APPENDIX XIII

FIC Mid-Pacific SMRs

January 6, 1997

CLASS II/III GENERAL PURPOSE RESEARCH VESSEL
SCIENCE MISSION REQUIREMENTS
FOR CENTRAL PACIFIC OPERATING AREA

This report is in response to the Office of Naval Research (ONR) letter dated 7 November 1996 requesting Science Mission Requirements (SMR) for a Class II/III general purpose research vessel. The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC), augmented by representatives from the University of Hawaii (UH) and Pacific Ocean research scientists, met in San Francisco on 12-13 December to deliberate on the requirements. A list of attendees is included as Enclosure 1.

In response to the ONR letter, Ken Johnson provided the FIC with a charge through his e-mail message dated 14 November 1996 (Enclosure 2) In addition, Sujata Millick provided additional guidance in her remarks at the FIC meeting. The FIC working group was instructed that economic issues were relevant, not only for the moneys available for construction but the life cycle cost as integrated into the total UNOLS Fleet operating budget. The instructions to develop SMRs for a Class II/III ship suggest both cost and size constraints. Sujata further explained that when the SMRs are evaluated for design concepts a monohull would not be ruled out.

Brian Taylor presented a revised set of science mission requirements. This revision was in response to the community comments and represented a reduced size/capacity from the first draft provided by UH. Community response overwhelmingly recommended that the ship be built for operations in the central and circum-Pacific including, ice-free high latitudes. These SMRs were again updated by UH based on the deliberation of the FIC working group and are forwarded as Enclosure 3. The values used in these SMRs represent UH's interpretation of the FIC work and not necessarily a consensus of the assembled FIC working group.

REQUIREMENTS: The Committee deliberated on 11 requirements that were considered as "drivers" with respect to ship size, design and cost. The requirements considered were: Sea Keeping; Station Keeping; Endurance; Speed; Draft; Range; Science Staff; Science Payload; Lab Space; Deck Space and Hold Space. A detailed discussion of each of these is provided below which constitutes the substance of this report.

REQUIREMENT RANGE: A range of values was established for each of these requirements. The requirement range included the Minimum" acceptable, "Desirable" and the "Maximum" considered reasonable for each of the requirements. An attempt was made to keep the "Desirable" within practical cost limits; however, the limited ship design expertise of the working group suggests that a priority system would be necessary to temper excessive enthusiasm. The "Maximum" of the range suggests a goal when it does not compromise other requirements.

The Committee began its discussion of each requirement by reviewing the values reported in existing UNOLS Science Mission Requirements for Class II and Class III monohull research vessels and Class I and III SWATH research vessels (ref: FIC Report "Scientific Mission Requirements for Oceanographic Research Vessels", Nov. 1989). The minimum acceptable and desirable values were then set.

PRIORITY: A priority system was devised to assist designers with tradeoffs that might be necessary between Minimum and Desirable requirements. High priorities suggest the design should attempt to meet the "Desirable" requirement in the Range. For the lower priorities at least the minimum should be met. To develop the priorities a vote was taken on each of the requirements. The voter had a choice of High, Medium or Low priority. A point value was assigned to each of these with High=3, Medium=2 and Low=1 point. The votes were counted and values tallied. A perfect High, where all present voted for a high priority, would equate to a score of 63 (21 people voted).

It should be noted that the priorities refer only to tradeoffs between Minimum and Desirable values in the requirements. If it is not possible to meet Minimum values, then the priorities will differ dramatically. For example, the ship's range received a relatively low priority ranking of 36. However, the minimum range of 9000 nm was considered to be of very high importance. If it could not be met in an affordable design, then minimum ranges for other factors such as science payload or sea keeping should be lowered first. There was not an extensive discussion of the ranking of Minimum priorities, however, as it was considered to be premature until the constraints of the SMRs on the ship's characteristics were considered by NAVSEA.

CLASS II/III MONOHULLS AND SWATH SMR VALUES - To provide a perspective of the SMRs recommended, the SMR values from previous FIC reports of Class II and Class III monohull and SWATH vessels has been included where available.

1. SEA KEEPING (on station) was the only requirement with a perfect high priority score. A maximum range was not considered applicable and not included. Discussion followed that working in Sea States of 6 and 7 were paramount if this vessel was to have improved characteristics over existing research vessels. A concern for survivability was expressed. Design requirements must include survivability through Sea State 9.

The Minimum values were derived from the Circular of Requirements (COR) for the AGOR 23 (THOMPSON) class, while the Desirable values were based on the COR for the TAGOS-19 SWATH surveillance ships that have been built by the Navy.

The AGOR 23 COR did not include a Heave value, and the Committee suggested a value of six feet. THOMPSON was reported to meet the requirements of the minimum values. The UNOLS FIC report, "Preliminary Design for Medium Endurance General Purpose Oceanographic Research Vessel," suggests that a smaller vessel with a broad beam and shallow draft can also meet the Minimum requirements. A SWATH design is likely to be necessary to meet the Desirable requirements.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 63 (H=21/M=0/L=0)

2. DECK SPACE DISTRIBUTION was discussed in general terms and considered a function of the hull form. The requirement was considered significantly important and as a minimum, 2,000 square feet of space should be available. However, the priority for the space was assigned on the basis of configuration, rather than square footage. The deck space must be arranged to allow easy handling of oceanographic gear, and to facilitate typical oceanographic operations such as itemized below.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 58 (H=16/M=5/L=0)

3. STATION KEEPING was considered a high priority and related to the ability of the vessel to remain on station with dynamic positioning. The dynamic positioning parameters were considered as +/- 50 meters deviation with +/- 5 degrees on the most favorable heading. It was agreed that the desire for station keeping in higher sea states would necessitate an increase in air gap between the main ship's body and the sea. Survivability through Sea State 9 would be required.

The desirable value for operations in Sea State 7 would significantly expand routine operations into the high latitudes during winter months. Station keeping in Sea State 7 would likely require a SWATH design.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 57 (H=15/M=6/L=0)

4. SCIENCE PAYLOAD is discussed as it relates to that variable load that a science party can bring aboard. This may include vans, moorings (including anchors, floats, cable and instrumentation), ROVs, coring equipment and mission specific scientific gear. The minimum of 60 tons was driven by the weight of a typical set of mooring arrays that would be carried on a NOAA TOGA/TAO cruise. Science outfitting requirements such as winches, cranes and A-frames will be driven by the overall science mission requirements and the load of this non-itinerant equipment is not included in the Science Payload discussed here as there are a variety of options available for outfitting this equipment that will control its weight.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 47 (H=7/M=12/L=2)

5. LENGTH/BEAM/DRAFT were discussed with a consensus that only harbor draft was a limiting factor for the working group to provide a recommendation. The Panama Canal limitation of 104-foot maximum beam was considered a given requirement. Harbor draft could determine which harbors would be available for this vessel. A SWATH design with variable draft would solve this problem, but it could also compromise some of the other features desired of the vessel. Consensus was not reached on the maximum draft. The majority agreed on 24 feet, however, a significant minority argued that this was not practical and would provide significant operational limitations. It was noted that draft can be a limiting value of range.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 46 (H=7/M=11/L=3)

6. LABORATORY SPACE is considered as the sum of all internal laboratories. The spatial distribution of these spaces is important and should be a topic of study after basic hull forms are determined. The desired lab space requirements correlate to the desired science staff requirements. The formula used in determining the lab space is:

(number of scientists x 100 sq. ft) + 500 sq. ft

This formula was derived from the experience of the group that multi-disciplinary cruises on the current generation of intermediate vessels were regularly running out of laboratory space, and this trend was likely to continue as science operations become more complex.

Although specific layouts of the laboratories were not considered, they should be convenient to the main working deck and the success of the AGOR 23 design suggests that the labs should all be on one deck if possible.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 44 (H=6/M=11/L=4)

7. SCIENCE STAFF size is a major driver in ship utility, as evidenced by the success of R/V SEWARD JOHNSON. The minimum science party size was set by the number of science berths available on WECOMA. It was recognized that multi-disciplinary cruises will require even more science personnel, which set the desirable value at 25. The science staff is only a portion of the berthing requirement of a vessel. Because the crew size will be influenced by the U.S. Coast Guard requirements of an "inspected vessel", the working group decided to only address the science staff requirements. The group agreed that the crew size should be the minimum possible and serviceable consistent with USCG requirements.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 41 (H=1/M=18/L=2)

8. SPEED (CRUISING) was discussed and a number of issues were identified. Work in the central Pacific will necessarily involve many long transits. Although high speeds are desirable for transit they must be tempered by the cost and the range of the ship. Higher speeds can also be a detriment with respect to some science systems. The potential speed attainable in a SLICE design may differ significantly with a SWATH design or monohull. Sea state was a consideration in the recommended speed range.

Published SMRs for:

Note: 20kts for the maximum speed value is recommended by SOEST. A full consensus has not been reached.

Priority score: 39 (H=5/M=8/L=8)

9. ENDURANCE was considered that period of time a ship could be at sea without re-supplying food. Although fuel can be an element of endurance, the fuel limitations were considered more critical in the ship's range which is discussed below. The food endurance recommended probably parallels the endurance of science personnel.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 37 (H=0/M=16/L=5)

10. CRUISING RANGE and speed are elements that have a direct relationship to the size and thus, the cost of the vessel. Increasing the range of the vessel will require greater fuel carrying capacity and as a result will impact the weight of the ship. The ranges recommended below resulted from the fact that the operating area for this vessel is considered to be the Pacific Ocean. A cruise from Hawaii to Easter Island and return would require a minimum range of 8K nm, as would some cruises to service TOGA/TAO arrays. These cruises set the minimum desirable range.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 36 (H=6/M=3/L=12)

11. SCIENTIFIC HOLD SPACE will be a function of expeditionary planning. More is considered better; however, staging in outports is an alternative to a large hold capacity. As a minimum the ship should have sufficient hold space to accommodate a second cruise.

Published SMRs for:

Priority score: 30 (H=0/M=9/L=12)

SCIENCE OPERATIONS: The working group discussed a possible array of science operations envisioned by this ship. Below is a list of operations suggested. The list is not considered to be all inclusive but should be the subject of further discussion.

1. ROVs
2. Mooring Deployment & Recovery
3. Free-Fall Instrument Deployment & Recovery
4. Hydrography
5. Seasoar Towing MOCNESS & other nets
6. Deep Towing
7. Multi-Beam Bathymetry
8. Ocean Bottom Observatories (Borehole Re-entry)
9. Coring - Piston, Box
10. Cable-Laying - Lightweight Electro-Fibre Cables
11. Atmospheric Observations Lidars, Radars, Sodars, Balloons Chemical Sampling (Space Distribution Issue)
12. Satellite Receiving & Telecommunication (Deck layout superstructure obstructions)
13. Seismic Streamers, Towed Arrays
14. Hull-Mounted Sampling Systems/Sensors (ADCPs, seawater sampling)

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the design of this vessel will be an evolutionary process that may require large changes in some of the SMRs outlined above. To facilitate this process it is recommended that a FIC ad hoc committee be formed to work with ONR/NAVSEA in the further development of these science mission requirements. It is envisioned that this committee be made up of seagoing scientists and be limited to three in number.