READ THE FOFC DISCUSSION PAPER

COMPLETE THE SURVEY YOURSELF

TOP....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10....11

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.

R2: 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.

R3: 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.

R5: 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.

R6: More Smaller ships.

R7: 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.

R8: 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.

R9: 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.

R10: 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!

R11: 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).

R12: 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

R13: 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.

R14: 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.

R15: 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.

R17: 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.

R18: 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.

R19: 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.

R21: More smaller ships with regional capability and rates that are not sky high.

R22: 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.

R23: 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.

R24: 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.

R25: 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.

R26: 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.

R27: 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.

R28: 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.

R29: 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.

R30: 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.

R31: 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.

R32: 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.

R33: 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.

R34: 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.

R35: 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.

R36: 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.

R37: 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.

R38: It absolutely will not meet my needs or those of the community as I see them in the future.

R39: 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.

R40: 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.

R41: 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).

R42: 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.

R43: 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.

R44: 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

R45: 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.

R46: 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.

R47: 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).

R48: 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.

R49: 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.

R50: 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.

R51: 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.

R52: More INTERMEDIATE class (not regional) vessels with some expanded capabilities over those presently found.

R53: 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.

R54: 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.

R55: 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.

R56: I believe more ships would be needed, instead of fewer.

R58: 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.

R59: 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.

R60: 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.

R61: 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.

R62: 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.

R63: 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.

R64: 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.

R65: 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.

R66: 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.

R67: 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.

R68: 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.

R70: 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.

R71: 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.

R72: 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.

R73: 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.]

R74: I believe there will be a greater need for smaller ships with regional capability.

R75: 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.

R76: 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.

R77: 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.

R78: 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.

R79: 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.

R80: 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.

R81: 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.

R82: 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.

R83: 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.

R84: 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.

R85: 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.

R86: 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).

R87: 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.

R88: I note that the 10 replacement ships are in fact replacing 14 retirements. Moana Wave was not considered as a retirement.

R89: 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.

R90: 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?

R91: 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.

R92: 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.

R93: 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.

R94: Yes, the present plan meets my needs

R95: 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.

R96: 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.

R97: 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.

R98: 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.

R99: 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.

R100: 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.

R101: 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.

R102: 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.

R103: The current no. of ships seems to be adequate so that fewer ships would be a problem.

R104: 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.

R105: 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!

R106: 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.

R107: 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.

R108: 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.

R109: 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."

R110: 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.

R111: 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.

R112 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.

R113 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.

R114 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).

R115 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.

R116 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.

R117 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.

R118 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.

R119 The programs I've been involved with require at least the intermediate class ships. A similar number of Knorr/Revelle size ships is probably enough for the next 20 yrs, but the number of intermediate size (Oceanus or larger) ships ALSO should be maintained. This size ship is versatile enough to do nearshore work for 1-2 week trips, and to do month-long trips to more remote locations. The capacity to do deep ocean work shouldn't be reduced, as it will be if the current retirement dates are used. That said, the fleet probably needs more smaller ships for coastal work.

R120 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.

R121 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.

R122 In general, I believe that there will be a steadily increasing need for ships of global, ocean, and regional class.

R123 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.

R124 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.

R125 The current plans reflect a "business as usual" course. I "foresee" a need for more smaller vessels than the current mix allows.

R126 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".

R127: 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.

R128: 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.

R129: 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.


TOP....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10....11

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?

R1: 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.

R3: 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.

R4: 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.

R5: 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.

R6: It is intrinsically a political question.

R7: 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.

R8: 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.

R9: 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.

R10: 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.

R11: 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.

R12: 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

R13: 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.

R14: 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!

R16: 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.

R17: 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.

R18: 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).

R21: I have no clue.

R22: 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.

R24: 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.

R25:

R26: 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.

R27: 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.

R28: 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.

R29: There should be a policy of NO political intervention agreed by all UNLOS members. Any infraction should be punished with expulsion from UNLOS.

R30: 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.

R31:

R32: 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).

R33: 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.

R34: 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.

R35:

R36: No opinion

R37: 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.

R38: No

R39: I think that it should be addressed, but I am unsure of how.

R40: 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.

R41: 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).

R42: 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.

R43: Saying more will not reduce the role of intervention.

R44: No matter what the institutions want, and no matter what makes sense, the decisions will be made in Congress.

R45: 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.

R46: 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?

R47: Political interventions have been a problem in the past, and will probably continue to be a problem no matter what we say.

R48: 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.

R49: 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.

R50: To help limit transit time an effort to strategically locate the ships should be attempted. Political interventions seems inevitable.

R51: We should not be asking this question. More ships will be needed in the future.

R52: The process should be merit-based, first, foremost, and finally.

R53: No Comment

R54: 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. ???

R55: Each oceanographic institution should have at least one ship, no matter how small is the ship. This is almost axiomatic.

R56: I hope this will not happen - more not fewer ships are needed.

R58: 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

R59: No comment

R60: 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.

R61: 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.

R62: I would favor a mechanisms for deciding on replacements which takes the decision out of politics, but cannot envision such a mechanism.

R63: 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.

R64: 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.

R65: 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.

R66: I have nothing to say on this except the fact that an institution operates a ship does not entitle them to have one forever.

R67: 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.

R68: 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.

R70: 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.

R71: See my response to question #6

R72: 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.

R73: 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.

R74: Experience counts for a lot in any ocean-going endeavor. Any "competitive" award needs to be heavily weighted toward past performance.

R75: 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.

R76: 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.

R77: Institutional balance should be one consideration, but not an overwhelming factor.

R79: 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.

R81: 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.

R84: 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.

R85: There will be politics. For regional ships, award them on a regional basis so that there is good coverage and cost-effectiveness.

R86: 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.

R88: 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.

R89: 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.

R90: 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?

R91: 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.

R92: Ships should be awarded on merit. If it is possible to keep politics out of the equation, this should be done.

R93: I agree that we need competition without politics. How that is done I don,t know.

R94: Anything to avoid political interventions is important. Political involvement in this exercise will ultimately weaken the present high quality of ocean science.

R96: 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.

R97: 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.

R98: No comment.

R99: 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.

R100:

R101: 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.

R102:

R103: Await the outcomes.

R104: 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?

R106: 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.

R107: 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.

R108: 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.

R109: 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.

R110: 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.

R111: 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.

R112 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.

R113 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.

R114

R115 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.

R116 I do not feel comfortable commenting on this issue.

R117 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...)

R118 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.

R119

R120 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.

R121

R122 The community can anticipate a vessel retirement, hence make the necessary plans or appeals for replacement.

R123 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.

R124 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.

R125 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.

R126 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.

R127: 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.

R128: 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.

R129: Politics needs to be kept out of this issue. Ships acquisitions should be awarded on an objective, competitive basis.

TOP....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10....11