50 likes | 165 Views
Personal views....” back, then forward” ... re oceanographic ship construction. Steve Ramberg ser24@psu.edu Steve.Ramberg@ndu.edu 202-685-3578 [Usual Disclaimers = I speak for noone else]. UNOLS Ships & Major Platforms.
E N D
Personal views....”back, then forward”...re oceanographic ship construction Steve Ramberg ser24@psu.edu Steve.Ramberg@ndu.edu 202-685-3578 [Usual Disclaimers = I speak for noone else]
UNOLS Ships & Major Platforms • With the modern era (post WWII ) of oceanography this became a national responsibility (it still is) • Navy assumed this infrastructure responsibility, arguably for both national and own reasons • Legacy of research-oriented Navy • Initially, surplus WWII ships • Strategic dominance of ASW in Cold War • Provided most (large) new construction for 4+ decades Seastory: TENOC report circa 1960
On Navy investments • Funding source was largely SCN “ship-building” accounts (think large sums of large numbers) • DoD builds a 5 yr budget for Congress (“FYDP”) • “Smooth” budget category profiles (eg SCN) a good idea • Exceptions: FLIP & KNORR/MELVILLE drew on 6.5 (NAVSEA) accounts vs S&T (which is 6.1-6.3 accounts) • Navy was seeking a 600 ship Fleet (now aiming at 300) • All hulls counted regardless of size/cost • Oceanographic ships filled SCN planning “dips” nicely • Supported naval oceanography as well as academia Seastory: AGOR-26
Some consequences of this framework • Vulnerable to single “source” (≈ “construct”) for funding • Navy listened, but ultimate authority: • Insisted on multi-purpose, “global” ships (the ASW mission, of course) • Sought input from science community on capabilities (but final judge) • Chose the operators (competitively with help of external reviewers) • Could not provide full (S&T) op funding for ships it built • Credit for overall fleet planning (ie “ship exchange”) became de rigueur • ONR/NSF worked the problems imperfectly but well • NSF ~ 25% ship ops for Geosciences, ONR32 ~ 10% for “OAS” • NSF took shiptime 100% separate, ONR did PM cost-share (varied) • PIs (community?) had little sense for the “how” of ship investments or use, much less “optimization” • On balance, it worked well for several decades, UNOLS a key enabler Seastory: Dolly as a “market force”
A glance at the road ahead Remains a national responsibility • Very unlikely any single agency can fill investment role Strategic priorities for ocean-related studies rising? • Argues for multi-year(/agency?) budget planning for infrastructure New National Ocean Policy and governance, NOC • All relevant ocean agencies (and then some?) • Statutory NOPP requirements subsumed • NOC Deputy level = NOPP NORLC (SecNav role?) • ORRAP remains tied to NORLC (1 of 2 nonFed NOC elements) • Whither NOPP IWG-FI? (nee “FOFCC”) NRC/OSB study on ocean science infrastructure for 2030 underway [large(st?) agency sponsor list]