operations, which has been built over the past 25 years, should be preserved at all costs. Invariably, institutions running a single ship suffer more from this ship's retirement, than institutions running 3-4 ships. Strict competitive peer-review is a lure in this context, which ignores the logistical needs of a well-balanced, geographically-dispersed user community.

3. Berthing capacity is not uniquely related to ship endurance. Regardless of size, berthing capacity should be increased, possibly by using more spartan accommodations for students, etc...

4. Vessels which are still economical to operate, should not be retired until their replacement is at hand and tested. The premature retirement of the Moana Wave (who went right away into a new career with a private operator) left many science projects with insufficient support. There was absolutely no economical reason to retire this fine, well-honed vessel before the arrival of its replacement in 2002. UNOLS policy should prevent this from happening, it is a waste for the community.

5. Improvement should be incremental, and always need-based. As a rule, it has always been difficult to require substantial improvements for a cruise, yet their costs is often small compared to the amounts spent at "mid-life" refits. Mechanisms for proposing and funding ship improvements in a more incremental way should exist, similar to instrumentation proposals.

6. caution is necessary!

7. Regions shallow enough to require shallow-draft vessel, are too specific to be studied with a general purpose vessel. These notions ought to be decoupled. Any mid-size vessel, oceanus class, is sufficiently shallow-draft for most areas of the coastal US.

8. Not a single hesitation, smaller more spartan easy to obtain ships would be my choice.

9. Probably unrelated, the demand will shift as ship time will be freed by these new techniques, time will be made available for more process studies.

10. There is a lack of accounting on ship "scientific yield". A possible accounting (though not the sole one desirable) would be as number of peer-reviewed papers per $ spent in ship operation. Such an accounting (which would require a couple of years of work for a marine policy MSc student) is bound to give surprising answers on how the fleet is used, and differentials between ship category and institutions

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

Name: Oscar schfield
Institution: Rutgers University

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Have been going to sea for 10 years on both UNOLS and smaller coastal vessels. I have been a scientist and PI on UNOLS vessels.

**Responses**

1. I think a slightly smaller research fleet could be effective, however I do believe we will require extended capability ships as our observational capability allows for large interdisciplinary studies. So while I would ideally like to see a regional ships (with sufficient A-frame capacity to handle reasonable size ocean buoys) they need to be complemented with a smaller number of large extended duration ships.

2. I think that this should be part of the planning. If an Institution loses a ship, we don't want to lose our experienced ship personnel, and the facilities that supported the ship fall into disrepair. I think we should leverage on as much of the existing infrastructure as possible.

3. While fleets of small vessels are effective, I believe for many experiments, putting all the scientists on one vessel, and heading off to sea creates an intellectual atmosphere that cannot be easily created with science teams split between different smaller vessels. While not necessary for many field efforts, I do not want to see this capability to disappear in the coming decades.

4. no

5. A distributed process works only if it does not significantly disrupt science schedules and number of science days the ship can support per year. This especially if the fleet is going to decrease in size.

6. I believe cautious growth assumptions is prudent

7. This is a regional consideration, and the regional fleets will need to be optimized for their specific areas operation.

8. If my funding was set for specific years, I would be only interested in getting to sea to do the work. If I could snag a big vessel great, but that is secondary to getting out to sea.

9. Observatories will increase the demand for ships. The LEO system is a good example of this, relying on both coastal and larger UNOL vessels as the system has matured.

10. The calculation I believe has to largely be tied to funding projections. A prudent approach I believe is warranted.

11.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
My experience with oceanographic vessels is limited to research involving sediment coring. Although I have not yet gone to sea, I have studied cores recovered by the Thomas Washington and Joides Resolution. I am responding on behalf of myself only.

**Responses**

1. The community will continue to require ships that can access the open ocean for extended periods for recovery of long sediment cores and deployment of large instrument arrays. Whether this requires a "global" class or "regional" class ship I don't know, but a fleet of small coastal vessels would be entirely inadequate.

2. Discussion should begin as soon as possible to prepare for the retirements. The response time for replacement is too slow to "wait and see what happens" before addressing the issues.

3. As much of a balance as possible. My needs are geared more toward larger ships for sediment coring, but I appreciate the flexibility offered by numerous smaller ships. The large ships are currently scheduled to capacity, and I can't imagine that scientific need will diminish in the future. If at all possible, the effort to fund and run large ships out of the major docks on both coasts should continue.

4. It was my impression that UNOLS and NSF projections have ships retiring earlier than necessary. If this helps organize funding efforts for which we are already getting behind schedule, so be it, but the ships should not be retired artificially early.

5. Of course any efforts to be more efficient and intelligent about extending ship lifetimes and usefulness is appropriate. If its merely an issue of being open to the possibility of modifying a ship beyond its previously dictated "mid life refit", then it seems an entirely bureaucratic issue. Clearly in some cases a modification outside of scheduled planning could extend or create a new useful research lifetime for a vessel, and should be vigorously pursued.

6. Funding sources are likely to change, particularly outside of "classic" sources. Future projections should be given large uncertainty and flexibility in interpretation. Assumptions about funding trends should not solely dictate the projected need for ocean research vessels. The scientific need should drive the funding and fleet projections.

7. Yes

8. For my needs, a larger ship is better. Possibly the regional class is better than the strictly global class, especially if this trade off becomes absolute. But global class ships will be critical to future oceanographic and global change research.

9. These new systems will complement research ships, but will not affect the demand for research ships in any way. The kinds of research accommodated by in-situ sensing systems and research vessels are entirely different. Ships are not suited for long-term continuous observation and fixed sensors can not address spatial variability or need for instrument flexibility. Even an ocean-wide system of Argo profilers (not going to happen) would only fill one of many research missions currently addressed by vessels. Vessels will always be needed for in situ ocean chemistry experiments, marine sediment coring, rapid response to on-going oceanographic or climatic events, etc.

10. Perhaps something like scientist-days at sea, weighted or sorted by degree of off-shore access. Global vessels with large berthing or instrument capacities should not necessarily be considered capable of filling the needs for large-ship capabilities in coastal waters, especially if it is unlikely that they will ever be scheduled for that kind of use. On the other hand, if flexibility in mission scheduling is exactly what is needed for improved efficiency, and it is feasible to do so, then clearly that should be instituted.

11.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am just starting a program of long-term atmospheric measurements from ocean buoys. Have been on other cruises in the past. This is a personal response, and may or may not reflect the views of my institution.

**Responses**

1. As I understand it, one of the assumptions is that the use of autonomous sensors will cut down on the need for ships. Another likely possibility is that autonomous sensors will provide us with vastly more (and hopefully better) data, but leave ship requests unchanged or increased. Autonomous sensors still need to be deployed and recovered. For example, I am in the early stages of a program to make atmospheric measurements from ocean buoys. This will lead to a better understanding of the marine boundary layer, both from the perspective of long-term monitoring and process studies. Now instead a 2 to 4 week survey of atmospheric chemistry from a ship, we will have a 6 month time series at a site of our choice. But the buoy holding the sensors needs to be deployed by a fairly large ship (intermediate to global class, depending on location of deployment).

2.

3. One way to answer this is to poll the community about their "wish list" for future cruises, and see what the needs for berths and endurance are. A useful follow up question would be to ask which of those cruises have a realistic chance of occurring. Of course, new ideas and discoveries will likely lead to cruises that can't even be imagined now, but this would be a baseline of sorts.

4. If there is still substantial demand for a particular ship or ships, can it's scheduled retirement be deferred? At least until enough alternate capacity is built up to meet the demand?

5.

6.

7.

8. If I have funding to do an experiment at sea, or deploy/retrieve an instrument, I would be very reluctant to wait a year to do it. But my research is likely to involve relatively short cruises; if I were to be at sea for two months or more, a "more sea kindly ship" would be much more of a consideration.

9. See response to question 1. above. My gut feeling is that putting out more equipment will lead to increased demand for research ships. But whether it is a small or large increase hard to predict.

10.

11.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I go to sea as a chief scientist and as a peon as often as funding and my wife allows - which hasn't changed much in the last 25 yrs.

**Responses**

1. The question suggests that the fleet will lose 3 ships, but the chart can arguably be read to indicate that the fleet will go from 13 to 7 ships. I do NOT support a loss of either 3 or 6 ships from the fleet. From my perspective as a marine scientist, loss of ships means longer wait times to get a funded program to sea, which is undesirable. The report makes the disingenuous statement: "Over-capacity causes part and full-year lay-ups, which creates various problems including crew lay-offs and additional expenditures which otherwise would have been used to support research." This appears to be an appeal to cast fleet reduction as advantageous to scientists because the money saved by having a smaller fleet will show up in more funding for grants. I don't believe the premise. Money saved from the fleet budget will not show up in more grant funding. I think the leaders at NSF and ONR should spend the time/money they would need to sell this implausible notion to marine scientists on more time for them and marine scientists to appear at OMD and Congress selling the benefits of higher basic research budgets.

2. No, nothing should be said because the report should not recommend a reduction in fleet size. To continue my rant from question 1, "over-capacity" in the fleet is not a problem with lack of good ideas from scientists - there are many excellent projects requiring ship time turned down every panel cycle. "over-capacity" is an inefficiency in ship operations caused by declining science budgets. It costs money to demobilize a ship, but more importantly it causes stress and instability in marine departments. The authors of the Plan should address these issues with some vision and leadership instead of penalizing scientists and the institutions and communities that will suffer loss of ships if the proposed plan is followed. Rebuilding the fleet is the time for reducing operations costs and reshaping the fleet in ways that total days-at-sea can be maintained. New ships should be designed to significantly reduce costs by more fuel efficient engines and hull designs and smaller crews. If these changes alone can not achieve significant cost reduction, then the size of the ships should be reduced rather than cutting the number of ships. I would prefer to lose some deck acreage, science bunks, and endurance from the fleet as a whole in order to maintain sea-days.

3. See #2 above: retain the same number of ships at the expense of bunks and endurance.

4. It is not clear to me from the question or the web documents what difference 30 yr lifetimes will make to the plan instead of 25 yr or 35 yrs. It isn't clear to me that NSF and ONR have been retiring/acquiring ships according to ANY plan at all - let alone one that assumed a lifetime other than 30 yrs.

5. Of course I want the ships to be as up to date in design and capability as possible! If it is more cost effective to rebuild a hull than replace it, why should scientists care? The Plan should schedule rebuilding/refitting during one of the periodic lay-ups - isn't that a more efficient way to maintain total sea-days than cutting the number of ships?

6. "non-classical" sources should not be included in the plan. The cautious growth assumption should not be modified. Why not maintain the current size of the fleet and use money from sources other than NSF and ONR to reduce the number of unfunded days at the dock. Isn't that what is being done now? Is this approach deficient in some way? I think the current approach should not be changed unless long-term commitments can be obtained from NAVOCEANO and industry. These commitments seem unlikley to me.

7. Yes, this is clearly a deficiency in the Plan.

8. I argue above that the size of the fleet should not decrease. I don't see anything in the Plan that indicates that the authors investigated the possibilities for new ship designs that would not require me to make the choice implied in the question any more often in the future than I do already. Why can't ONR and NSF come up with bigger ship building budgets to provide us with ~200 ft ships that ride nearly as well as a ~250 ship? Why can't the process of creating a new plan for the fleet be the occasion for spurring innovation? Here's a thought: why not investigate new ship designs (with lax budget constraints) BEFORE we make decisions about what the configuration of the future fleet will be?

9. Increase demand! Never a marine scientist lived that didn't want more sea-time.

10. Measure fleet capacity by sea-days.

11. no

Name:Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:

**Responses**

1. I have been a heavy user of the intermediate class of vessels in past years, but have recently appreciated the extended capabilities of global class from research conducted upon the NOAA vessel Ronald Brown. Therefore, I think that more ocean class vessel that combine aspects of these two classes is preferable. Having said that, I also believe there will be an increased need for regional class vessels to support the observatory efforts (e.g., GOOS and Coastal GOOS) being touted by the agencies. However, these vessels may actually be smaller than those currently supported by UNOLS and it is not clear if these vessels would become part of the UNOLS fleet. I address this further in my response to question 3.

2. I do not feel comfortable commenting on this issue.

3. I think that the plan is appropriate to service the more traditional seagoing research efforts in ocean sciences. By traditional I mean the approach of going out to sea and sampling the ocean with ever more sophisticated tools that require this next generation of ships. My fear is that UNOLS is not addressing the needs of new approaches to sample the oceans, e.g., the science associated with cabled observatories along the continental shelves. I believe that these include the smaller vessels (< 40m) that are not addressed in the initial report. The investigators using these types of vessels often pay a heavy price because, although the operating cost are generally less that for UNOLS vessels, there are no subsidies for these vessels. Therefore, typically smaller coastal research grants often have to pay more for ship time than if they were able to use UNOLS vessels.

4.

5.

6.

7. I think it might, but mainly because I think that UNOLS should start to consider even shallower water than can be accessed by 40-m vessels.

8. A smaller less sea kindly ship.

9. They will increase ship demands of the ocean class and smaller vessels. I believe this is true because these observatories and sensing system will act as focal points for investigations that will require ships. Also, servicing these systems will require additional ship time that can be used for science.

10. I think we do need to look at these new sensing systems when defining capacity.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
30 years as a seagoing marine chemist. On behalf of myself and other users who do process-oriented work.

**Responses**

1. 1.There is a serious need for replacement AND perhaps EXPANSION in # of the overall most useful intermediate/smaller ships; the global class roster appears overweight. That is where autonomous systems, moorings etc will likely make the largest inroads. EFFICIENT science would use intermediate ships to test and refine these systems, increasing the need for that class, then install them where they will (on average) DECREASE the need for the "global " ships.

2. Well, if we don't settle this at lower levels, the "will of congress" will surely step in, likely with more arbitrariness than even a messy in-house job would produce (see, I AM an optimist!). 1. What is needed is a planning system allowing scientific and economic market forces gradually to come MORE into play while recognizing that having a ship is crucially important to each organization's self-image, fund-raising, and (for universities) clout in the organization. 2.A comment on one aspect/example: something more efficient could likely evolve with WHOI_URI_BBSR serve the NA6 region better, assuming there might be on average complementary strengths and weaknesses (one idea: WHOI experience, facilities, critical mass; URI - marine techs and student "hands", BBSR/BATS great location and way around getting clearances). 3.To evolve in the right direction, somehow fly n flags on (n-1)ships (the bigger n is the easier it is for everybody to pretend they've got one), with local oversight, perhaps proportional to, say, the 5-year running average # of days funded through each institution for work in some geographical area (maybe broken down by discipline)? 4. But for palatability this should start evolving with older ships, so it is NOT close-coupled to losing a ship right away.. 5. IF painful/efficient approaches are taken somewhere, that region should be REWARDED for going out on a limb, not punished by just losing a ship... balance with fewer layups, more shipboard equipment and techs, higher daily costs allowed etc...)

3. Small science PI's, typically me, get no extra time or $ as Ch Sci. so have to "subsidize" (or neglect) the effort it takes to utilize any excess bunk capacity on his ship, whereas large programs tend to fill the ship, have no extra bunks, and if not, they have more explicitly acknowledged PI time for management functions.

4. The chart has ambiguous, ragged-ended bars about 5 years long; the question could state the background facts succinctly instead of referring to websites 10's of pages long!

5. 1. Review the record & learn the lessons of any small examples along these lines that have been done. 2. Don't have a "policy" - use common sense.

6. It is most likely to wane both outside of Govt and within it, perhaps substantially, because the current US/world economic boom is very unlikely to be sustainable much longer. The pause could last 1 year or 10.

7. A, Yes. B. what is relative amount of good science unique to steeply-dropping bathymetry, across disciplines?

8. 1. Operating area/season is CRUCIAL for balance - tropics, or 60N in shoulder seasons? 2. Going N of 45 or so is always a tinge hairy, but oceanographers are disadvantaged vs other earth scientists because polar programs only helps above 67. We are greatly disadvantaged by this; there may be a longer-term case that could be won in DC here Can we get a criterion-based definition of "polar" (say the product of mean sea state and wind-chill, or something truly reflecting difficulty of work -like how much do you have to pay a free person to do it?) 3. For small science and "mid-size" collaborative science (rapidly growing, probably most-effective-style-right now),a year or two is the same as oblivion, since individual PIs cannot bear the risk that crucial people or collaborations cannot be stabilized in the face of uncertainty too long. Program managers will show no (or even negative)sympathy for this problem.

9. Timing is all. Likely in development they will increase it, then there will be a phase where such systems partly replace ships; after that there MAY be a phase in which it increases as new "baseline datasets" make new locations attractive for field intensive - process studies in new kinds of places (much as HOT and BATS have done from land bases). This'll all probably happen in the lifespan of new vessels.

10. 1.THE $64 QUESTION, more important than all the others together! Frankly, this question is both the heart of the matter and IS UN_ANSWERABLE in an entrenched, subsidized system such as we have. Market forces and discipline are needed. Only when shiptime $ competes DIRECTLY with other science/$ needs/ aspects of science we can find out. How do PI's (overseen by peers) rate another grad-student-year, vs a piece of equipment, vs another ship-day, or large VS intermediate vessel? 2.If any other advanced nations let this competition occur(doubtful), learn from them. 3.The LONG_TERM definition should reflect recent past trends in # AND QUALITY (which always gets lip service) of publications that result IN A SYSTEM COMPLYING WITH #1 ABOVE - basically the 2 criteria NSF uses now for PROPOSALS. "Demand" now in proposals or funded proposals etc is not a measure because proposers react strongly to perceived available resources.

11. How about the revolution proposed in # 10? Remember, the current practice (I recall Al Vine recounting) dates from just after WWII, when it was thought that, given the choice, oceanographers wouldn't endure going to sea enough if they could buy equipment etc instead. But who thought that? Most powerfully, a bunch of Navy guys; NSF was a baby and oceanography in it about non-existent. These guys were fresh from the military necessity of dragooning civilians into manning Liberty ships that ate German torpedoes at 50N, and perhaps valued a command-and control system more, and understood the motivational structure of scientists less, than would our peers, the marketplace of ideas, or possibly even congress.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I'm responding as an individual PI. I use ships primarily for deploying in situ instrumentation-often in a prototype testing mode. I've worked on a lot of different vessels since I've been at WHOI and before when I was in industry. I probably use UNOLS vessels about 1/2 or 2/3 of the time- usually regional or intermediate class.

**Responses**

1. In my experience the most useful and cost effective class of ships in the UNOLS fleet are the Intermediate class ships. The replacement plan has most of the new ships in the Oceanic class. I'm not sure how the Intermediate and Oceanic classes compare. For my work the Knorr size vessels are too large, cost too much and require too many collaborating scientists to be useful.

2. I think a plan that combines competitive awards with fairness and equity and geographical coverage makes sense. If we don't address this issue, then we are even more open to political pressures.

3. As I said before, more berths are not important to me.

4. I don't take the projected lifetime charts too seriously. Ships don't wear out on schedule. That's not to say they don't need to be replaced, I just think that there is a big gray area on the timing of replacement.

5. Each case is different enough that those decisions would need to be made on a case by case basis.

6. Given society's interest in climate change, environmental research and monitoring and fisheries, I think that an assumption of slow growth is very conservative. In addition, DOD interest may well be at a low point at present and is not likely to decrease in the future.

7. Its probably a detail that is not important at this stage.

8. Definitely easier to schedule. For me that is the biggest problem with the larger UNOLS ships- even more than cost.

9. I think that they will increase the demand for Intermediate size vessels and decrease or not impact the demand for larger vessels. As an example, if a ship is needed to repair a NEPTUNE node, if will need to be quite capable, but will not need to serve 15 PIs or have 45 day endurance. My suspicion is that Argo floats (and similar autonomous systems)will be deployed by ships of opportunity.

10. I'm not sure that I understand the question, but my sense is that ship usage is a slowly changing variable that can be fairly accurately tracked and estimated based on the observed trends. Obviously there are occasional inflection points, but there is probably no reliable way to guess where they are going to be.

11. I think the UNOLS fleet is a good way of doing oceanographic research, but I also think that ship shortfalls can be handled in a variety of ways. For instance, if there was a 5 year shortfall in ship availability, UNOLS could charter a ship to cover it. This approach would relieve some of the stress of trying to make accurate predictions far into the future. It also may be possible to purchase an existing ship and outfit it in a year or two to short circuit some of the long lead times. I know that the chartered ship approach has problems, but it should probably be part of the mix anyway.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Two-plus years at sea as scientist or chief scientist on 28 research cruises, 80% bluewater on large ships, using virtually all geological and geophysical sampling systems, plus physical oceanography studies (e.g., hydrocasts, current-meter moorings). My comments are a personal perspective.

**Responses**

1. In marine geology and geophysics, I see the need for large ships with all-oceans capability and extended endurance continuing at current levels or increasing. There are many outstanding scientific problems that are best addressed in relatively remote areas, and/or that require extensive sampling capabilities and endurance that only these platforms can provide. I foresee an increase in proposal pressure to address these problems, rather than a decrease. Remote sensing will *not* substitute for the capabilities of these ships. We need a ship of this class to "reside" in each of the Atlantic and in the Pacific, together with ships primarily dedicated to deep-submergence (currently Atlantis) and MCS (currently Ewing) that roam the globe. See also 7. below.

2. As institutions and as individuals, we must be proactive in promoting and planning fleet replacement. Some of this will inevitably be political, but decisions must be made on the basis of merit and capability. There is undeniable efficiency in cost, quality control, and productivity when major-ship resources are concentrated at a limited number of locations.

3. In my experience, mostly on larger ships, existing berthing has been completely adequate. A much more severe problem, on any size vessel, has been a lack of laboratory space, particularly map and chart space.

4. Retiring Melville and Knorr ca. 2005 makes little sense, considering 1) that only a few years ago they underwent extensive and expensive mid-life refits, and 2) the process of replacing them (in whatever manner) with new ships will take a decade and has not yet even begun. So long as there are not safety, cost-efficiency, or programmatic shortcomings, I see no reason not to consider extending the "30-year lifetime" of a vessel to 35 years or more, given appropriate mid-life refit.

5. When there is documented need (scientific or otherwise) for modifications of existing platforms and it is more cost-effective than new construction, then it makes sense to do the modifications.

6. Few, if any, ocean scientists would argue that scientific interest or demand for scientific answers from our fields will not increase in the future. It is up to us how that demand gets translated into increased funding, or lack thereof. Human nature and government bureaucracy being as they are, the cautious-growth assumption probably is reasonable.

7. It definitely deserves consideration and modification. In this respect, it should be remembered that larger vessels will have the capability to do "coastal" studies where water depth permits, and in cases of large interdisciplinary programs larger vessels may even be required. The reverse is not true -- coastal vessels will not be doing blue-water oceanography. This argues that maintaining (at a minimum) the fleet of larger vessels is more important than increasing the fleet of smaller vessels.

8. One can equate "less sea-kindly" with reduced ability to obtain required data in allotted time, and vice versa. In this case, I would be willing to wait so as to improve the odds of fully accomplishing proposed work. Furthermore, "more sea-kindly" also means improved comfort (productivity) and especially improved safety, both of which are obviously desirable.

9. Increased availability and use of these and many other new systems almost certainly will increase rather than decrease the demand for ship time.

10. My perception of science trends and mix of tools indicates that we will need increased, not reduced, fleet capacity.
Fleet use currently is limited by funding, not by lack of demand in high-quality research proposals. This situation will continue, or be aggravated, if sights are set on reducing fleet capacity.

11.

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have participated in over 30 oceanographic research cruises, and served as Chief Scientist on 9 cruises on a 'global-class' vessel. I am replying on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. I'm troubled by the prospect of losing three global class ships in the near future, to be replaced by only a single comparable ship. I don't think that the demand for global-class ships will decrease by that amount. However, if the number of global-class ships is restricted, that severely limits the type of oceanography possible in the coming decades.

2.

3. Yes, I would GREATLY prefer a capability for multi-ship operations over a reliance on fewer ships with more berthing capacity. The former offers much more flexibility in science operations, and avoids poor use of personnel (i.e., keeping an individual on a ship for 60 days, when he/she may only have a day or two of ship time allocated to his/her project

4.

5. Yes, I favor the idea of refits.

6. I think there is a good chance that non-classical sources may become more influential, and these sources should be included in projections.

7. Yes, I can think of many coastal ship uses that might not be best served with a shallow-draft vessel.

8. I'd prefer an easier-to-schedule ship, despite my notoriously non-seaworthy stomach.

9. I do NOT think that seafloor observatories will decrease the demand for ships. They may increase demand, but that is not yet clear.

10.

11.

Name: Kenneth G. Foote
Institution: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Since 1977 I have been a frequent participant or chief scientist on board non-UNOLS research vessels, spending roughly one month per year at sea.

**Responses**

1. In general, I believe that there will be a steadily increasing need for ships of global, ocean, and regional class.

2. The community can anticipate a vessel retirement, hence make the necessary plans or appeals for replacement.

3. The need for more science berths across the size classes remains.

4. Ensuring continuity in capacity should be a minimal aim in planning acquisitions.

5. There are precedents for such ongoing improvements. Additions of so-called retractable keels or swords on a number of non-UNOLS mono-hulled vessels to reduce effects of bubble sweepdown on transducer performance, incidentally improving roll characteristics at the same time, have been quite successful. Replacement of the main engine on one non-UNOLS deep-sea research vessel extended its lifetime to thirty years, with an average annual use of 300 days at sea.

6. Public awareness of the importance of the oceans in our everyday life is growing. This is expected to be accompanied by increasing support for oceanographic science, justifying an "optimistic" growth assumption.

7. There is space in the paper to make the distinction.

8. Every effort should be made to achieve good working conditions for the crew and scientific complement. Vessel size and design are major determinants of the working conditions. Anyone in an influential position who doubts the importance of "sea-kindliness" to productivity should gain some personal experience at sea.

9. Autonomous sensing platforms offer profound opportunities to gain new knowledge about the oceans, but the capacity of surface vessels to deploy multiple sensing packages, as in ecosystem studies, cannot be rivaled.

10. I would defer to the professionals in our marine operations division.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding on behalf of myself. I have been a heavy user of UNOLS ships for the past decade, sailing at least once per year on a major cruise as chief scientist.

**Responses**

1. Over the next decade, there will be the start of a shift to ocean observatories from the more traditional expeditionary mapping and sampling approach that has dominated oceanography for more than a century. This will be an increasing trend over subsequent decades. Ocean observatories will not reduce the demand for shiptime, and in fact will probably increase it. The type of ship will be very specific. For example, deep ocean observatory installation and servicing will require a large (AGOR23 class or equivalent) ship with DP, ROV, and heavy lift winch capabilities. Coastal observatory installation and servicing will require similar functionality, but perhaps can be served with a smaller vessel in some cases. Thus, I think the demand for large ships will remain static to increasing and the capabilities of those ships will have to change in some ways. Shrinking the fleet by 25% is moving in the wrong direction.

2. It would be useful to have an unbiased assessment of whether single ship operators are more or less efficient than multiple ship operators. In its absence, all one hears is rhetoric and posturing.

3. I have rarely seen an instance where berthing is an issue, except possibly on Alvin dive cruises. More vessels with the right mix of capabilities is better than fewer vessels with lots of berthing.

4. There needs to sufficient planning to ensure that there are not long gaps in capability. This includes a forward look at those needs rather than a one-for-one replacement program.

5. As long as refits can be made that enhance capability without compromising the overall fleet, this is a good idea. One advantage of this approach is that it avoids the political factors that can torque the location and design of new ships, and in some instances (viz., the UH swath), limit community input into the design.

6. This is very hard to project. Certainly, with the aging of the NOAA fleet, it is likely that non-conventional sources of ship funding will grow rather than shrink in a logical world.

7.

8. This depends on the mission. A smaller, less sea kindly ship is unlikely to be able to handle ocean observatory work, which is my increasing focus. In this instance, capability has to take priority over schedule. For other types of work (viz., free fall vehicle deployment or recovery), the ship capabilities are less important, and schedule would take precedence.

9. See my answer to 1. The answer is a strong yes for NEPTUNE and related programs, with the proviso that ship capabilities will also have to change, and the emphasis will be on large ships.

10. This is a complex issue and certainly does not extend to a mere count of ships or berths. Future projection of ship requirements should start by an examination of the uses to which they will be put. I do not believe that the UNOLS committees have really done this in more than an incremental way. A more comprehensive look at future uses and requirements is needed. One area where this will have a strong impact is in ocean observatories. I suspect that deep submergence is another, and am sure there are others that I am less familiar with. It is important that this be done soon before we are locked into an incremental solution to the problem.

11.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Marine G&G research cruises over the past 40+ years. I am responding on my own behalf.

**Responses**

1. I feel that there will be increasing need for regional capability ships, but the number of large ships with remote oceans capabilities should not be reduced from the present.

2. It is not efficient to operate single ships from institutions that desire to do so. NSF and other agencies should encourage regional consortia for ship operations that will satisfy regional needs.

3. It is always desirable to maximize berthing capabilities, but not all large ship operations require large numbers of persons aboard. Future large ship design should consider flexibility in the needs for both scientific party and crews, so that focused remote operations that require a large ship (e.g., for weather considerations) but not a large scientific party may operate more efficiently.

4. UNOLS and NSF need to plan a long-term phased replacement of ships that do not strain yearly budgets, with sufficient flexibility to accommodate design improvements and even major changes in ship design (e.g., SWATH) as they become feasible and economical.

5. Yes, it is always a good idea to consider modifications of existing ships, rather than new ships, if the improvements will meet the needs more economically.

6. There may well be an occasional "non-traditional" source of ship funding (e.g., the WHOI SWATH), so that UNOLS should try to remain flexible to accommodate new ships or innovations that become available, but should probably try to develop some guidelines for such acquisitions so that they do not overwhelm available funding.

7. Yes, shallow-draft and coastal should not be considered synonymous.

8. I would normally request the smallest ship needed to do the research. If the operations needed to be extended over considerable time, I might request a larger ship. (note comment #3 above).

9. It seems more likely that increased ocean observing capabilities will increased demand for ships.

10.

11. Over the past 1-2 decades, I have been frustrated that UNOLS vessels have generally NOT responded to deficiencies in shipboard equipment, esp. winches, that have been emphasized in my post-cruise reports to them and to NSF in my capacity as chief scientist on various cruises. I would like to have some acknowledgment that anyone has even read such reports, and hopefully that the suggestions may even have been considered seriously.

Name:Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
For myself.

**Responses**

1. The current plans reflect a "business as usual" course. I "foresee" a need for more smaller vessels than the current mix allows.

2. This may be naive, but wouldn't it be wise to have all of the stake-holders meet and agree upon the criterion for awarding competitive contracts FIRST. If they would then all agree to sign a no political intervention clause, perhaps we could avoid a political power-play or two that would be to everyone's detriment.

3. I would prefer more, smaller ships and only two or three major ones.

4. Don't force retirement upon a functioning ship; let them go gracefully by lack of interest. Likewise, don't start building a lot of ships when ones in that class aren't being utilized.

5. Mid-life refits can be good -- for example Knorr and Melville, but these ships had major propulsion problems going in. This should be watched carefully and done case by case and not a general plan. Otherwise, we may be re-fitting ships just as a way of avoiding retirement when they really should be scrapped.

6. No clue. I wouldn't count on non-traditional funding sources for planning purposes however.

7. No.

8. Smaller.

9. More smaller ships to service these new observing tools; less large ships for basin scale transects.

10. Funding expectations: if we don't face this, it is all pie-in-the-sky!
Science trends will also drive needs; new tools will pull investigators into new fields.

11. Supporting oceanography is in the nation's best (strategic and economic) interest.

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I have gone to sea doing deep-sea physical-oceanographic research for 45 years now, on 20 different research vessels, in all oceans except the Arctic. I am responding on behalf of myself.

**Responses**

1. Given the decline in funding for oceanographic research, probably some decline in size of fleet is in order. I believe, however, that we should maintain the number of large ships capable of working in difficult weather and sea conditions, because "small" is not necessarily "cheap", or "cost-effective". I have unhappy memories of several cruises on small ships during which wind and sea were bad enough that for some days the ship could only jog into the wind, whereas a better workboat, like the Chain, could have carried on. The results were that only half the work planned for the cruises could be done, and it was the nature of these projects that half a job was little better than no job. So the money and effort invested was wasted, and a big ship would have been vastly more "cost-effective".

2. I don't see what one can do other than await outcomes; and probably some political interventions, for the benefit of certain institutions at the expense of oceanography generally, will always be inevitable.

3. I don't see all that much call for multi-ship operations. Bigger ships with better working capability, even though fewer, are probably more useful.

4. No comments.

5. If cost-effective extensions of life and capability can be achieved by modifications (i.e. effective relative to cost of new vessels), great!

6. I am doubtful that "non-classical" sources will ever be very significant.

7. No comment.

8. This would depend on the area in which I wanted to work. The subarctic Pacific in winter, for instance, would require a heavy-duty workboat no matter how difficult to schedule, but perhaps a lesser vessel could carry out a project in the Sargasso Sea in springtime, say, and allow the project to proceed without delay.

9. I expect the demand will increase, partly because these systems need mothering, and partly because the observations they make will probably suggest (even demand) useful, clarifying, supplementary, shipboard observations.

10. No comment.

11. No comment.

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

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Over the past 23 years, I have sailed on 13 UNOLS cruises, 8 as Chief or Co-chief Scientist, and four drilling cruises.

**Responses**

1. The whole point of the Ocean Seismic Network is to put permanent seafloor observatories in the Southern Ocean. We can do pilot experiments in the northern hemisphere, but the real "science" will be in filling the holes in the southern hemisphere. This will require a commitment to long cruises in hostile weather conditions to install and maintain these observatories. The OSN plan is for eight deep ocean stations between 30 and 60degrees South. It is not unreasonable to assume that these will be visited once a year for routine maintenance, repairs, data collection and battery recharging. This means the full-time equivalent of a full-size (global) ship (extended endurance, dynamic positioning, ROV capable,...) essentially dedicated to the Southern Oceans. I suspect that we would need at least as many large ships in the future as we have now.

2. Although perhaps not very politically attractive, it is just common sense to have a small number (3 or 4) of "centers of excellence" to run the UNOLS fleet. This would optimize the use of expensive dock facilities, shore-based infrastructure and personnel. To be an "Oceanographic Institution" you must have ships and sea-going personnel including scientific and technical staff. This requires a critical mass of three or four ships distributed across the various sizes for each center.

3. I do not understand why fewer ships with more berths is attractive. This means fewer cruises (fewer Chief Sci's) and more expensive cruises. The drill ship is one extreme of this. But if you go on longer cruises there will be pressure to reduce personnel to save costs, so why do you need more berths? I guess a mix of ships of different kinds would give us the most flexibility.

4. No comment.

5. No comment.

6. Growing population, pollution of the environment, global warming, and climate change will make the oceans more important over the next twenty years. Although a conservative growth assumption may be fiscally prudent it would be a mistake to resign ourselves to this assumption. Many would say that marine science in the US is already below critical funding levels. We can't sustain a healthy national oceanographic community at existing levels. Many oceanographic graduate education programs are seeing this effect in reduced quantity and quality of applicants. If everyone assumes cautious growth, how many oceanographers do we need? How many students do we need now to sustain a steady state of oceanographers in the future? If there is no hope for increased funding, what would prospective students have to look forward to? Other areas of the economy and other careers promise essentially unlimited growth.

7. No comment.

8. For the OSN southern ocean work you need a committed, large (sea kindly) ship.

9. The new sensing systems will increase scientific and public awareness of the oceans. This will lead to more students who want to pursue oceanography and should lead to increased funding. Once NEPTUNE is in place as a power and communications interface it will be essential to deploy experiments on it. When data comes back from from Argo more interesting questions will be raised than solved. The demand for ships will increase.

10. I do not understand the question. It should be possible to break a compound sentence into individual sentences. So...1) By what measures should we define this (fleet capacity)? - OK 2a) By what measures should we use use it (fleet capacity) to modify future projections of ship requirements based on funding expectations, science trends and the changing mix of tools? - DOES NOT MAKE SENSE 2b) How do we use it (fleet capacity) to modify future projections of ship requirements based on funding expectations, science trends and the changing mix of tools? - DOES NOT MAKE SENSE 2c) How do we use it (do you mean 'them', the measures) to modify future projections of ship requirements based on funding expectations, science trends and the changing mix of tools? - IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN? If the questions were expressed more clearly we would have a better chance of providing clear answers. Even then, not all simple questions have simple answers.

11. Not at this time.

Name: John W. Farrington
Institution: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am responding for myself. I graduated with a Ph.D. in Chemical Oceanography in 1972 and have had a career in ocean sciences since then. I have had NSF, ONR, DOE and other sources of research support, including ship time. I have participated in many oceanographic cruises, including several as Chief Scientist prior to 1990. In those cruises I took several graduate students to sea for their Ph.D. thesis research. Since 1990 I have been mainly engaged in academic leadership as Dean of Graduate Studies and Associate Director for Education at WHOI.

**Responses**

1. I believe that the current plan provides the "bare bones" academic research fleet the nation will need in the future. To cut anything from the plan will severely damage the nation's ability to gain new knowledge of the oceans of strategic importance to the overall national interest and national security. One or two to be on the safe side should increase the numbers of research vessels with all-oceans capability. There are various means at hand in some regions of the nation to secure combined private sector and combined state funding for construction and partial operation of the regional research vessel class. The national agencies are the only likely source for funding the larger research vessel class.

2. The nature of ocean research by the U. S. academic community has evolved within the context of UNOLS such that faculty, staff, postdocs and students from all arenas of the U. S. academic community, irrespective of their distance from the oceans, have access to research vessels provided that there proposed research meets the required level of excellence as judged by their peers.
Whatever is done should ensure that the academic fleet continues to serve the wider need. Having stated that, I believe that it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that operation of academic research vessels should be undertaken within the context of a home institution or collective of institution's who have as one of their highest priorities a focus on studies of the oceans and a commitment to provide the necessary leadership and oversight to operate first class research vessels for the community. Given that the prospect for political intervention cannot be circumvented, the community would be well served to recognize and respond to the certainty that such intervention could become a significant divisive factor. Agreement up front to the principles by which vessels will be allocated and operated is needed. The community cannot retreat to the ivory tower and pretend that members of the U. S. Congress will not exercise their responsibilities as elected officials to look to the well being of their constituents. The community needs to be proactive with federal agencies and Members of Congress and the Congressional Staff to evolve a plan that allocates research vessels in a way that meets the needs of the nation and maximizes acceptance of these allocations by various constituencies. The upcoming National Commission on the Oceans provides a timely opportunity and an effective means to bring forward such a plan. This should be one of the higher priorities of the Commission.

3. Fewer ships with larger berthing capacity and more endurance are the most appropriate, provided this does not get carried to the extreme.

4. I find it difficult to understand why such plans are not in accord. I favor getting on with the replacements sooner rather than later

5. This is a difficult question to answer without having specifics for each case to be addressed. I favor a flexible approach, informed by knowledgeable marine architects, ship operators and scientific users.

6. The cautious growth assumption should be made. Other sources of funding will be subject to the vagaries of budget pressures at the federal agencies. Private sectors funds from the "oil patch" might provide limited sources of funding, but not significant enough to warrant a more optimistic planning scenario. I suspect, but cannot prove with the data available to me, that one potential problem is that the limited growth scenario is a function of a spiral of lack of proposal pressure. Proposals for deep-sea research may not garner as much support from the "community" as they once did nor are they as high a percentage of the proposals as they were (if my suspicions are correct), because the "community" has grown so much in the past two decades in the coastal research and education arena. This growth has come mainly at colleges and universities with state supported startup funds with the promise that this will leverage federal agency grant funds. At the same time the state funds are predicated most of the time on "serving a state related mission" - that means research in local coastal waters, or in other coastal waters in general where comparisons with local coastal waters will lead to improved applications of scientific knowledge for policy and management issues. Thus, global oceans or deep-water research garners less attention from the entire community of marine scientists than two to three decades ago. By this, I am not saying that the coastal efforts are less important. I am simply making an observation that I believe influences the "peer review" process in both direct and subtle ways via "community consensus" approaches to research planning.

7. I take "coastal" to mean the continental shelf and near-shore continental margins on the western coast of the Americas among other regions of the world. These regions have been the purviews of federal "coastal "programs in the past as have shallow water and estuarine regions. My direct experience on the continental shelf off the east coast of the U. S., west coast of South America, and west coast of Africa, is that shallow draft would be a major mistake for vessels in those waters. Clearly the presence of the question in the survey is the result of the recognition that mixing of shallow draft and coastal without regard to specific definitions of "coastal" and specific regional contexts for operations IS a mistake.

8. I would choose the more sea kindly vessel AND urge that there be provisions for longer-term commitment of grant funds for such cruises so that as proposal could seek such funds in the future without putting interim funding for other research by the P. I. in jeopardy.

9. I believe servicing such sensing systems and research coordinated with the sensing systems will require additional ship time to take full advantage of these systems to address pressing scientific questions of societal importance.

10. I believe on of the issues to be addressed is to recognize that there is not a single "marine sciences" community, but rather several overlapping communities coming to the same source of funding for what they perceive as priorities. For example, the "geosciences" community is probably focused on funding the next generation drill ship and ocean bottom observatories. The estuarine and near-shore coastal scientists are focused on some pressing coastal problems and the need for adequate size research vessels to meet these needs. The "deep water" ocean folks dealing with ocean circulation and climate and cycling of chemicals related to climate issues are in need of research vessels to pursue that critical science. No doubt there are other groupings or constituencies. Some strategic decisions need to be made by the national leadership to broadly allocate resources to meet the most urgent needs of each of these various groups. Trying to get a "consensus" of all self-described marine/ocean scientists is fraught with extreme difficulty. I believe the "measures" to be used would evolve naturally once a reasonable set of subgroups of the "communities" are identified along with their priority needs.

11. We are fortunate as a community or more correctly "communities" that excellent ideas are not wanting and the communities will always be pushing for more funding than society can afford to allocate to marine/ocean sciences in comparison to other societal needs

Name: Anonymous

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
I am a science user of ships; the above reflects my own opinions.

**Responses**

1. I believe that a reduction in the academic fleet of this magnitude would have an extremely negative impact on ocean sciences. It is true that the community is developing novel ways of making measurements in the ocean that do not require ships. However, this does not justify reduction in our seagoing capability. The ocean is woefully under-sampled as it is. Autonomous systems will ameliorate this situation for certain variables that lend themselves to measurement with instruments that can reside on such platforms. But, the fact is that a wide array of key variables do not fall into this category. Moreover, oceanography is still an exploratory science-we are still in the process of learning what needs to be measured. That activity requires direct --not remote-- access to the sea. Startling discoveries continue to be made on a frequent basis in our field, and reducing our access to the sea will clearly impede such progress. In the strongest possible terms, I recommend that our seagoing capability be increased, not decreased.

2. Politics needs to be kept out of this issue. Ships acquisitions should be awarded on an objective, competitive basis.

3. More science berths among all size classes will facilitate interdisciplinary research; I believe that the benefits of such will outweigh the negative impacts of fewer multi-ship operations. I think that over time the need for multiple ship operations will decrease as more "routine" observations can be made with autonomous
measurement systems.

4. no

5. no comment

6. no comment

7. no comment

8. I would prefer to wait for a ship that was up to the job.

9. increase

10. no comment

11. no comment

Brief Description of Research Vessel Experience:
Former Chair of UNOLS, sea-going research geologist, arctic research on UNOLS and non-UNOLS vessels. I have some mundane and some radical suggestions to make. (COMMENTS DO NOT DIRECTLY RELATE TO SURVEY QUESTIONS, THE NUMBERING IS THE AUTHOR'S)

**Responses**

1. Seismic capabilities. The academic community is already way behind the industry standard for marine seismic exploration technology. A study should be carried out to indicate the future of marine seismics. Should the Ewing replacement be an industry standard seismic ship (industry standard in 2010)? Should the marine seismic community consider arrangements to use industry facilities and forego a dedicated, academic ship? How should the continuous improvements in seismic technology be accommodated by the academic fleet to prevent falling behind again? Do we need a suite of seismic tools ranging from simple, single-channel systems through classical multi-channel systems to the latest 3D/4D technology? How much seismic work is survey (c.f., ODP site surveys) and how much requires intensive high tech study?

2. The use of autonomous vehicles, generally submerged, seems like a technology with a bright future but the unattended operation of many of our favorite instruments is by no means assured. A program for the automation of such devices (swath mappers, gravimeters, chemical sensors, etc.) should be supported to prepare the infrastructure for new platforms. At the same time, these improvements will make data gathering on conventional ships easier and consequently more valuable information will be collected while manpower needs will be reduced. This improvement will affect all forms of ocean observation including moored and floating buoys (viz. automated, long endurance ADCPs).

3. Are ROV/AUV etc. facilities part of the fleet? If so shouldn't their planning be coordinated with the ship replacement plan?

4. You have not described any of the three classes of ships as "Coastal Zone" ships. Is the Ocean Class ship meant to be "a one size fits all" ship? A blue water ship? Are their specific characteristics of a coastal zone ship that differentiate it from the Ocean Class? What is the future of coastal zone research (a tough question) and what will the ship time and facilities needs be? I could never get NOAA to even discuss their expectations for coastal zone ship time during their flurry of planning for coastal oceanography but I remember that UNOLS did a ship performance requirements document for a coastal zone ship at the request of the MARCO group and it had interesting characteristics. How specialized should ships get? Should we consider a fairly large ship with extremely shallow draft for working close inshore in protected waters? What other specialties should we consider? Is this the class where the most divergent types will be considered viz., AGOR 26 and the ice strengthened Alaska ship? Is this the fleet's experimental class?

5. As a radical suggestion, I recommend that the Congress be encouraged to establish a fund for capital improvement of oceanographic ships and their equipment and that this fund receive and accumulate appropriated payments at a steady rate. When necessary these funds will be used for ship construction and upgrades as required. The purpose of such a fund is to remove the large, one-time appropriations required for ship building. Ship construction funds may not cause major ripples in the budget of the department of defense (this in jest, I know they do), but in other agencies these special expenditures can cause either major struggles with the appropriators or serious threats to ongoing science funding when money must be diverted to ship building (c.f., the current difficulties surrounding the construction of the South Pole Station).

6. In another radical mood, I think maybe there should be a group formed to mirror the structure of the Base Realignment And Closing (BRAC) Commission which was installed to remove the closing of military bases and the removal of military activities from congressional influence. Perhaps a Fleet Assessment and Restructuring Committee of Experts (FARCE) should be established. Such a body of disinterested individuals would prevent fleet operations from becoming chaotic due to the powerful interests involved when ship renovation, retirement, replacement or relocation decisions must be made. They could even act as the Board of Directors of the fund described above.

7. I would like to reiterate my unthinkable thought of several years ago when I was UNOLS Chair. It would be useful to separate the fixed and variable costs of ship operations and fund the fixed costs in full for those ships appropriate to the fleet. Science sponsors would fund variable costs according to use. The FOFCC system currently includes all classes of funding scheme which makes inter-comparison extraordinarily difficult. HEALY, for example, requires only "opportunity costs" which are, in effect, food and fuel for the cruise only. This is only appropriate as their crew and equipment is funded for the full year. UNOLS ships require full cost funding with a resulting day rate which fluctuates with the use rate - fluctuates hyperbolically at that. NOAA ships are viewed as essentially free to NOAA scientists as they are fully funded and the only questions relate to allocation of the previously funded time. The result is that UNOLS operators are constantly in a panic to make sure their schedule is full and they don't get into the death spiral of rising day rates with decreasing utilization, a positive feedback loop with severe consequences. Interagency comparisons are virtually impossible as cost figures are based on such different models. The ability to cross from one platform to another as appropriate is severely compromised by these incompatible financial structures. Fully funding the fixed costs and allowing the researchers to use the most appropriate platform would greatly improve the FOFC system.

All in all, it is a well thought out report. It is pretty conventional but we have paid the price for enthusiasm in the past and I think the approach is good. I'd like to see FOFC do a government wide projection and address the interagency questions which arise but UNOLS has done a good job here of projecting their own needs.

READ THE FOFC DISCUSSION PAPER

COMPLETE THE SURVEY YOURSELF

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS FROM THE SURVEY FOR YOUR REFERENCE .......BACK TO THE TOP

1. The FOFC paper calls for a smaller number of ships in the future fleet, at least in terms of federal acquisitions for ships over 130 feet in length. Over the 20 year time interval considered, the chart of "fleet retirements and renewals" shown below indicates retirement of 13 ships and acquisition of 10. Would this plan meet your needs or the needs of the community as you see it? Do you believe there will be a need for fewer larger ships with all oceans capability and extended endurance or more smaller ships with regional capability and shorter endurance? Click here to see the chart.

2. Except to say that new ships should be awarded competitively, which is certainly a proper statement, there is little discussion in the FOFC paper of what can or should happen when one or more institutions confront the prospect of having to retire a ship with no prospect of a replacement. Should anything more be said on this point, or should we await the outcomes, and with them perhaps the potentials for political interventions on behalf of such institutions?

3. The FOFC paper emphasizes more science berths across the size classes. Would you prefer to see more capability for multi-ship operations through provision of more vessels of smaller berthing capacity or do you agree that fewer ships with more endurance and larger berthing capacity are appropriate?

4. The postulated 30 year lifetimes in the table mentioned above ( Click here to see the chart ) yield significant differences from the existing UNOLS and NSF Fleet Review tables of projected lifetimes (see the link references below), and thus a significantly different temporal pattern of ship retirements and new acquisitions. Do you have any comments about the timing of retirements and acquisition?

Academic Fleet Review: http://www.geo.nsf.gov/oce/pubs/fleetrev.html
UNOLS FIC Discussion: http://www.unols.org/committees/fic/

5. The FOFC paper calls for ongoing improvement of the shipboard technical capabilities. Should there be an analogous emphasis on ongoing, feasible improvements in the existing ships as well? It may well be that at some times a modification to some aspect of the ship - more fuel-efficient propulsion, a reshaped bottom for better acoustic properties, or other such change - could be made effectively and more economically than a new construction. Another way to put this is that the usual model of a single "mid-life refit" might better become a more distributed process, for some kinds of changes. What are your thoughts regarding modifications and improvements to existing hulls as a means for extending the life and capability of the fleet?

6. Based on the 1982-2000 funding graphs for NSF and ONR Ocean Sciences research given in the FOFC paper, an assumption of flat or slowly-growing funding for use of research vessels is made. In recent times funding sources other than these "classical" ones have played significant roles in UNOLS ship use and fleet funding. Will such "non-classical" sources wax or wane, and should the cautious growth assumption be modified?

7. The concepts of "coastal" and "shallow-draft" vessels and research regions seem to merge in the FOFC paper. But not all coastal regions are shallow; does this deserve comment or modification?

8. If you had a choice of a larger, more sea kindly ship, but more difficult to schedule ship vs. a smaller, less sea kindly ship, but easier to schedule which would you request? Note that more difficult may mean a year or two could go by before you could be accommodated.

9. Will new sensing systems such as Argo (ocean autonomous profilers) and NEPTUNE (deep observatories) increase the demand for research ships or decrease demand?

10. In Dr. Leinen's forwarding letter she asks "By what measures should we define this (fleet "capacity"), and use it to modify future projections of ship requirements based on funding expectations, science trends and the changing mix of tools? Please comment on this issue.

11. Are there other questions raised by this draft discussion paper that should be put to the community? Do you have other observations or comments not covered by the above questions?

BACK TO THE TOP