Personal views....”back, then forward”...re

oceanographic ship construction

Steve Ramberg

ser24@psu.eduSteve.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 aheadRemains 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]