Naval Engineering Education Center (NEEC)

Knowledge Management and Strategic Intelligence in Naval Engineering

kbretzius@umich.edu — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:10:00 GMT

The following commentary was submitted and written by University of New Orleans Professor Chris B. McKesson, P.E. Thank you for your contribution!

In my work with Dr. Cherie Trumbach I have learned about an important toolset in Knowledge Management, and the use of this toolset in strategic planning.

It began when I was pondering the question “Where is the greatest R&D need in Naval Engineering?” From Dr. Trumbach I learned that there are well-defined tools that can be used to answer exactly this question. I believe that this is a field of great opportunity for naval engineering.

This is admittedly a new area for naval engineers, but as a result it has the potential to give remarkably high pay-offs: A so called high-risk/high-payoff opportunity. Whereas in the past our ‘tools’ investment has been principally in traditional ship design disciplines, we are now in a situation where a much larger gain – say 5- or 10-x – would result from an investment in tools in that discipline known as “knowledge management.”

As ship designers we carry with us tool boxes containing a variety of skills. One of our most important tools is Mathematics, and we use this tool – in its various forms – frequently. We also use tools from Applied Physics, in areas such as structures or hydrodynamics. We have fairly mature tools in these areas. Sure, continued investment in these areas would be welcome, and will pay benefits for handling problems that are currently intractable in these disciplines. But I contend that an investment in Knowledge Management tools would fill a section of our toolbox that is currently empty, and in doing so would pay benefits several times greater than investments in the traditional disciplines.

Now, even as I warm to my subject I can hear the greybeards saying “oh Pshaw, that’s just another new buzzword.” But as I replay what these greybeards have asked for in recent papers and workshops, I find that in fact they too long for improved knowledge management, they just don’t use that label for it:

Let’s recall what some greybeards have said needs to change in naval ship design. They ask questions like “But is there One Man in charge of the project?” I argue that the reason they want to see ‘the buck stop here’ is because One Man can usually integrate his own knowledge…something that is much harder to do with a team.

And, in bygone days, this was all the Knowledge Management that a ship design team needed, because One Man could reasonably keep all the needed knowledge within his One Skull. Today’s situation is different. Today’s ship is more complex – much more complex. Today’s design process is more complex, with more stakeholders espousing opinions more loudly. One Man cannot design a modern warship, even assisted by a large team of subordinates.

Knowledge Management is common in fields such as computer engineering or biotech, where the pool of information is growing at such rapidity that it is humanly impossible to keep abreast of it: No man could read all the new literature on biotech. More new papers are written in a day than can be read in a week. We in naval architecture have been relatively free from this type of onslaught, but no more. It would be humanly impossible to attend all the conferences, read all the technical publications, and stay abreast of all facets of ship design. What I think I know about, say, electric drive, is probably being made obsolete by a presentation this very week at an ASNE event somewhere. This sounds like a problem in Library Management, but it isn’t. It is a problem in data inundation. Should every SDM read every Design History in the DTIC archives? - probably. Can they? - certainly not.

Faced with this problem we should do the same thing we do with other technical problems: Deploy tools to manage it. Faced with an impossible hydrodynamic problem we deploy tools of Mathematics. Faced with an information problem we deploy tools of…oops, my toolbox is empty in that area.

I do not at present know what aspects of Knowledge Management are most needed – indeed I may even being using the term incorrectly. What part of Mathematics is most important – is it Geometry? Calculus? Trigonometry? Surely each has a role, and none can be claimed to be ‘better’ than the others. In the same way I believe that there is a spectrum of knowledge engineering tools that are needed. And I, as a practicing engineer, have come to realize that there is an entire toolset missing from my tool box. I have done a pretty good job of working without these tools, but “boy if only I had them!”

What are the tools of knowledge management? Well, like the tools of mathematics there are many, and they can be used in many ways. In the paragraph above I painted a picture of using knowledge tools to capture design history information, and this can be performed using such techniques as citation mapping. But I also recently learned that Intel – the chip maker – has an in-house “futurist”, whose job is to imagine what people will do with computers in 5 – 10 – 15 years, so that Intel can start thinking about chips that support those uses.

(link: http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v306/n5/full/scientificamerican0512-80.html)

The futurist in this sense uses knowledge management tools for strategic insight. I recently ran a COMPENDEX search using the key phrase “ship design” and found 1720 papers stored. Of these 240 were from China, 180 from the United States, 151 from the UK, and 65 from Korea. 1398 of them were written in Chinese.

The picture painted is interesting: The most common keywords used were Computer Simulation, Mathematical Models, and Optimization with an important second tier including Human Engineering.

Detailed reading of the titles (I didn’t read all 1700 papers) paints the picture that a lot of work is focused upon the computerization of the design integration process itself, not merely the automation of the component analyses that make up the design. Titles included “a reasoning method for a ship design expert system,” or “On mathematical logic for the ship design through the axiomatic approach.” There is even an education focus found in “Computer aided ship design in undergraduate design courses”, published in the Journal of Fibre Chemistry (!!).

Lest I spend too much time on this one search, perhaps you can already see that this knowledge management tool could be used in R&D planning as a way of determining what is already going on, and where. That information can inform decisions ranging from “We don’t need to do that, because somebody else already is” through to “We’d better get onto this topic before ‘they’ beat us to it.”

And here again I hope you can see my point: Knowledge Management represents a whole new discipline that is currently absent from the toolset of most naval architects. I have recently – thanks to Dr. Trumbach – begun adding those tools to my own toolbox, and I am already excited at the multiplication of my ability that has resulted.

Should knowledge management receive ALL of our tool funding? Certainly not! In fact, I claim that its high payoff actually justifies a small increment of funding in this area: And investment of “5” in hydro will yield a return of “5”. But it might only require an investment of “1” in Knowledge Management to yield a return of “5.” So let’s risk it: Let’s invest, say, “1” in this newly-discovered (by us) discipline.

If I were doing commercial marketing I would explain that this can become a skillset discriminator that gives Our Firm a head-and-shoulders advantage over the competition.

In naval design the stakes are much higher.

Thanks for listening.

Chris McKesson

More ...

Tags: Knowledge,Naval Engineering,Management,Education,NEEC

The Future of LCS

kbretzius@umich.edu — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:20:00 GMT

It should come as no surprise to this community that the Navy’s LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) Program has been under a lot of scrutiny since its inception almost a decade ago. The scrutiny continues as earlier this month Ronald O’Rourke, a specialist in naval affairs at CRS (Congressional Research Service), submitted a report for congress on the much maligned program.

After a review of the report I wanted to use this forum to discuss what our community thought about LCS and its issues. According to Mr. O’Rourke (these are stated in the report), Congress should address these potential oversights:

Changes in Mission Module Equipment – Apparently a lot of changes have been made to the types of mission modules that would be utilized creating issues with regard to capability.
Combat Survivability – As stated in the report, “LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment. This assessment is based primarily on a review of LCS design requirements, which do not require the inclusion of the survivability features necessary to conduct sustained operations in its expected combat environment.”
Hull Cracking and Engine Problems on LCS-1
Corrosion on LCS-2
Technical Risk – These concerns relate to the LCS sea frame and its mission packages such as: Mine Countermeasures (MCM), Surface Warfare (SUW) and Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW)
Operational Concepts – These deal with managing personnel, training, and maintenance. “If the Navy cannot implement its concepts as envisioned, it may face operational limitations, have to re-engineer its operational concepts, or have to alter the ship design.”

This post is not intended to trash the ship or the program. But it is designed to create conversation about the naval engineering issues related to this controversial ship. What are your thoughts? Should this program be continued? Do you like the concept? Does this ship design make sense now that operation strategies have shifted to the Asia-Pacific region? What do naval engineers have to do better to avoid this in the future? Chime in and provide your thoughts!

Additional Information:

You can read the entire CRS Report for Congress here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.
Ronald O'Rourke is a specialist in naval affairs at CRS, writing reports and providing guidance to members of Congress and their staffs on naval and military issues for twenty-five years. He has become one of the CRS’s most renowned experts on major defense programs.

More ...

Tags: Congressional Research Service,Naval Engineering,LCS,Littoral Combat Ship

STEM Report by the Joint Economic Committee – Yesterday’s News or Something New?

kbretzius@umich.edu — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:00:00 GMT

A new report (but old really) was recently release by the Joint Economic Committee. You can read the press release here:
http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=c306d318-f19b-4a36-ae40-515d9c1871b2

The JEC, Chaired by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), reported on a number of findings related to fostering STEM education and developing our future workforce as it relates to STEM careers. To those of you familiar with the “Rising Above the Gathering Storm; Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” report (stop rolling your eyes) a lot of this will come as old news. In fact, personally, I am curious as to why this report is done in 2013 when the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report was done five years ago by the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century.

For me this discussion is getting old and there are a lot of reports and commentary that discuss the fact we have a problem with STEM. These facts from the report should sound somewhat familiar:

…the American labor force has a shortage of skilled workers in the science and technological fields. This shortage could have serious repercussions as these fields drive productivity and innovation which further aides in strengthening American competitiveness.”
The United States has traditionally produced the world’s top research scientists and engineers, leading to breakthrough advances in science and technology. This technological innovation has been a primary driver of U.S. economic growth, with studies showing that half or more of economic growth in the United States over the past fifty years is attributable to improved productivity resulting from innovation.
Additionally, demand for STEM-capable workers has increased even in traditionally non-STEM fields due to the diffusion of technology across industries and occupations.
In addition, an earlier survey found that over half of manufacturers believe that the public education system insufficiently prepares students with the math and science skills necessary to succeed in the workplace.9 Furthermore, concerns regarding shortages of skilled workers are compounded by the pending retirements of many baby boomers, an issue cited by both private industry and government officials.10
Despite the clear demand for STEM talent by domestic employers, the U.S. is failing to produce an ample supply of workers to meet the growing needs of both STEM and non-STEM employers. The existing STEM pipeline leaves too many students without access to quality STEM education, and without the interest and ability to obtain a degree or work in STEM.

However, this report does go a little deeper…beyond simply stating the problems. In fact, this report discusses opinion and research as to why we are falling short in STEM. The report suggests some of the following points (this is not a comprehensive list):

Without a strong foundation in math and science from elementary and secondary school, students may find themselves unprepared to train for and pursue careers in STEM fields. However, science and technology curriculum's are often thin in K-12 education, and may not be enough to provide students with a solid foundation in STEM upon which to build.
Part of the problem is that it is challenging to attract and retain STEM-trained individuals to teach STEM subjects at the K-12 level when higher wages and employment opportunities outside of the education sector make working in a STEM profession an attractive alternative.32
not enough K-12 math and science teachers have hands-on experience working in STEM.
In addition to improving the quality and quantity of STEM educators, a greater emphasis on communicating the benefits of STEM education to students is needed. College students may not have the information necessary regarding career prospects to make educated decisions in selecting a course of study.
those with more opportunities to engage in STEM-related activities, such as science fairs, projects, and clubs, are more likely to go onto STEM careers and have accomplishments in STEM fields.
Finally, there is the matter of culture. While not easy to quantify, to the extent that math and science are not considered “cool” among image-conscious high school students, inevitably many talented young people will be turned off from pursuing degrees and careers in STEM fields. Women may be particularly unlikely to pursue STEM as a result of gender and cultural norms.

Instead of discussing the problem like many websites and commenters, there is substance in this report to digest. In the next post I would like to take a look as some of the specific points and problems outlined above by the committees’ report so we can discuss in more detail. What do you think? For those of you following the STEM discussion is this old news or is there new information in this report of value?

For more information on the Joint Economic Committee visit its website: http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Home
More ...

Tags: STEM,Engineering,Workforce

How are Warships Different?

kbretzius@umich.edu — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:04:00 GMT

The following commentary was submitted and written by University of New Orleans Professor Chris B. McKesson, P.E. Thank you for your contribution!

I teach a couple of courses in that system integration process known as "ship design." In those courses I emphasize the way that the pieces come together to craft a ship. And, at the 3000-level, I dwell on merchant ships as the example. There are plenty of degrees of freedom just with a tanker or tugboat!

But my career has been spent in warship design, and I'd like to offer an elective in that subject. The focus of the elective would be "How is the process different when the ship is a warship?" And it is this question that I would like to bounce to you.

What makes naval vessel design unique? First, let’s note that I haven’t defined what I mean by “naval” or “warship.” Am I writing about combatants or does this include auxiliaries? Well that’s a good question and I bounce it back to you: Is the design of a naval auxiliary much different from the design of an equivalent civilian / commercial ship? In what ways?

The topics that I identified in my initial brainstorming were as follows:

Hydrodynamics: Acoustics
Respectability
Survivability
Structural Mechanics: Shock
Arrangement:
Topside arrangement
Weapon/sensor location
Design Integration:
Naval standards
Naval Acquisition

What did I miss? Thanks!

More ...

Tags: shipbuilding,naval,Naval Engineering,warship,naval architecture,University of New Orleans

Our Sputnik Moment?

kbretzius@umich.edu — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:11:00 GMT

Just over a week ago on Friday, March 16th we had an unseasonably warm winter day. I am sure it was like that for most of the country so it would come as no surprise if you found yourself outside and away from the radio that day. In case you missed it, I want to bring your attention to a great discussion that took place on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation – Science Friday.”

The focus – Sizing Up America’s High-Tech Talent.

This was yet another discussion about STEM and our constant push over the past years to boost U.S. competitiveness in a global world where we, the United States, are basically becoming average. The discussion begins with the well-known report Prepared for the Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine titled, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” published in 2007 and the follow up report, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5 that hit the web last year.

To recap the report the committee performed an exhaustive study which outlines how the United States, once a global power, is losing its stance due to globalization. Other countries, which now have access to technology, have a stronger desire to compete and are producing more STEMers than the U.S. In fact, the America’s COMPETE Act was born of this committees recommendation. Fast forward a few years – three years to be precise – to the follow up report and what has changed? Not a lot. So, here we are again rehashing the same crisis. As someone who follows STEM topics it seems like there is always a lot of discussion on STEM issues but little progress seems to be made.

Now that you have a little background, back to the panel.

Not only was the conversation engaging, the panel was interesting - especially from my point of view. Dr. Charles Vest, President of the National Academy of Engineering was joined by Dr. Lindsay Lowell, Anthoneete Pena, an eighth grade science teacher from Stuart-Hobson middle School in Washington, and Dr. Michael Kassner. What makes this panel so interesting? For those of you who don’t know, Dr. Kassner is the Director of Research for the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and his comments are of particular interest to me…especially when they deal with building the pool of engineers for the Navy and naval STEM outreach.

It should come as no surprise that we at NEEC understand the importance of educating and engaging students in engineering for the Navy. In fact, we sponsor research to engage undergraduate students in Navy science, engineering and technology careers. We have often promoted the fact that 30% of engineers and scientists in the Navy’s workforce will be eligible to retire in about three years (I have a banner with that statistic sitting outside my office). More importantly, did you know the Navy currently employs about 35,000 STEMers dedicated to advancing and developing its world-class technology and security? Kassner indicates that half of those will be retirement eligible in 10 years. That is a lot of naval STEMers. That is a lot of new hires to be trained and keep America strong.

Sounds like a big deal, right? Well, enter Dr. Lindsay Lowell who is Director of Policy Studies at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. Listen to his comments and you may have different thoughts, “…the Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected out through the end of this coming decade that we will need 190,000 new jobs every year, vacancies and turnover. At the same time, we graduate about 500,000 people in STEM each year. So it's hard for me to see the evidence of a shortage by measure of income and unemployment.” Wait! On one side you are telling me we don’t have enough and on the other side we have too many?

The point is we very well could have too many STEMers for the jobs we have….but this is not the case for the Navy. The Navy is unique. Consider the security issues and clearances involved for new hires. In an environment where security is necessary it becomes an issue when 70 percent of doctoral student talent pool is foreign born. Also consider the Navy has the largest basic R & D of the entire DoD. So when you look at the bigger picture you see the Navy has the most demand and the most difficulty hiring young researchers and engineers. STEMers are vital to the Navy and this is why NEEC exists - to guide young engineers to a career with the Navy. If we don’t do it now, the Storm discussed earlier in this post will have come and passed, and the cleanup and rebuilding will not be the same.

Details about the panel:
Dr. Charles Vest, president of the National Academy of Engineering, president emeritus of MIT, Dr. Michael Kassner, director of research at the Office of Naval Research, Dr. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown - thank you - and Anthonette Pena, she is an eighth grade science teacher at the Stuart-Hobson Middle School in Washington. Thank you all for being with us today.

Link to the audio and transcript:
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148753426/sizing-up-americas-high-tech-talent

More ...

The Future of Shipbuilding: What Can the Nation Afford?

kbretzius@umich.edu — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:09:00 GMT

If you have not had the opportunity I suggest watching this video to hear about the future of shipbuilding. Thanks to West 2012 for providing the great content.

More ...

Tags: Navy,shipbuilding,Future,Naval Engineering

Revisiting the Storm

kbretzius@umich.edu — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:21:00 GMT

Revisiting the Storm

When I was first hired in this position I was told to read the report, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” since this report played a critical role in the formation of the Naval Engineering Education Center. What was the report about? I suppose if I had to summarize the 500+ page report, I would say - Globalization has increased competition across the world and delivered knowledge and technology to areas which has resulted in a gradual shift in the economic and strategic leadership the United States has experienced for generations. As a result, we are quickly losing our competitive edge. Just the other day I was on the National Academy of Engineering website (http://www.nae.edu) and I noticed one of the most popular items was, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5.” I guess it was time to revisit the original report and see what progress was being made?

The original study, for those of you who are not aware, was in response to the following questions posed by Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Jeff Bingaman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

“What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that federal policymakers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century? What strategy, with several concrete steps, could be used to implement each of those actions?”

In response, the National Academies created the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. His committee released the original report and the findings were not good. In fact, from an engineering perspective, the picture was downright ugly.

“Today, the United States ranks 17th globally in the proportion of its college-age population that earns science and engineering (S&E) degrees, down from third several decades ago.1 Many other nations now have a higher fraction of 24-year-olds with S&E degrees. And even though the proportion of its population who attends graduate school is small, because of its large population China graduates three times as many engineers from its colleges as does the United States.”

Turns out the recent follow-up report indicates not much has changed over the past five years:

“America’s competitive position in the world now faces even greater challenges, exacerbated by the economic turmoil of the last few years and by the rapid and persistent worldwide advance of education, knowledge, innovation, investment, and industrial infrastructure. Indeed the governments of many other countries in Europe and Asia have themselves acknowledged and aggressively pursued many of the key recommendations of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, often more vigorously than has the U.S. We also sense that in the face of so many other daunting near-term challenges, U.S. government and industry are letting the crucial strategic issues of U.S. competitiveness slip below the surface.”

It is odd to see how, “other countries in Europe and Asia have themselves acknowledged and aggressively pursued many of the key recommendations of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, often more vigorously than has the U.S.”

“So where does America stand relative to its position of five years ago when the Gathering Storm report was prepared? The unanimous view of the committee members participating in the preparation of this report is that our nation’s outlook has worsened"

Not convinced? Check out these additional statistics and facts from the report (the list is several pages long):

China has now replaced the United States as the world’s number one high-technology exporter.

Of Wal-Mart’s 6,000 suppliers, 5,000 are in China.

In 2009, 51 percent of United States patents were awarded to non-United States companies.

China’s Tsinghua and Peking Universities are the two largest suppliers of students who receive PhD’s—in the United States.

So here we are, 5 years after our wake-up call….still sleeping. Our competitiveness – our ability to innovate, create and engineer is wavering and as a result, our stance as a global leader is being threatened. I have great concern when I read, “other countries in Europe and Asia have themselves acknowledged and aggressively pursued many of the key recommendations of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, often more vigorously than has the U.S.” Seems we have gotten complacent while others have kicked-it in gear. Just keep in mind that two of the four overarching recommendations of the report highlight engineering:

Move the United States K-12 education system in science and mathematics to a leading position by global standards.
Double the real federal investment in basic research in mathematics, the physical sciences, and engineering over the next seven years (while, at a minimum, maintaining the recently doubled real spending levels in the biosciences).
Encourage more United States citizens to pursue careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
Rebuild the competitive ecosystem by introducing reforms in the nation’s tax, patent, immigration and litigation policies.

It is my hope that in the next five years, when the next report comes out, the conclusions have changed and we have regained our competitive edge and that the storm we are witnessing today, has not created irreplaceable damage.

More ...

Tags: STEM,NEEC,Engineering

Why Minehunting Reminds Me of Naval Engineering

kbretzius@umich.edu — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:40:00 GMT

The Navy recently announced a major milestone as it completed the first phase of reliability testing for its Remote Minehunting System (RMS). The RMS is an integral part of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission package which will go into another phase of reliability testing sometime in 2012.

There is no question that mines can wreak havoc on naval vessels and the Navy has been working hard to develop autonomous technology for detecting and identifying these threats. Autonomous technology reduces the human element in these mundane and taxing tasks. Also, throw in Iran and current threats surrounding the Straits of Hormuz and this task is especially important in littoral and shallow-water zones.

What’s key is that the RMS is one of many LCS “mission modules.” Mission modules are integrated packages of mission-specific equipment that can be swapped in and out of the LCS for different missions such as, Mine Warfare (MIW), Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) and Surface Warfare (SUW).

Mission modules are important in several ways, including:

They create consistency – reducing cost by adding standardization.
They are flexible – allowing the ship to adapt to a variety of threats.
They add life to and extend the ships ability to operate.

Moving forward, incorporating this flexibility in ships is essential. However, as we rely on mission specific modules we need to take a step back and look at these ships from a systems perspective. How do these systems integrate and work in harmony to maximize operational effectiveness? Each module and system has its ramifications on other systems. Modern warships are increasing in complexity and as a result, a total engineering system, including the mission, the hull, and the multitude of engineering within the ship is also changing and needs to be addressed.

I realize initial testing of LCS and its mission modules was not completely successful but the push for ships that are flexible will only increase. As a result, we need more naval engineers to help build these ships and understand the impacts each mission and system on the vessel.

Other information:

More ...

An Unmanned Vehicle Testbed for Teaching, Training and Learning Navy-Relevant Autonomy

kbretzius@umich.edu — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:09:00 GMT

NEEC Featured Research:

An Unmanned Vehicle Testbed for Teaching, Training and
Learning Navy-Relevant Autonomy

Posted: January 26, 2012
When talking about naval engineering research, few topics grab more headlines
than Unmanned Autonomous Systems (UASs). Whether high in the sky or in the
ocean depths, UASs are extremely important in supporting the Navy’s missions.
Offering the ability to remove humans from physical danger and mentally fatiguing situations, UASs are ideal forexploration and surveillance as the battlefield is broadened and technological advances.... Read More (registered members only)

More ...

Tags: Naval Engineering,Education,Robotics,Unmanned Autonomous Systems,Navy,Research,Engineering,Technology,Eustice,University of Michigan,NEEC,Naval Engineering Education Center

The Naval Engineering Forecast

kbretzius@umich.edu — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:44:00 GMT

It's good to know that in troubled budget times, the Navy's shipbuilding programs appear to be safe from cuts…at least for now. As outlined in this article post on the Navy Times, construction programs apparently will not be slashed to meet an expected Pentagon-wide spending reduction.

“We’ve placed a priority on shipbuilding,” Sean Stackley, the Navy’s top acquisition official, told reporters last week. “You can see a lot of alignment between the defense strategy and what the Navy does.”

This is good news, especially when you consider the DoD’s recently released report, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense”, which outlines a strategic focus on the Pacific and heighten concern in areas of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) - where the Navy’s intent is to credibly deter aggression and to keep waterways safe and free.

Given all of this, the Navy and its science, technology, and engineering will be on display now more than ever as it becomes more important to project power and providing a stabilizing presence on a global scale.

To that end, naval engineering received a little plug during the Surface Navy Associations National Symposium 2012 which occurred January 10-12, 2012. It was very interested in hearing ADM Greenert's comments regarding his support for pushing the engineering the Navy needs as he spoke to an audience at the event.

"...We need to continue pushing, unmanned, underwater vehicles, especially autonomous, that can go out and search an area out for mine warfare and as an ASW Sensor very much needed, electronic attack, electronic warfare...need to look for opportunities to take engineering design modules out there and get them tested...I will support that.”

It is safe to say that we in the naval engineering community support that as well and we recognize the importance. It’s becoming more clear the Navy and what they do gaining more focus and as ship get more complex, the biggest challenge facing the US Navy in 2012 would not appear to be one of ships or even ship designs, rather the ability of the Navy to manage acquisition programs for the “systems” intend to be the primary capabilities of tomorrows fleet.

More information:

To view ADM Greenert’s video, visit https://ww2.swonet.navy.mil/swonetweb2.0/live/SNANational2012.aspx
Navy's shipbuilding program article on the Navy Times, http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/navy-fleet-sean-stackley-shipbuilding-remains-priority-011612w/

More ...

Tags: Naval Engineering,ADM Greenert,shipbuilding,Surface Navy Associations National Symposium,Navy Times,Defense Strategy