Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
--> Shipbuilding Technology and Education Committee on National Needs in Maritime Technology Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996
OCR for page R2
--> NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The program described in this report is supported by Cooperative Agreement No. DTMA91-94-G- 00003 between the Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Sciences. Limited copies are available from: Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press Box 285 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 95-72456 International Standard Book Number 0-309-05382-X Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Cover photo courtesy of National Steel and Shipbuilding Company. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
--> COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL NEEDS IN MARITIME TECHNOLOGY JOHN M. STEWART (chair) McKinsey & Company, Inc., New York, New York GERALD J. BLASKO, Newport News Shipbuilding, Newport News, Virginia EDWARD J. CAMPBELL, NAE, Case Industries (retired), Racine, Wisconsin JOSEPH J. CUNEO, Marinex International Inc., Hastings-on-Hudson, New York ARTHUR J. HASKELL, Matson Navigation Company (retired), Oakland, California HAROLD C. HEINZE, Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Talkeetna, Alaska GEORGE H. KUPER, Council of Great Lakes Industries, Ann Arbor, Michigan HENRY S. MARCUS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge T. FRANCIS OGILVIE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge IRENE C. PEDEN, NAE, University of Washington (retired), Seattle RICHARD W. THORPE, Kværner Masa Marine Inc., Annapolis, Maryland JOHN S. TUCKER, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, California RICHARD H. WHITE, Institute for Defense Analysis, Arlington, Virginia Liaison Representatives ANDY DALLAS, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia JAMES A. FEIN, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia PAUL B. MENTZ, Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C. THOMAS L. NEYHART, Maritime Administration, Arlington, Virginia ROBERT W. SCHAFFRAN, Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia CHARLES E. STUART, Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia ALBERT J. TUCKER, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey Staff ROBERT A. SIELSKI, Project Officer DELPHINE D. GLAZE, Administrative Assistant ANN COVALT, Editorial Consultant CATHY BROWN, Editor
OCR for page R4
--> MARINE BOARD RICHARD J. SEYMOUR (chair) Texas A&M University and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California BERNARD J. ABRAHAMSSON, University of Wisconsin, Superior JERRY A. ASPLAND, ARCO Marine, Inc., Long Beach, California ANNE D. AYLWARD, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Milton, Massachusetts MARK Y. BERMAN, Amoco Corporation, Houston, Texas BROCK B. BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California JOHN W. BOYLSTON, Argent Marine Operations, Inc., Solomons, Maryland SARAH CHASIS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, New York CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge BILIANA CICIN-SAIN, University of Delaware, Newark JAMES M. COLEMAN, NAE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge BILLY L. EDGE, Texas A&M University, College Station MARTHA GRABOWSKI, LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York M. ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL, Stanford University, Stanford, California DONALD W. PRITCHARD, NAE, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Severna Park, Maryland STEPHANIE R. THORNTON, Coastal Resources Center, San Francisco, California KARL K. TUREKIAN, NAS, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey E. G. "SKIP" Ward, Shell Offshore, Inc., Houston, Texas ALAN G. YOUNG, Fugro-McClelland BV, Houston, Texas Staff CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, director DONALD W. PERKINS, associate director DORIS C. HOLMES, staff associate
OCR for page R5
--> Acknowledgments The committee gratefully acknowledges the contributions of time and information provided by the many persons who addressed the committee, including: Howard M. Bunch, University of Michigan; Ian Cuckneil, Braemar Developments LTD.; David P. Donohue, The Jonathan Corporation; James A. Fein, Office of Naval Research; Jose Femenia, Jr., State University of New York Maritime College; Albert Herberger, Maritime Administration; J.F. Hillman, Colton and Associates; John Goodman, National Council of Economic Advisors; John Kaskin, Office of Naval Operations; Zelvin Levine, Maritime Administration; William W. Lewis, McKinsey Global Institute; Michael McGrath, Advanced Research Projects Agency; Paul Mentz, Maritime Administration; Thomas Neyhart, Maritime Administration; Robert F. O'Neill, American Waterways Shipyard Conference; Frank Peterson, Office of Naval Research; Charles Piersall, AMADIS, Inc.; Nils Salvesen, Science Applications International Corporation; Paul A. Schneider, Naval Sea Systems Command; Robert W. Schaffran, Advanced Research Projects Agency; Rod Vulovic, Sea-Land Service, Inc.; and Raymond A. Yagle, University of Michigan. The following persons addressed the Workshop on the Role of Technology in Shipbuilding: Torben Andersen, Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd., Denmark; Joachim Brodda, Bremer Vulcan AG, Germany; Michael Cecere, Naval Sea Systems Command; David H. Hill, General Motors (ret.); Thomas Lamb, Textron Marine and Land Systems; Kai Levander, Kværner Masa Yards Technology, Finland; Chris Lloyd, Kockums Computer Systems Ltd; David L. Luck, General Electric; Anthony Manchinu, Total Transportation Systems Inc.; Ronnal Reichard, Structural Composites Inc.; George Sawyer, Sperry Marine; Bruce R.
OCR for page R6
--> Scott, Harvard Business School; Richard G. Woodhead, Shipkits International, England. The following additional persons participated in the Workshop on the Role of Technology in Shipbuilding: Eugene Aspuru, Avondale Industries Inc.; Joseph A. Byrne, Maritime Administration; Stephen S. Clarey, National Steel & Shipbuilding Company; Tim J.V. Colton, Colton and Company; Andy Dallas, Advanced Research Projects Agency; Thomas H. Doussan, Avondale Industries Inc.; Roger Eshelman, Newport News Shipbuilding; Richard Goldbach, Metro Machine; Jon Grunning, Kockums Computer Systems AB, Sweden; H. T. Haller, Maritime Administration; Norman O. Hammer, Maritime Administration; Thomas W. Harrelson, Maritime Administration; Zelvin Levine, Maritime Administration; Thomas Lockwood, MARITECH; Phillip Nuss, Trinity Marine Group; Ellsworth Peterson, Peterson Builders Inc.; Bård Rasmussen, Kockums Computer Systems AB, Sweden; Todd Ripley, Maritime Administration. The following persons participated in the workshop on Education in Naval Architecture: Michael Bernitsas, University of Michigan; Margaret D. Blum, Maritime Administration; David Billington, Princeton University, Board on Engineering Education; Francis M. Cagliari, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers; James J. Conti, Webb Institute; Robert Holzman, U.S. Coast Guard; Robert Latorre, University of New Orleans; Peter Majumdar, Office of Naval Research; Joseph A. Schetz, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Frederick Seibold, Maritime Administration; Stephen E. Sharpe, U.S. Coast Guard; Ronald Yeung, University of California, Berkeley. The following shipyard executives met with members of the committee: Albert L. Bossier, Jr., Thomas H. Doussan, Eugene J. Aspuru, Avondale Industries; Duane B. Fitzgerald, Gerard F. Lamb, Bath Iron Works Corporation; and Richard H. Voortman, Alfred W. Lutter, Jr., Stephen H. Streifer, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company.
OCR for page R7
--> Preface The U.S. shipbuilding industry is at a turning point. Two decades ago the industry produced ships for both commercial and military markets. In the 1980s, the industry designed and built the world's most advanced naval capability in response to the U.S. Navy's goal of a 600-ship fleet. U.S. shipbuilders came to excel in producing complex, high-quality naval vessels. Yet commercial markets were left to foreign shipbuilders whose governments provided handsome subsidy support in the shipbuilding arena. Recently, dramatic declines in U.S. defense spending are forcing many large U.S. shipbuilders to translate their skills once again from military to commercial markets if they are to thrive or, in some cases, simply survive. Congress and the Clinton administration have shown increasing concern about the industry's health as a matter of both military and economic security. In response to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993, the administration developed "a comprehensive plan to enable and ensure that domestic shipyards can compete effectively in the international shipbuilding market." In this plan, Strengthening America's Shipyards, the president called for a major national initiative in shipbuilding, with the goal of assisting the efforts of the nation's shipyards to make a successful transition from military to commercial shipbuilding—a competitive industry in a truly competitive marketplace. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research requested that the National Research Council, through the Marine Board, study the role of technology in renewing the U.S. shipbuilding industry and the health of the research, education, and training infrastructure that supports shipbuilding. The U.S. Maritime Administration also supported this study.
OCR for page R8
--> To address this charge, a Marine Board committee was formed representing broad expertise in ship design, shipbuilding, ship operations, systems engineering, manufacturing technology, education in naval architecture and marine engineering, technology policy, research and technology management, and economics. National Research Council procedures to ensure balance on the committee were followed. Appendix A presents short biographies of committee members. The study used several methods to obtain a wide range of additional expert views. Three working papers were commissioned, two on technology application in U.S. and foreign shipbuilding (one primarily a literature search) and a third on naval architecture and marine engineering education. Over the course of the study, two workshops were also held, one on technology application in shipbuilding and one on naval architecture and marine engineering education.1 The National Research Council Board on Engineering Education contributed to the study, notably by participating in the education workshop. In addition, the committee was briefed by numerous representatives of government agencies, shipowners, shipbuilders, educators, and managers of technology. Finally, committee members consulted with the heads of several major U.S. shipbuilding companies in addition to providing their own extensive experience with U.S. and foreign yards. Appendix B details the additional sources of information, including a full list of briefings to the committee. The committee and the Marine Board hope this report will be useful to a number of audiences. Beyond the study's sponsors, Advanced Research Projects Agency and Office of Naval Research, these audiences are policymakers and technical experts associated with interested public and private agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard and Maritime Administration; shipyards and shipowners; educators; and others in the marine and shipbuilding communities. The report is a potential road map for shipyard revitalization to maintain a shipbuilding base for defense purposes in a time of declining naval construction. 1 The two working papers on technology application are by Bunch and Associates and Colton and Co.; the paper on national architecture and marine engineering education is by Raymond A. Yagle. All three of these reports, as well as proceedings of the committee's workshop on technology application in shipbuilding, are available in limited quantities from the Marine Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.
OCR for page R9
--> Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 6 Background 6 Scope and Objectives of This Study 8 Industry Structure and Employment 9 Potential Markets for Major U.S. Shipbuilders 12 Support of the Shipbuilding Industry 15 Limitations of Technology 15 Technology versus Finance 16 Programs of Financial Assistance 17 U.S. versus Foreign Support of Shipbuilding Technology 20 The 1994 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Antisubsidy Agreement 21 Organization of the Report 23 References 24 2 State of Technology Application in U.S. Shipbuilding 25 Introduction 25 Business-Process Technologies 25 System Technologies 40 Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing 43 Shipyard Production Processes Technology 44 New Materials and Product Technologies 49 Summary 56 References 60
OCR for page R10
--> 3 Programs to Increase the Technological Competitiveness of U.S. Shipyards 61 Introduction 61 Maritime Systems Technology and the Technology Reinvestment Project 63 National Shipbuilding Research Program 65 Manufacturing Technology Program 67 Best Manufacturing Practices 68 Naval Sea Systems Command Mid-term Sealift Ship Technology Development Program 69 Affordability Through Commonality Program 69 Office of Naval Research Surface Ship Technology Program 70 Shipbuilding Standards 70 National Maritime Resource and Education Center 71 Summary 72 References 74 4 National Needs for Education Infrastructure in Maritime Technology 75 Introduction 75 Need for Specialized Programs 77 Program Viability 81 Federal Support for Programs 85 Summary 91 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 92 Overview 92 Specific Conclusions 93 Policy Recommendations 97 Acronyms 100 Appendices ABiographies of Committee Members 105 BPresentations to the Committee 109 CMaking Financing Decisions in the U.S. Shipbuilding Industry 111 DGovernment and Industry Programs that invest in Shipbuilding Technology 114 ESchools of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 143
OCR for page R11
--> Tables and Figures Tables Table 1-1 U.S. Builders of Large Oceangoing Ships by Work Force Size 10 Table 1-2 Global Market Segments for Commercial Ships 13 Table 1-3 Difficulty of U.S. Entry to Selected Segments of the International Shipbuilding Market 14 Table 2-1 Ship Design and Product Technologies 52 Table 2-2 Priorities for Technology Investment 57 Table 3-1 MARITECH and TRP Projects, by Primary Technology Area 64 Table 3-2 MARITECH and TRP Projects, by Both Primary and Secondary Technology Areas 65 Table 3-3 MANTECH Projects, by Primary Technology Area 66 Table 3-4 MANTECH Projects, by Both Primary and Secondary Technology Areas 67 Table 4-1 Schools of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 76 Table 4-2 Fields of Study, Enrollment, and Degrees Awarded, by School 78 Figures Figure 1-1 Major Shipbuilders in the United States and Their Locations 10 Figure 3-1 Number of Programs Addressing Technology Areas 72 Figure 3-2 Dollar Amounts Invested in Each Technology Area 73
OCR for page R12
This page in the original is blank.