Call the Meeting: Tim Cowles, UNOLS 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. Tim thanked Bob Knox for his guidance as UNOLS Past-Chair. Bob Knox welcomed the meeting participants to Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).

Accept the minutes of September 2002 Council Meeting – A motion was made and approved to accept the minutes as written.

UNOLS FLEET RENEWAL ACTIVITIES:

Navy Report to Congress on Renewal of The UNOLS Fleet – John Freitag reported on the Navy’s report to Congress. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix III. The Navy’s report to Congress on Fleet Renewal was signed by Acting Secretary of the Navy, Hansford T. Johnson and submitted to the House Armed Services Committee on 25 February 2003.

The report was based on the FOFC Report and the JJMA Common Hull Study.

The major differences are in the timing of construction and cost of construction. The

JJMA Common Hull Study provided cost estimates for both SWATH and Monohull implementations. The estimated cost of construction for the Ocean Class is $63 M - $80 M and the cost for the Regional Class is $28M - $37M. The low end of the range represents the cost for a monohull and the high end of the cost range represents cost for the SWATH. The timing changes invoked a more realistic timeline from a Congressional funding standpoint. The timeline chart in Appendix III indicates the year the money becomes available for construction.

Admiral Cohen is dedicated to the renewal of the UNOLS Fleet.

His POM-04 budget included $80M for Ocean Class vessels. This budget was not included in the Navy's budget request due to competing internal Navy priorities. It is very likely that the Ocean Class request will be resubmitted for the FY06 budget.

While at the present time there are no funds appropriated for UNOLS Fleet renewal by Congress,

NSF has expressed a commitment to funding the Regional Class and the

Navy has expressed continuing commitment to construction of the Ocean Class.

The Navy report recommends a streamline acquisition process, which could be similar to what was used for AGOR26.

There was discussion about the timeline in the Navy report and concern that there could be some gaps between the procurement of new vessels and the estimated ship retirement dates.

(Q) Should the ship retirement dates be re-evaluated and changed to reflect the apparent shift in new ship acquisition dates? (A) Not at this time.

(Q) Why was the Gulf vessel construction date in the Navy report different from the FOFC report date? (A) The revised date is based on the premise that NSF program funds would be available for fleet renewal by FY 2008.

(Q) Would the FOFC plan be revised to reflect the dates shown in the Navy report timeline? (A) This is up for agency discussion.

John continued by reporting that as part of the JJMA Common Hull study the TAG51 design was evaluated to determine if it could be effectively converted to an Ocean Class vessel. The study concluded that the required conversion would be too expensive. The TAG 51 is a very good coastal, survey vessel, but it is not appropriate for general oceanography.

NSF process for Funding Vessel Construction Efforts - Mike Reeve reported that nothing has changed since the FIC meeting. The NSF FY04 budget request to Congress includes Major Research Equipment (MRE) requests totaling approximately $200 million. The items in the FY04 budget are from other divisions. The MRE items for Ocean Sciences that have been approved by the NSB and mentioned in the FY04 budget request include the International Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) at $76.8M in FY05 and the Seafloor Observatory Initiative in FY06 at $24.7M. The ARRV construction MRE item will be reviewed this summer by NSF to determine if it is to be forwarded to the NSB for inclusion in future budget requests.

The concept for including program funding for mid-size infrastructure in NSF Division budgets has been blessed by the NSF administration and was included in the FY04 request. The FY04 budget request includes $12.5M for development of new deep submergence capability. The FY04 budget request also mentions the plan for increased funding for FY05 & FY06 to support the fleet renewal process.

Summary of Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) meeting – Annette DeSilva reported for Larry Atkinson, FIC Chair, who could not attend the Council meeting. Larry provided a written committee report, which is contained as Appendix IV. Also contained in Appendix IV are viewgraphs presented by Annette.

The committee met on January 28-29, 2003. Since the major focus of FIC is fleet renewal, many of the items addressed by the FIC in their January meeting will also be covered in this Council meeting. These items include:

· Agency Reports and Fleet Capitalization

· Navy’s Scalable, Common Hull Study

· Bay Marine Inc. Study

· Ship design and improvement projects in progress

· Finalize the SMRs

· Working Group on Ocean Observatory Facilities

· FOFC Long Range Fleet Plan

· KILO MOANA Operations

The FIC added two new members in the fall, Clare Reimers (OSU) and Ron Benner (USC). Bill Smethie rotated off the committee after serving two terms. The FIC Chair position will open in October of this year. The position will be broadly advertised.

Annette showed the FIC Roadmap. As the Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) approach finalization, the FIC is shifting its attention to the next phase of Fleet renewal, which will include development of conceptual designs. The FIC plans to examine the process that was used for AGOR 26 acquisition and identify the pros and cons of this accelerated process. The FIC will work with the UNOLS Office and the steering committees to provide input to the JJMA Phase II effort. The Committee will stay engaged as the agencies develop plans for operator selection and ship construction management. The FIC has reviewed the membership of the SMR Steering Committees. Replacement suggestions have been made for Dennis Hansell for both the Ocean and Regional Class committees. Matt Hawkins has been added to the Regional Class committee. Marc Willis has been suggested as an addition to the Ocean Class Committee.

Final Recommendations from the Navy’s Common Hull Study - Dan Roland (JJMA, Inc) reported on the findings of the Navy’s Common Hull Study. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix V.

The purpose of the study was 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 tasks include:

· Determine Rough order of Magnitudes (ROMs) for the Ocean and Regional vessel designs.

· Identify commonality between T-AGS and AGORs

· Develop Ocean Class and Regional Class construction cost estimates

· Examine feasibility of converting T-AGS 51 and 52 to an Ocean Class vessel.

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

The study results concluded:

• 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.

The study provided a cost estimate summary (lead ship in FY04 dollars):

· Ocean Class Program Cost (2400 tons, 220 ft)

§ $63M to $67M for mono-hull

§ $70M to $80M for SWATH

· Regional Class (1000 ton, 168 ft)

§ $28M to $30M for mono-hull

§ $33 to $37M for SWATH

This includes program and construction cost of approximately 10%.

The Scalable Hull Study was expanded to evaluate the conversion of T-AGS 51 as an OCEAN Class vessel. NAVOCEANO is retiring the T-AGS 51 and T-AGS 52 coastal survey ships. The T-AGS 51 design fell significantly short of meeting Ocean Class mission requirements.

· T-AGS 51 was designed as a coastal survey ship.

· It has no dynamic positioning capability.

· T-AGS 51 has a single screw, geared diesel, and no bow thruster.

· Accommodations for only 18 scientists (vs. 25 required by the Ocean Class).

· The day rate expected to be slightly higher (3-4%) than new OCEAN Class.

· The T-AGS 51 Chine hull form is designed for slower speed.

· Working deck area 300 sq-ft vs. 1,500 required by the Ocean Class SMRs.

· The working deck is not designed to ruggedness or load requirements of the Ocean Class working deck, no bolt grid.

· The T-AGS 51 has no space for vans.

· Lab area 700 sq-ft vs. 2,000 required by the Ocean Class.

· Handling Systems are inadequate.

· There is no suitable over-side or over-stern handling equipment presently installed on T-AGS 51.

· Need to install aft A-frame and side hydroboom (including underdeck strengthening).

· No suitable winches currently installed on T-AGS 51.

In summary, extensive modification of T-AGS 51 would be required to meet even the basic Ocean Class SMRs (DPS, science accommodations, and day rate). Major T-AGS 51 modifications would include:

· New stern aft of mid-ship with new propulsion plant.

· New 20-foot long hull section.

· Add bow thruster.

· Expansion of accommodations and storage areas.

· Converted ship does meet stability requirements.

Dan showed the T-AGS 51 seakeeping performance charts. At Sea State 5 the ship would start to greatly exceed motion limits.

It is not economically feasible to turn a T-AGS 51 into an OCEAN Class; any economically feasible conversion would result in sharply reduced capabilities vs. OCEAN Class SMRs. The expected life of a T-AGS 51 converted ship is approximately 20 years vs. 30 years for a new ship.

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 for the SWATH variant. These designs were used to examine how well Regional Class SMRs could be met and what the costs would be.

Next Dan briefly described the Phase II tasking for the Common Hull Study. Phase II will include an acquisition strategy analysis. They will develop a selection of acquisition strategies that could be used for procurement of the REGIONAL Class research vessels. They will also try to identify approaches that have the potential for reducing cost and/or accelerating the schedule.

Other elements of Phase II include:

· Refine the Regional Class concept designs to come within the 25M cost cap.

· Effects of tonnage on regulatory requirements and life cycle cost

· Technologies to optimize reliability, manning, and life cycle cost

· Ship specification and other documentation to support acquisition

· Develop the documentation for the Concept Design RFP.

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.

Curt Collins commented that he would like to see the concept of a <500 GT ship design be considered for the Regional Class vessel. It was remarked that it appears from design studies and the CHRV effort that the SMRs can be met with a ship of this size. There is concern regarding the increasing size of future vessel designs, “ship size creep.” Can the operating costs for these new ships be supported? Perhaps smaller Regional ships should be considered. It was suggested that the minimum SMRs that can meet future should be evaluated.

The Phase II task will begin in March and completion is planned for July (four months). Continual communications between JJMA and UNOLS are planned throughout the process.

Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) – The Ocean Class and Regional Class SMRs were available in hardcopy at the meeting. Tim Cowles opened the discussion by remarking that the draft SMR documents were on display at the UNOLS AGU booth in the fall and there was considerable traffic. Additionally, the draft SMRs were available on the UNOLS website for community comment and some good feedback was received.

Mike Prince continued by reporting on the changes to the document that were made since the January FIC meeting:

· Larry Atkinson drafted a preface to the SMR documents.

· Editorial changes and corrections were made.

· The table of participants for the Ocean Class was corrected to include Dave Hebert.

· Appendices were added to reference sea/wind states and for motion standards.

· The table of contents was expanded to include all SMR elements and make the table of contents dynamic in pdf, Word and online versions.

Tim Cowles stated that the SMRs are meant to be living documents and they can be revised. The documents are intended for use as the foundation for follow-on design efforts.

There was concern that the SMRs are seen as a “dream list” of requirements and it is not possible to fit these all in one design. It was recommended that text be added to explain the purpose and intended use of the SMRs. It should be explained that the SMRs define the range of desired requirements and that priorities would be needed. There was also discussion on the placement of the executive summary. All agreed that it should be moved to the front of the document. It should also be shortened to two pages. It was recommended that both the preface and executive summary include a statement regarding the need for prioritization and that the SMRs are not ship specifications.

Peter Wiebe – Raised a few specific issues regarding the SMR parameters. He will provide his comments directly to the UNOLS Office.

In summary, the following changes are recommended to finalize the Ocean and Regional Class SMRs:

· Executive summary – Move to front of document, shorten, add text to explain that these are not specifications, they define a range of requirements and prioritization would be needed. (Steering Committee Chairs and Mike Prince)

· Preface - Add text to explain that these are not specifications, they define a range of requirements and prioritization would be needed. Jointly sign by Larry and Tim. (Tim Cowles)

The Council approved the SMR documents as final conditional on the incorporation of the recommended changes. The documents will be titled, “Version 1.”

Tim Cowles closed by commending the UNOLS Office, FIC, and the Steering committees for their efforts in developing the SMRs.

Bay Marine Inc. Study – Mike Prince presented the findings of the Bay Marine Study. Their full report is included as Appendix VI. 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, and one that is larger than the CHRV and thus exceeds the key regulatory thresholds of 500GT(ITC) and 300GRT(US). This vessel would meet the regional requirements of the FOFC report and the Regional Class SMRs. Bay Marine, Inc. is the Naval architect contracted by the University of Delaware for the design of the CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement Vessel (CHRV).

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 design represents a 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 GRT 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.

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