Tuesday and Wednesday, January 28-29, 2003
National Science Foundation - Room 380
Arlington, VA
These minutes can be downloaded as a pdf document
by clicking: <200301ficmi.pdf>
Meeting Minutes
I. Agenda
II. Attendance Sheet
III. FIC Presentations by UNOLS Office/FIC Chair
VI. JJMA Phase II Task Statement
VII. CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement Effort – Status
VIII. Alaska Region Research Vessel Update
IX. CAPE HATTERAS Mid-Life Update
Monday, January 27, 2003
CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement Vessel Mock-up – A field trip to the mock-up facility in
Delaware was arranged for Monday, 27 January.
Matt Hawkins provided the tour.
Mike Prince, Annette DeSilva, Steve Rabalais, and Woody Sutherland
attended. Photos from the tour are
available at the UNOLS Office.
Tuesday,
January 28, 2003 - 8:30 am
Welcome and Introduction – Larry Atkinson, FIC Chair, opened the meeting at 0830. The agenda for the meeting is included as Appendix I. Meeting participants introduced themselves. The attendance list is included as Appendix II. Larry reviewed FIC activities since their September meeting. Activities have focused on fleet renewal and primarily the development of the SMR documents. Additionally phone debriefs by FIC members with Chief Scientists who have used KILO MOANA have been conducted. Both of these items will be discussed in detail during the meeting. Two new members have joined the FIC since September, Clare Reimers (OSU) and Ron Benner (U. So. Carolina). Larry/UNOLS viewgraphs are included as Appendix III.
Agency Reports and Fleet
Capitalization:
National Science Foundation (NSF) - Mike Reeve reported that NSF still has no budget for 2003 and that there is no new status on the budget since the September FIC meeting. NSF is operating at 85% of their FY2002 budget. It is forecast that in 2003 and 2004 the budget will be level funded. The FY04 budget has not yet been submitted. The agency still has intentions to pursue the Regional Class construction effort. However, there is no definitive news on capitalization plans for fleet renewal. The NSF director and the National Science Board (NSB) have not yet approved the process for funding mid-size infrastructure from program budgets. The process is being reviewed and NSF is discussing the funding level distinction between Major Research Equipment (MRE) and mid-size infrastructure. The ARRV MRE item has not yet been submitted to the NSB. The MRE item for the ARRV will be part of the next review planned for summer 2003, which will determine whether or not it is to be forwarded to the NSB.
Office of Naval Research (ONR) – John Freitag (ONR) reported that the Navy has an FY03 budget.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services directed the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report detailing specific requirements and outlining a specific plan for UNOLS fleet renewal. The draft report has been drafted and originated in ONR. It has passed through review and approval by the CNR. It cannot be made public until approved by the Secretary of the Navy. The report is currently being passed through the Navy chain of command. John assured the Committee that the draft report is largely based on the FOFC fleet renewal plan. Cost figures and hull form possibilities were taken from the Navy’s Common Hull Study and the overall parameters of planned vessels were taken mostly from the UNOLS SMRs. Based on realities, the CNR has chose to show the earliest funding for an Ocean Class vessel in FY 06 (accelerated plan). The funding will likely be Ship Construction Navy (SCN) money and the recommendation, stated in a generic way, is for streamlined contracting and construction. The Navy report estimates the cost for the Ocean Class at $60-80M and $28-37M for the Regional Class, The lower figure represents the monohull cost and the higher figure the SWATH.
Capt. Houtman added that Admiral Cohen submitted an FY04 request for funding of the Ocean Class. It did not make it into the budget because of other internal Navy competing requests. It is highly likely that the Ocean Class request will be resubmitted for program consideration for the FY05 budget. At this time there is no identifiable funds for ship construction in Navy budgets. Because the near term prospects for moving forward with the Regional Class through NSF seem more likely, the Navy’s Common Hull Study will be expanded to examine Regional Class hull forms, regulatory implications, and acquisition strategies.
Capt Houtman emphasized the importance of the fact that the report from the Secretary of the Navy will be in concert with the Fleet Renewal Plan. It will be important to keep in mind that their report and the Fleet Plan constitute a template for Congress to support if they wish to fund academic fleet renewal.
Capt. Houtman was asked what FIC’s role should be. He indicated that finishing the SMR process was the foundation for the rest of the process. He would also like FIC and UNOLS to participate in and work with JJMA in completing the Phase II tasks of the common hull study. ONR would like this phase to be more interactive with FIC and result in prioritization of the SMRs.
It was recommended that FIC working with the University of Hawaii provide documented feedback to the Navy on the KILO MOANA streamline acquisition process. The Navy would be interested in specific recommendations for improvements and changes.
United States Coast Guard (USCG) – Jon Berkson (USCG) provided the agency report.
This year there is approximately 40 miles of sea ice in Antarctica to open instead of the usual 15 miles. The Coast Guard needed to send HEALY to the Antarctic to help in the icebreaking operations. The ship is expected to return to Seattle in time for this summer’s Arctic science missions.
The Service Life Extension Board report for the POLAR Class Icebreakers has just been received. The report will be reviewed and will form the basis for deciding on the future of these vessels. The most expensive upgrade option is approximately $230 million for both vessels and would include re-powering and replacing shafts and propellers.
On March 1st the Coast Guard will transfer to the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard will move intact and non-homeland security missions will be retained.
Navy’s
Scalable, Common Hull Study – Dan Roland (JJMA, Inc)
reported on the findings of the Navy’s Common Hull Study. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix IV.
The purpose of the study is to determine if there would be cost savings by developing a common hull for the Navy’s T-AGS vessel and the Academic AGORS. Six different hull forms were developed and sized to meet T-AGS and AGOR mission requirements.
The study revealed that there is minor commonality between T-AGS and AGORS primarily in mission handling systems and hull mounted sensors. There are significant differences in capabilities in the areas of:
•
Speed - maximum, sustained,
and survey
•
Number of accommodations
•
Working deck/lab areas (T-AGS
is 2:1 over Ocean Class)
•
Habitability requirements
(T-AGS are required to meet MSC standards)
•
Moon pool (T-AGS)
•
Helicopter landing capability
– T-AGS(X)
•
Mission electronics and communications
systems
•
Resulting platforms are
significantly different in size (T-AGS 50% longer and 150% larger
displacement).
•
A common platform would
result in ships not optimized for particular operations.
•
A common hull would burden
the Ocean Class AGOR with a much larger and more expensive than necessary ship.
•
If based on scalable hull,
resulting platforms would be poorly optimized for their particular operating
profiles and day rates would suffer.
•
A common hull is not feasible.
§ $63M to $67M for mono-hull
§ $70M to $80M for SWATH
§ 28M to 30M for mono-hull
§ 33 to 37M for SWATH
Dan showed the T-AGS 51 seakeeping performance charts. At Sea State 5 the ship would start to
greatly exceed motion limits.
Dan continued by reporting on the work that has been done in relation to the Regional Class monohull and SWATH designs. The Regional Class monohull design used in the JJMA study is based on the NEW HORIZON design. A NOAA coastal SWATH design was used as the template. These designs were used to examining how well Regional Class SMRs could be met and what the costs would be. Dan provided drawings of sample design layouts. These are included in Appendix IV.
In Phase II, JJMA would develop the information necessary for NSF to draft a call for Concept Design proposals and strategies on how to proceed. There will need to be some level of prioritization of the SMRs as part of the Phase II study. The study is the key to moving forward with both the NSF and ONR acquisition process. JJMA will try to estimate cost savings resulting from multiple ship contracts for a class with realistic time spacing. They will further evaluate hull form choices and common hull issues. The Phase II study has a four-month timeline once started.
Bay Marine Inc. Study - Bay Marine Inc. was contacted by UNOLS to do a study of the relative cost comparison between a Regional research vessel similar to the CHRV, but one that is larger than the CHRV and thus exceeds the key regulatory thresholds of 500GT(ITC) and 300GT(US). This vessel would meet the regional requirements of the FOFC report and the Regional Class SMRs. The study was funded by ONR. Bay Marine, Inc. is the Naval architect contracted by the University of Delaware for the design of the CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement Vessel (CHRV). Because the CHRV has been designed to fall just under the 500 gross ton international tonnage limit and just under the 300 GRT domestic regulatory tonnage this vessels represents a very good benchmark for a new vessel that will not be subject to many International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations and will not be U.S. Coast Guard inspected.
The international tonnage regulations do not include any significant exemptions that would allow a vessel with any greater internal volume to be designed that would fall under the 500-ton limit. This means that any vessel larger than the CHRV would be over this limit and would be subject to IMO regulations such as STCW, ISM, etc. A larger vessel could be designed that could be kept under 300 GT domestic and remain un-inspected but this would be more difficult as the vessel became larger.
During the course of developing SMRs for the Regional Class vessel it became apparent that it would be useful to have a better understanding of the initial cost and life cycle costs resulting from crossing these regulatory boundaries. Mike Prince and Matt Hawkins presented the findings of the Bay Marine Study. The full study is contained in Appendix V.
The study was limited to comparing the CHRV with a vessel that met the SMR and was approximately 160 ft LOA. The report made the assumption that since the CHRV was choosing to meet most of the requirements of an inspected vessel with the exception of manning and that IMO and ABS requirements would supercede the Subchapter U requirements that a vessel that was designed to be over 500 GT international would also be over 300 GRT domestic and would be inspected. The study did not consider an un-inspected vessel over 500 GT.
Some of the principal characteristics of Bay Marine’s
Regional vessel design include:
· Length Overall = 160 ft
· Beam (Max) = 37 ft
· Depth = 16 ft
· Draft (Full) = 11’-0”
· Displacement (Full) = 720 LT
· Power 2 x 750 KW Schottel SRP 550M Z drives
· Max Full load service speed = 13.25 knots
· Crew = 14
· Science Party = 18
· Science Party (expanded) = 26 (convertible lounge, berthing van)
· Working Deck area (aft of portable vans) = 1036 sf
· Labs (Total) = 1040 sf
The study concluded that the life cycle cost increase would be more significant than the initial construction costs, primarily due to the required increase in manning. The CHRV comes in at an estimated initial construction/program cost of $11.5 million. The 160-ft Federal Regional Vessel comes in at an estimated cost of $16.3 million (this translates to $25M when program costs are added). Both of these figures are estimates only and much of the estimate comes from empirical data in Bay Maine files. The day rate for the CHRV is estimated at $7461, whereas the Regional Ship is $12,402.
Initial construction/program cost for the Regional ship would be increased mostly due to the increased size and associated increase in power requirements. Initial cost would also be increased by approximately $200k because of the requirement to have double bottom tanks instead of wing tanks. This increase may not be a real difference since double bottom tanks may be desired anyway in order to achieve the endurance and range requirements. Many existing un-inspected research vessels, such as the Cape Class, have double bottom tanks. Other increases in initial cost that are directly related to crossing the regulatory boundaries have to do with inspection and documentation requirements.
The total estimated increase in initial construction/program costs is approximately $5 million and of that it appears that 10 to 15% are due to crossing regulatory boundaries and the remainder is due to the added size of the vessel.
There was some discussion and debate about the assumptions and estimates of the costs related to manning, maintenance and construction. Overall the estimated costs appear in line with other estimates and current operating cost models. In any event, the framework provided by this report could be further refined to evaluate the cost impacts of design decisions.
One interesting observation was that if you designed a vessel that was only slightly larger than the CHRV, which resulted in an increased manning requirement due to subchapter U (inspected vessel) status, you would reduce the science capability while increasing the costs. This happens because of the requirements for additional crew, the requirements for single person staterooms and the requirement for a hospital, which all reduce the amount of space left over for science staterooms, lab space and working deck. To make up for that loss, it appears that if you cross the line, you need to make a significant increase in size in order to meet the SMR. On the other hand, many of the “requirements” associated with becoming an inspected vessel are consistent with some of the goals stated in the SMR, such as providing single person staterooms for crew and technicians, increasing habitability, etc. Further evaluation of these impacts should take place during Phase II of the Navy’s Scalable Hull Study.
RFP for Regional Class Conceptual Design – Jim Yoder reported that NSF had hoped to announce the Request for Proposals (RFP) early in 2003; however, they decided that they needed additional information and a well-defined process before proceeding. They plan to have the RFP this fiscal year and they are still envisioning multiple concept design efforts.
To obtain the additional information needed for the RFP, NSF is supporting the JJMA Phase II effort. The Phase II results will assist in deciding on an acquisition strategy and developing the criteria and boundaries that would be used in drafting the call for concept design proposals. Phase II has a short timeline of four months.
There was discussion on some of issues that we would like to see addressed in the Phase II effort:
- Estimate the amount of times annually that Regional ships of various sizes and configurations would be able to operate in their respective geographic areas.
- Estimating the cost savings by building as a class – with construction every two years.
- The impact of a class design on regional operation differences
- Is $25M the per ship cost or $100m for class
- The pros and cons of various acquisition strategy
The near-term focus for FIC and UNOLS should be on finalizing the SMRs. We need to provide input to JJMA’s study regarding prioritization of the SMRs and developing the recommendations for an acquisition strategy.
Mike suggested that a preface be added that explains what the SMRs are and how they should be used. Larry offered to draft the preface.
The question was asked if there were any outstanding issues raised by the community. Mike replied that there was some concern that the towing requirements are identical for the two different class SMRs. There were also concerns raised regarding specific regional needs that cannot be met by a class design.
Mike reviewed the organization of the SMR documents:
- Mission statement and overall characteristics
- SMR – overview
- SMR – detail
- Appendix I – mission scenarios
- Appendix II – SMR summary table
- Appendix III – SMR process and participants
It was suggested that reference documents be included:
- Wind/sea state tables
- Motion standards
The SMRs should be designed as a living document. It will be titled as “Version 1.” Past SMRs have been used as templates. The preface should indicate that the SMRs should be used as guidelines throughout the entire design process.
The FIC discussed some specific issues regarding the SMRs:
- Chris Measures commented that a brief statement on trace metal clean sampling should be added on page 9.
- Cover colors were decided: blue for the Ocean Class and green for the Regional Class.
- The Regional Class SMR document needs additional mission scenarios.
- There was discussion on whether or not the Regional vessels should be a class design. This issue will be further addressed by the Phase II study.
- Clare Reimers remarked that the 1000 sq ft for lab space on the Regional ship seems to be small. Space is always an issue. If you are leaning toward the upper end of the ship size, the lab space should be increased accordingly. There was considerable discussion on the lab space needs.
- There was discussion on SMR prioritization. A cost benefit analysis should be factored in. The issue of prioritizing too early was noted. The purpose of multiple conceptual designs is to find creative ways to meet the desired parameters.
· Larry will draft a preface to the SMR documents.
· Office, with help from reviewers, will finish correcting typos, errors and grammar.
· Fix table of participants for Ocean Class to include Dave Hebert.
· Add Mission scenarios to Regional Class to achieve more balance. Also include a statement in both SMR about these being examples and that they should be developed more thoroughly in concept designs.
· Add appendices for sea/wind state and for motion standards.
· Add e.g. concerning specialized winches (e.g., clean sampling, pumping, multi-conductor)
· Expand the table of contents to include all SMR elements and make the table of contents dynamic in pdf, Word and online versions.
· FIC Review and edits of existing documents should be sent to the office by Feb. 10.
· Circulate revision to FIC and steering committees by Feb. 17th for approval.
· Objections should be filed by Feb. 24th.