UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Meeting
Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 8:30
a.m.
National Science Foundation - Room
770
Arlington, VA
II. Attendance List
III. FIC Meeting Viewgraphs Presented by Larry Atkinson
IV. Regional Class Workshop Summary
V. R/V CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement – Status Report
VI. Navy Common Hull Study – Status Report and Preliminary
Findings
VII. Alaska Region Research Vessel – Status Report
Wednesday,
September 25, 2002 - 8:30 am
Welcome and Introduction
– Larry Atkinson, FIC Chair, opened the meeting and recapped FIC activities
since the last meeting. This meeting
will focus on Fleet Renewal issues. The
meeting agenda items, Appendix I, were addressed in the order as
reported herewith. The meeting participants introduced themselves. The attendance list is provided as Appendix II.
Appropriations and Funding for Fleet Renewal – Agency Status
National Science Foundation (NSF) - Jim Yoder reported on NSF
Ocean Sciences activities. There are
activities in the planning stages that will require major funding support. These include a new drill ship, observatory
initiatives, and an ALVIN replacement. Although the Navy has indicated that
they will not support design and construction of a human occupied submergence
vehicle, NSF and NOAA still have an interest in this area. They have funded WHOI to study replacement
options for ALVIN. They would like to be able to start replacement efforts in
2004. Plans to upgrade the seismic
capability provided by EWING are being considered and NSF would like to see
this effort begin in 2003 or 2004. NSF
will need double-digit growth in order to meet all of these new
initiatives. Planning for these initiatives
must continue.
How can the community help? The NSF science budget increased because the
science community got together and made a common plea for science and the
science budget. They were
successful. They need to continue to
push broadly, and not for their own individual interests. The community needs to be able to explain the
exciting science that is being conducted.
This will help justify the new science budget.
Jim showed a few viewgraphs. NSF plans to play an active role in the FOFC
Regional Class ship renewal plans.
-
NSF
is currently seriously considering and discussing options to implement the FOFC
plan for regional class ships including: 1) joint funding with the Navy and 2)
NSF funding only.
-
If
the latter, NSF will approach this project as they did for Oceanus and Cape
Classes: “common” design for multiple
ships, open competition for design, open competition for construction, and open
competition for ship operators.
Jim outlined an approximate timetable if NSF is lead
on construction Regional class ship.
-
In
6-12 months: Call for concept designs
(proposals requesting NSF funds to complete preliminary design studies).
-
+12-18
months: NSF selects a Preliminary design
-
+12-18
months: NSF selects contract design and prepares bid package
-
Construction
award after 1 October 2005
Construction cost and operation costs will be a
constraint for NSF. They would like to
limit the budget for each Regional vessel to $25m and they think that a ship
can be built for this amount that would meet the regional requirements. If the budget can be limited to $25M, these
ships could potentially be funded by a new proposed method for mid-size
infrastructure. The source of the funds
would be from the ocean science program division funds. Margaret Leinen had tried to formalize this
method for mid-size infrastructure support, but it didn’t get formalized for
2002. They still intend to set aside 5%
of their program budget each year, which would translate to roughly $12-13M per
year. After two years there would be
enough funds available to support construction of a Regional ship. They would like to start this process with
2003 funds.
NSF would like to use the CAPE HENLOPEN replacement
as a cost model for future regional class vessels:
CAPE
HENLOPEN Replacement Regional
Class
-
Endurance: 19 days FOFC: 30
days
-
Range: 5800 km FOFC: 15,000 km
-
Length: 42 m FOFC: 40-55 m
-
Science Berths: 12+ FOFC:
15-20
-
Cost: ~$10M FOFC
Plan: $25M)
NAVSEA is anxious to stay involved with construction
plans for the Ocean Class vessels.
Ocean Class construction does not fit into NSF’s new proposed
funding mechanism (exceeds $25M). NSF
is interested, however, in supporting construction of the Alaska Region
Research Vessel (ARRV). Dr. Colwell has
indicated that this effort will begin “beyond 2004” and would need to be
included in the MRE process. There was
discussion and concern regarding the acquisition plan for the Ocean Class. It was recommended that the agencies proceed
with the concept design effort for the Ocean Class.
Office of Naval Research (ONR) - Tim Pfeiffer reported on the HASC Authorization Language for the National Defense Authorization Act for FY03:
“Navy support of research in oceanography The committee believes that scientific knowledge of the oceans and ocean environments makes a critical contribution to U.S. national security and commercial vitality. The committee notes, that in large part, U.S. scientific expertise in oceanography and ocean sciences is sustained by the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation partnership that provides oversight of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) fleet. The committee recognizes the age of the UNOLS fleet and the need for a rational plan for renewal of the fleet over the next ten years. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services no later than February 1, 2003, a report detailing specific requirements and outlining a specific plan for UNOLS fleet renewal. The report should include specific recommendations on the numbers of each class of ship to be maintained in the UNOLS fleet, their geographic distribution, the schedule for their replacement, and estimates of ship construction costs.”
The Secretary of the Navy is required to provide a
report to Congress in February 2003.
ONR will draft the report, and then send it through the Navy review
chain. The draft will need to be
prepared well in advance, to allow time for its review. The report will address the entire fleet. The Navy plans to share the report with NSF
before submitting it. The report will
reflect the recommendations of the Academic Fleet Report and the FOFC
long-range fleet plan. The entire
report will be about three to five pages in length. ONR is still interested in supporting the Ocean Class
construction effort.
FIC Fleet Renewal Activities
- Larry
showed a series of FIC slides, Appendix III, and reviewed the current FIC
goals:
·
The SMR Workshops for the Ocean and Regional Class
vessels have been held and draft SMRs are available.
–KILO
MOANA
–ARRV
–CAPE
HENLOPEN
–EWING Midlife Refit Workshop
Science Mission Requirements:
Ocean Class Workshop – Dave Hebert, Chair of the Ocean Class SMR Subcommittee, reported on the
Ocean Class SMR Workshop and reviewed key elements of the draft SMRs. The viewgraphs for Dave’s report on the Ocean
Class SMRs are contained in Appendix III.
The workshop was held on 23-24 July in Salt Lake City, UT. Dave reviewed the meeting agenda and participant
list. The group was represented by
science users, ship operators, agencies and a Naval Architect.
Dave reviewed the science
mission requirement parameters that were considered. These included accommodations, operational characteristics,
over-the-side and weight handling, science working spaces, science and
shipboard systems, and construction, operation and maintenance. They worked to establish mission scenarios
for the future Ocean Class vessels.
Additional mission scenarios would be useful. It was recognized that they would need to review the capabilities
carefully as there is a tendency for ship size creep. Some of the capabilities will drive the ship to the larger size
(ROVs, multibeam, range, etc.). It was
recommended that the ship be designed with the ability to expand, as these
ships must be able to meet future needs.
The timeline for
finalizing the SMRs was reviewed. The
plan is to create a final draft for community review by October. The draft will be posted on the UNOLS
website and open for community comment.
Input will be considered and a revised draft will be made available for
review at the December AGU meeting. The
final report to the community and agencies is planned for early 2003.
There was some discussion
on the ranking of the SMRs. It was
recognized that it would likely be impractical to try to place a ranking on the
SMRs. Different disciplines will each
have their own priorities.
Regional Class
Workshop
– Niall Slowey reported on the Regional Class Workshop and reviewed key elements
of the draft SMRs. His viewgraphs
are included in Appendix IV. The workshop was held on 15-16 August in Salt
Lake City. According to the FOFC plan,
the first Regional Class vessel is planned for the Gulf of Mexico in 2005.
The second and third Regional vessels are planned for the Atlantic
and Pacific in 2010. These vessels must meet present science needs
and future needs for 20-30 years. 27
participants representing science users, agency reps and ship operators attended
the workshop. There was broad representation
both geographically and by discipline. Niall reviewed the meeting agenda. Most of the workshop was spent developing and
refining the SMR parameters. Utilization
trends and characteristics of existing vessels were reviewed. The group divided to assess the various regional
differences and corresponding requirements. Niall provided an overview of the some of the Regional Class general
requirements for accommodations, operational characteristics, over-the-side
and weight handling, science working spaces, science and shipboard systems,
and maintainability.
Niall showed a map of the country demonstrating that
the coastline lengths are similar for three regions, Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf
of Mexico. However, there are regional
differences in the three areas, including environmental conditions. Naill pointed out that compared to the other
regions, the Gulf of Mexico region does not have the abundance of vessels with
smaller and larger ship capabilities.
For the Gulf region there is a different priority placed on size-related
operating cost (i.e. 500 gross tons) versus scientific capabilities. It was commented that by adding a Regional
ship to the Gulf it would compete with the existing regional vessels in the
area.
There is also concern that the designs of the Ocean
Class vessels appear to be calling for larger vessels, where as the Regional
Class vessel designs are for smaller ships.
This could potentially result in a size gap between the two
classes. Discussion on the “gap” issue
followed.
Model testing of the design is planned and has been
funded by ONR. The results will be
shared with UNOLS and the Fleet Renewal Process. The tank tests are scheduled for 4-5 November at the Vienna Model
basin. The focus will be on the normal
issues: hull resistance, lateral stability, zigzag maneuvers, etc. Noise issues (propeller cavitation, angel of
Z-drive cavitation inception, and cavitation of hull appendages). They have an underwater-radiated noise goal
of “below ICES curve at 8 knots.”
A design review meeting was held on September 18th
and numerous arrangement improvements were made. The focus of the meeting was primarily on details/arrangement of
the labs and aft deck, and van connection with a full-scale mock-up. The design details and progress are posted
on the University of Delaware website at:
<www.ocean.udel.edu>,
“Ships and Facilities.” Matt showed
pictures of the mock-up facility.
Matt explained that they made the decision to design
the ship so that it is <500GT international and 300 gross tons domestic
(GRT) for regulatory and manning reasons.
It results in greater flexibility and lower operating costs. There are no inspections or costs associated
with the inspections. The vessel will
be ABS classed and will be built to “sub-chapter U” (inspected) standards in
virtually all respects. The range for
the vessel is designed to 3000 nm. Matt
pointed out that the range requirement of 8100nm being designated for the
Regional Class vessels would drive the size of the ship. They plan to have the ship comply with
GMDSS.
A question was asked if there would be a SOLAS
requirement? Matt replied that SOLAS is
needed if operations are planned in international waters. This will impact the ship’s weight. SOLAS needs to be investigated further.
The cost of the ship is being estimated at
$10-12M. This includes everything;
design costs ($1M), outfitting, etc.
This design represents the largest ship that can be built and stay below
500 GT. The design is very
scalable. It provides the specifications
for a very capable, quiet ship that will be simple to operate. The ship in many respects will be more
capable than the CAPE HATTERAS. It will
have dynamic positioning, be more maneuverable, carry two 20’-vans, and have a
more flexible design. It was suggested
that this design be compared to the Regional Class SMRs to determine how many
of the requirements could be met.
SMR Discussion (continued) – The discussion on SMRs continued.
The issues that require additional attention were addressed (Appendix III):
-
Identify
areas where consensus could not be reached
-
Regulatory
Concerns (<500 GT)
-
The
“Gap”
-
Geographic
Differences
The SMR areas that are lacking consensus include:
-
Size
-
Number
of non-crew berths
-
Endurance
and range
-
Equipment
handling
-
Lab
types and sizes
-
Storage
and science load.
Many of these areas will
have a direct impact on the ship’s size.
The discussion returned to
the issue of the Regional Class vessel size.
Can a ship that is designed to be less than 500GT meet the Regional
SMRs? Can a $25M ship meet the needs of
the SMRs? How much is save by
constructing a class design? What is lost in capability? Are there significant trade-offs? These are questions that should be explored
further.
The FIC agreed on the
following steps:
It was also recommended that
FIC encourage the agencies to move forward with the Regional and Ocean Class
conceptual design process.
Navy’s Scalable, Common Hull Study – Dan
Roland (JJMA, Inc) provided a progress report on the status and preliminary
findings of the Navy’s Common Hull Study.
His slides are included as Appendix VI. The purpose of the study was to minimize acquisition
costs and maximize technology leverage for new Navy oceanographic ships by
examining the feasibility of a common (or similar) hull platform for future
AGOR and T-AGS ships.
Four new classes of Navy oceanographic ships were
considered in the study:
1) OCEAN Class AGOR
2) T-AGS 66 (Stretched T-AGS 63 with AUV moon
pool)
3) T-AGS (X) - Battle space characterization
ship
4) REGIONAL Class AGOR
The study
tasks included:
1)
Compile desired capabilities for each class.
2)
Perform ROM studies for each class for various hull
forms.
3)
Identify areas of commonality and attempt to find
common or similar hull forms.
4)
Develop construction and operating cost estimates.
The current status of the project is:
1) The
IPTs have completed draft desired capabilities for each ship class
2) ROM
designs have been completed for each class, including monohull, SWATH, SLICE,
trimaran, catamaran, and HSV variants.
3)
Work in progress: Construction
cost estimate, refinement of ROM designs, development of recommendations,
and final report.
Dan reviewed the desired capabilities that are required for each of the
four classes and the ROM for each class.
He showed the monohull variants and arrangements for the Ocean Class,
T-AGS 66 and T-AGS (X). This is based
on the AGOR 23/24 Class design. The
SWATH variants and layouts were also presented. The Ocean Class SWATH layout is slightly smaller than the KILO
MOANA design.
A series of charts were displayed:
-
Speed vs. power for
Ocean Class hulls
-
Speed vs. power for
Ocean Class hulls (SWATH and Monohull)
-
Fuel requirement for
Ocean Class
Dan showed a chart of the predicted sea keeping performance for recent oceanographic ships
-
. All of the monohulls are limited to Sea
State 5 (SS5). The SWATHS can get into
SS6 for almost all headings. For ocean
class monohulls, the best heading will be SS5 and all headings will be
SS4. This is for a roll equal to 5
degrees and pitch equal to 3 degrees.
Dan provided a table that shows the ability of six different hull
configurations to meet ship requirements for the Ocean Class, T-AGS 66, and
T-AGS (X). The table is color-coded:
GREEN
- Can meet full requirement with little difficulty
YELLOW
- Meeting full requirement may be challenging
RED
- Meeting full requirement will be very difficult
The Ocean Class monohull is not expected to be able to meet the
requirement for SS6. The Ocean Class
SWATH can meet SS6, but there will be some challenging design problems. These issues include its endurance
capability, payload, and multibeam performance. The SWATH cannot meet the draft requirement.
It was recommended that as we proceed to the concept design phase both
the SWATH and monohull designs be considered so that tradeoffs can be
evaluated.
Some of the acoustic performance considerations that were addressed by
the study include:
-
Bubble Sweepdown:
·
SWATH
AGOR 26 has no apparent bubble problems because of hull shape and deep
draft.
·
Recent
Monohulls (T-AGS 60/63, AGOR 24) have bubble interference with sonar
performance.
·
New
Design AGOR and T-AGS monohull will require careful hull design and/or sonar
wing or bubble diverting fence to maximize sonar performance.
-
Machinery Sonar Self Noise
·
Desire
for improvement in OCEAN Class over AGOR 23/24 Class.
·
May
require more extensive/better resilient mounting, greater sonar-machinery
separation, quieter machinery, damping tile.
-
Propeller Self Noise
·
Need
well-designed, quiet propellers to maximize sonar performance.
·
SWATH
especially sensitive to propeller noise because of cross hull path.
Dan
wrapped up with some observations and conclusions from the study:
-
Minor commonality of desired capabilities exists
among the AGORs and T-AGS
-
Significant differences in capabilities exist.
·
Speed
- Max, Sustained, and Survey
·
Number
of Accommodations
·
Working
Deck/Lab Areas (T-AGS is 2:1 over OCEAN)
·
Habitability
Requirements (T-AGS Requires MSC)
·
Moon
Pool
·
Helicopter
Landing Capability
·
Mission
Electronics and Communications Systems
- The T-AGS (X) platform is 50% longer and 2.5x displacement of the
OCEAN platform.
A common hull platform for OCEAN Class and T-AGS 66, T-AGS (X) is not feasible
. The primary design drivers include:
The monohull and SWATH
appear to be most promising choices for the Ocean Class vessels; however, there
are pros and cons for each.
Design
and Construction Efforts in Progress:
KILO MOANA: Chris Measures gave an overview of KILO
MOANA. He showed a video of the ship as it arrived in Hawaii. The video showed the deployment of a sparbouy, demonstrating the freeboard
issue. There is a problem with the CTD
arrangement related to the height of the Appleton crane and the feed. There are plans to correct the problem with
the possible installation of a squirt boom.
Chris showed video footage from inside the vessel. There were views of the open galley, mess
area, exercise room and labs. Problems
with the underway seawater have been reported; it is in the 12Khz path. Chris showed the multibeam system lab and
computer lab. These are working
well. They plan to run multibeam
continuously while underway. Heat in
the engine room is still a major issue.
The ship was delivered on
June 24th. The University of
Hawaii personnel worked hard to get the ship ready for science operations in
just 90 days.
Post Cruise Debrief questions
– Prior to the meeting, Terry Whitledge and Dave Hebert complied a list of
questions to get specific feedback from PIs who will use KILO MOANA. They are included in Appendix III. It was recommended that the following questions
be added to the list:
-
Was
the computer network system adequate?
·
Ease
of hook-up
·
Initial
start-up
·
Adequate
access points across various labs, meeting rooms, staterooms and other areas.
-
What
is the habitability of the lounge, staterooms, mess deck, and fitness room?
-
Are
there any noise and vibration feedback concerns?
The debrief questionnaire will be revised to include these new questions. FIC will provide the questions to the PI prior to the actual debrief. The FIC members will contact the PI by phone approximately a month following the cruise to conduct the debrief. The issue of motion evaluation for KILO MOANA was discussed. Data is being collected on KILO MOANA. This is providing a resource, but not an evaluation. FIC recommended that the agencies support a proposal by WHOI, SIO, and U. Hawaii to evaluate the ship motion for monohull and SWATHs. The evaluation should consider Sea State conditions vs. ship motion and it’s impact on science operations. Wave slaps on the hull should also be analyzed. The type of sea conditions should also be recorded.
Alaska
Regional Research Vessel (ARRV) - Terry Whitledge reviewed
the status of the ARRV preliminary design process. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix VII.
A design review meeting was recently held.
The latest design modifications include:
-
Removed the helicopter facility – It appeared
they would not be used enough. It would
be nice, but they could probably use charters, even for refueling.
-
Rearranged the boats
-
Relocated the mess / galley
-
Reduced the stateroom size – This allowed for
more single staterooms and additional bunks 24 to 27.
-
Segregated crew / scientists staterooms.
Terry
showed slides of the outboard profile, 02 deck, and 01 deck. He showed a stateroom comparison. The latest modifications include identifying
the moon pool locations and arranging the long coring capability. The long core arrangement will be capable of
an 80-ft core.
They
are working on the design noise investigation.
The ABB data received has been received as well
as the Schottel Z-drive noise estimate.
Neither option meets ICES (preliminary) criteria. Further investigation is required for a
comparative evaluation. They
plan to get noise data from REVELLE for evaluation. If noise issues are going to be a problem with the ARRV’s Azipod,
other options will be considered.
Terry reviewed the basic ARRV characteristics including
dimensions and capacities.
Dimensions:
Length, Waterline 200’-0”
Beam, Maximum 52’-0”
Depth, Hull 28’-0”
Draft, Design Waterline 18’-0”
Freeboard,
Main Deck 10’-0”
Capacities - Science
Science Berths 27
Science Labs 2,000 ft.2
Deck Working Area 2,700 ft.2
Science Storage Volume 8,000 ft.3
Science Storage Load 100 LT
Terry
showed the preliminary hull geometry and performance characteristics:
Speed, Max 14
kts
Speed, Cruising 12 kts
Level Ice 2.5 ft
Endurance 45 days (this is
a design driver)
Installed Power 5,750
hp
The model test results have been good and in some cases better than expected. The draft resistance and propulsion report has been received. They expect the sea keeping report at the end of September. The final ice test report has been received. The noise evaluation and open water sea keeping report are the only two outstanding items.