Nu 25601

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25601 SHARE

   
Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future

of Naval Engineering (2019)
DETAILS
106 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-49885-2 | DOI 10.17226/25601
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Marine Board; Policy Studies; Transportation Research Board; National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Toward New

Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25601.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future of Naval Engineering
Committee for a Review of the National Naval Responsibility—

Naval Engineering Program
A Consensus Study Report of
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Research Board Special Report 333
Subscriber Category: Maritime Transportation
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual

publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.
TRB.org or nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organi-
zational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are
eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transporta-
tion Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001
(telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
This publication was reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the
procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
National Academy of Medicine.
This study was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, U.S. Department of
the Navy.
Cover credits: Left top: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Adam Dublinske; Left
middle: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kelsey L.
Adams; Left bottom: U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams; Middle: U.S. Navy
photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Maxwell Higgins; Right top:
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Anderson W. Branch;
Right middle: U.S. Navy photo courtesy of General Dynamics Electric Boat by Matt
Hildreth; Right bottom: U.S. Navy photo by Greg Vojtko.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49885-2

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-49885-6
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25601
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019956079

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of

Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institu-
tion to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members
are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia
McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the char-
ter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering
to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary
contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to
advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their
peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau
is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and ad-
vice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and
inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education
and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of
the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation
improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-
based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of trans-
portation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers,
scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the
public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their exper-
tise in the public interest. The program is supported by state departments of
transportation, federal agencies including the component administrations of
the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the
study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typi-
cally include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information
gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report
has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it
represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium,
or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opin-
ions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed
by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies,
please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE FOR A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NAVAL

RESPONSIBILITY—NAVAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM
Heidi C. Perry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln

Laboratory, Lexington, Chair
Steven E. Ramberg, The Pennsylvania State University, State College,
Vice Chair
Michael S. Bruno, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu
Thomas M. Jahns (NAE), University of Wisconsin–Madison
Jennifer G. Michaeli, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
RADM Marc Y. E. Pelaez (U.S. Navy, retired), Naples, Florida
VADM Ronald A. Route (U.S. Navy, retired), Monterey, California
Jessica K. Shang, University of Rochester, New York
Alexandra (Alex) H. Techet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge
Jennifer Kehl Waters, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
Yin Lu (Julie) Young, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dick K. P. Yue, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff
Transportation Research Board

Mark S. Hutchins, Senior Program Officer, Consensus and Advisory
Studies
Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., Director, Consensus and Advisory Studies
Anusha Jayasinghe, Associate Program Officer, Consensus and Advisory
Studies
Claudia Sauls, Program Coordinator, Consensus and Advisory Studies
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Martin Offutt, Senior Program Officer, Board on Infrastructure and the
Constructed Environment


Preface
Naval engineering (NE) is the field of study and practice that concerns
the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of naval platforms.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) of the U.S. Department of the Navy
sponsors basic and applied research in the scientific and technical fields that
support NE as well as other technical areas for the Chief of Naval Opera-
tions and the Secretary of the Navy. ONR also supports education pro-
grams to ensure the supply of researchers and engineers in these technical
areas. In 2001, ONR designated naval engineering research and education
as a National Naval Responsibility (NNR). NE was one of four technical
areas so designated, along with ocean acoustics, underwater weaponry,
and undersea medicine.1 ONR added sea-based aviation as a fifth NNR
technical area in 2011.
These technical areas were designated as NNRs because they were
considered deserving of special attention in ONR’s planning and budgeting
given their unique importance to the Navy. The NNR for Naval Engineer-
ing (NNR-NE) was specifically charged with maintaining the necessary
investments in basic and early-applied research for key areas of NE interest
to the Navy.2 It was also charged with investing in students and research
facilities and with conducting field experiments that integrate technologies
into innovative platform concepts. Through the NNR-NE, ONR would
ensure a sustained base of U.S. research on long-term NE capabilities of
1 ONR. 2001. Memorandum: National Naval Program for Naval Engineering. Oct. 22.
2 Someof these naval engineering interests also extend to the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast
Guard, and U.S. Merchant Marine.
vii

viii PREFACE
importance to the Navy and the needed supply of talented researchers, en-
gineers, and university faculty to provide superior science and technology
related to NE.
In 2009, ONR asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineer-
ing, and Medicine (the National Academies), under the auspices of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) and its Marine Board, to conduct
a study to evaluate the state of basic and early-applied research in NE
and related disciplines in the United States and to review NNR-NE’s un-
classified plans and portfolio to further its mission of ensuring a healthy
research and educational enterprise that meets the future platform capa-
bility needs of the Navy. TRB’s Committee on Naval Engineering in the
21st Century conducted the review and issued its report in 2011.3 The
report contains a series of findings on the state of NE research, education,
and research infrastructure critical to naval interests. The report offers
advice on how ONR can improve its monitoring and understanding of
the health of this research and education enterprise and the effectiveness
of the NNR-NE program in sustaining and strengthening its health.
In 2017, ONR asked TRB and the Marine Board to convene a special
committee to conduct a second study of the health of the NE research,
education, and infrastructure enterprise and the NNR-NE’s role in sus-
taining and strengthening it. This time, the study committee was asked to
give additional consideration to whether the practical definition of “naval
engineering” should be modified to account for developments such as the
growing importance of autonomous vessels and cybersecurity. As in the first
study, this study too considered only NNR-NE’s unclassified activity. The
full Statement of Task for the study is given in Chapter 1 (see Box 1-2).
To conduct the study, the National Academies appointed a commit-
tee of 12 experts in the fields of NE and naval architecture; shipbuilding
and ship design; propulsors; platform power; hydromechanics and hull
design; education; warfare requirements; cybersecurity; and platform
control and system integration. The committee met for the first time in
April 2018, and met an additional five times over a 15-month period.
The content of this report represents the consensus efforts of the mem-
bers, who served uncompensated in the public interest. The committee
members’ biographical information is provided at the end of the report.
3 TRB Special Report 306: Naval Engineering in the 21st Century: The Science and Technol-
ogy Foundation for Future Naval Fleets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
2011. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/165502.aspx.

PREFACE ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The committee held four meetings with public sessions for information-
gathering and briefings from the sponsor and invited presenters and discus-
sants. Public session agendas are provided in Appendix A. The committee
thanks the many individuals who participated in these sessions, which were
critical to informing the committee’s work.
The study would not have been possible without the interest and sup-
port of Thomas C. Fu, Director, Advanced Naval Platforms Division, ONR,
and the members of his team: Robert Brizzolara, H. Scott Coombe, Kelly
Cooper, Joseph Gorski, Paul Hess, Ki-Han Kim, Jeffrey D. Smith, and Ryan
Zelnio. Smith was especially important, as he provided a single ONR point
of contact and fielded the many information requests from the committee
and National Academies staff.
The committee was briefed by the following officials from the U.S.
Department of the Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense: Sharon
Beermann-Curtin, Strategic Capabilities Office, Office of the Secretary of
Defense (retired); Michael S. Brown and Nathan Hagan, Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Carderock Division; John C. Hootman, Surface Warfare
Division, Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations; and Rear Admiral Lorin C.
Selby, Deputy Commander for Ship Design, Integration, and Engineering.
From industry, the committee held discussions with Charles R. Cushing,
C.R. Cushing & Co., Inc.; Howard Fireman, American Bureau of Shipping;
Donald M. Hamadyk, HII—Newport News Shipbuilding; Priya S. Hicks
and Christopher J. Rock, Electric Boat; and Robert G. Keane, Jr., Ship
Design USA, Inc.
The committee also met with the following individuals from educational
and research institutions: Michael A. Aucoin, Draper Laboratory; James
Bellingham, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Bradley E. Bishop,
U.S. Naval Academy; Timothy J. Dasey, Reed Jensen, and R obert T-I.
Shin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory; M elissa
L. Flagg, Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Georgetown Uni-
versity; Jeffrey D. Paduan and Clyde Scandrett, Naval Postgraduate School;
and Matthew R. Werner, Webb Institute of Naval Architecture.
Mark S. Hutchins and Martin Offutt managed the study and assisted
the committee in the preparation of this report under the guidance of
Thomas R. Menzies, Jr. Anusha Jayasinghe and Claudia Sauls provided
support to the committee in arranging meetings and in managing docu-
ments. Karen Febey, Senior Report Review Officer, managed the report
review process.
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals
chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose
of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments to

x PREFACE
assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound

as possible and to ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality,
objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review
comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity
of the deliberative process.
The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this
report: H. Norman Abramson, Southwest Research Institute (retired), San
Antonio, Texas; Sharon Beermann-Curtin, Strategic Capabilities Office,
Office of the Secretary of Defense (retired), Arlington, Virginia; Edward
N. Comstock, Independent Naval Architect, Davidson, North Carolina;
Charles R. Cushing, C.R. Cushing & Co., Inc., New York City, New York;
Thomas J. Eccles, Trident Maritime Systems, LLC, Arlington, Virginia;
Millard Firebaugh, University of Maryland, College Park; R. Keith M ichel,
Webb Institute of Naval Architecture, Glen Cove, New York; and Pat
Tamburrino, Jr., LMI, Tysons, Virginia.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com-
ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or
recommendations of the report nor did they see the final draft before its
release. The review of the report was overseen by Chris T. Hendrickson,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Craig Philip,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. They were responsible for mak-
ing certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out
in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all
review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final
content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii
Summary1
1 Study Background, Request, and Approach 15

Background, 15
Request for This Study, 17
Study Approach, 21
Report Organization, 23

2 A Framework for National Naval Responsibility for Naval
Engineering Evaluation 25
“Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Evaluation Framework, 27
Applying the Evaluation Framework to the Three Pillars, 28
3 Naval Engineering Research and Development 31

Summary of the Current NNR-NE S&T Portfolio, 32
The Imperative of Capitalizing on S&T Advances Outside
Traditional NE Fields, 38
Strategic Use of the “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor”
Framework, 40
Viewing Platforms as Innovation “Forcing,” 46
xi

xii CONTENTS
4 Naval Engineering Workforce 49

Trends in STEM Education in the United States, 50
Relevant Naval Engineering Workforce Development Programs, 53
“Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Workforce Investments, 61
5 Naval Engineering Science and Technology Infrastructure 65

Changing Role of Experimental Infrastructure, 66
Changing Computational Capabilities, 69
Implications for NNR-NE’s “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor”
Functions, 70
6 Summary Assessment and Advice 77

Appendixes
A Invited Speakers and Presenters at Committee Meetings 83
B Study Committee Member Biographical Information 85

Acronyms and Abbreviations
ASEE American Society for Engineering Education
CFD computational fluid dynamics

CINT Centers for Innovation in Naval Technologies
CISD Center for Innovation in Ship Design
CNO Chief of Naval Operations
DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DSB Defense Science Board
kV kilovolt
MBSE model-based systems engineering
NAVWARSYSCOM Naval Information Warfare Systems Command

NDSEG National Defense Science & Engineering Graduate
NE naval engineering
NNR National Naval Responsibility
NNR-NE National Naval Responsibility for Naval
Engineering
NPS Naval Postgraduate School
NREIP Naval Research Enterprise Intern Program
NSF National Science Foundation
NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center
xiii

xiv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ONR Office of Naval Research
R&D research and development
S&T science and technology

SMART Science, Mathematics and Research for
Transformation (DOD)
STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
TRB Transportation Research Board
WC Warfare Center

Summary
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) administers the science and technol-
ogy (S&T) programs of the Navy and the Marine Corps. In 2001, ONR
designated naval engineering (NE) as a National Naval Responsibility
(NNR). This designation stemmed from a recognition that the NE enter-
prise is essential to innovations in naval platform capabilities and warrants
special attention because no other governmental organization or commer-
cial interest could be expected to continually support all of the NE research
and development (R&D) needed to sustain and further many naval-specific
capabilities and interests. The NNR-NE program was established to ensure
that the Navy has a robust and focused research community with access to
the experimental facilities and other R&D infrastructure needed to advance
the state of the art and to generate an adequate pipeline of new scientists
and engineers in the S&T disciplines essential to the capabilities and per-
formance of the Navy’s fleet and operational forces.
To ensure that the research, workforce pipeline, and R&D infrastruc-
ture investments of each of its NNR programs are aligned with evolving
Navy needs and have the appropriate completeness, breadth, and depth,
ONR requires that each program undergo an independent, external review
every 5 years. This study report is the product of a second independent
review of the NNR-NE. The first one, also conducted by a National Acade-
mies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) com-
mittee, was completed in 2011 while the NNR-NE was still in its formative
stages. In the interim, much has changed in the S&T landscape relevant to
the multidisciplinary NE enterprise and in the operational environment and

2 TOWARD NEW NAVAL PLATFORMS
demands of the Navy for future ships and other sea platforms critical to
ensuring the nation’s maritime superiority.
In commissioning this study, ONR officials expressed a desire for suc-
cinct, actionable advice to inform the changes that will be needed in the
NNR-NE to achieve its mission in this fast-evolving S&T environment and
in response to new operational paradigms. They emphasized the importance
of ensuring that the NNR-NE furthers the priorities established in the
Naval R&D Framework, which demands technology-focused, integrated
research portfolios that account for the future force attributes necessary for
the Navy and the Marine Corps. The Naval R&D Framework and other
strategic documents of the U.S. Department of the Navy emphasize the ad-
vancement of naval platforms and systems of platforms—not only ships—in
accordance with the Navy’s interest in a distributed operational concept.
These new mission realities were characterized by the ONR officials who
briefed the committee as providing a charter for change to the NNR-NE.
The practice of NE permeates the full naval enterprise, from the earliest
stages of research and development to the design and construction of the
sea platforms overseen by the Navy systems commands, the execution by
industry and naval depots of midlife platform repair and modernization,
and the end-of-life disposal process. The NNR-NE consists of several pro-
gram areas intended to ensure that adequate investments are made and sus-
tained for advancing the basic research, talented and skilled workforce, and
R&D infrastructure needed to sustain and strengthen this practice and to
meet the future Navy’s critical requirements for the integration of platforms
and platform systems. In asking for this review of the unclassified elements
of its program, ONR specifically asked whether the N NR-NE’s scope and
performance, as pursued through the program’s three pillars—investments
in research, the current and future workforce, and R&D infrastructure—are
consistent with the current practice of NE and responsive to the Navy’s
critical NE needs related to both its traditional and future manned and
unmanned sea platforms.
Informed by its discussions with ONR officials and its review of the
Naval R&D Framework, the study committee came to appreciate how the
demands on the NNR-NE have been changing and expanding as the scope
of naval engineering has been growing. U.S. naval capability has a lways
lain in the platforms that are deployed and the personnel that design,
build, and operate them. Each new or upgraded platform creates different
challenges and demands for innovation expansion, for instance, to reduce
manning, provide quieter and faster operations, accommodate new weapon
and sensory systems concepts, and accelerate design, build, and acquisition
cycles. As the Navy migrates to a more heterogeneous, distributed force, it
will require multiple platform types—consisting of large and small surface
combatants and unmanned vehicles—that can collaborate and integrate

SUMMARY 3
into deployed capabilities. In this distributed and networked architecture,

platforms will remain central to the operational and combat effectiveness
of the Navy, but create demands for innovations such as those that will
increase modularity, reconfigurability, and connectivity. The NE enterprise
will be expected to deliver these innovations by exploiting technological
developments from across the S&T spectrum.
In short, the committee came to recognize that even as the definition
of “platform” changes and expands, the platform remains central to naval
superiority and will be the forcing function for innovations that will depend
increasingly on developments from an expanding array of S&T fields. Thus,
even though the NE enterprise is inherently multidisciplinary, it will need
to become even more inclusive of, and attentive to, developments across
the S&T spectrum. It will also need to become the integrator of these de-
velopments for NE applications. The NNR-NE, in turn, will need to ensure
that the Navy’s unique and critical platform requirements are met through
a combination of support for NE research that would not otherwise get
done, a robust and diverse NE workforce and R&D infrastructure, and
the translation and integration of applicable advancements from other
technological domains.
Through the series of actions recommended next, the committee pro-
poses positioning the NNR-NE to become the driver of future naval force
capability, guided by a strategic framework for making choices about how
best to pursue the program’s three pillars—supporting research, the work-
force, and R&D infrastructure. That strategic framework, outlined in Box
S-1 and explained below, calls for ONR to make explicit choices about the
naval-critical capabilities that the NNR-NE should focus on, or “own,” and
how it should exercise this ownership through the combined functions of
leading, leveraging, and monitoring across the three pillars.
SUPPORTING AND INTEGRATING NAVAL-CRITICAL RESEARCH

There is a growing imperative for expanding the NNR-NE’s reach to S&T
areas outside the traditional expanse of NE. The rapidly changing S&T land-
scape is radically transforming what is possible and needed for the future
Navy. Because the NNR-NE can only address a slice of the technological
spectrum through its direct investments in research, a strategic approach
is needed for expanding the program’s reach and thrust. For this purpose,
the committee recommends that ONR adopt a “lead, leverage, and moni-
tor” framework for prioritizing, programming, and integrating NNR-NE’s
research investments. This framework should be used not only to guide
decisions about critical naval engineering interests that require NNR-NE’s
direct research support but also to identify S&T from outside the program
that can be leveraged to meet these critical interests.

BOX S-1
“Lead, Leverage, and Monitor”: A Strategy for NNR-NE’s
Mission Fulfillment
Lead—where the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering (NNR-NE)

program assumes lead responsibility for ensuring the vitality, performance, and
desired outcomes of the NE field in meeting naval-unique interests and capabili-
ties. This responsibility would include, but not be limited to, providing intellectual
leadership in particular science and technology (S&T) subjects that are vital to
the Navy’s NE needs.
Leverage—where NNR-NE relies on partners within and outside the Office of

Naval Research to advance the state of the art to a point where the program
can adapt the technical advances to meet NE interests or even contribute to an
expansion in the state of the art for application to the NE enterprise. Leveraging
activities may range from co-funding S&T activity to program coordination.
Monitor—where NNR-NE maintains “situational awareness” of the emerging

state of the art across a broad front. Not a passive task, monitoring can be
viewed as involving the periodic study of emergent areas of technical interest to
consider whether they warrant “lead” or “leverage” investments.
Application of this framework implies that the NNR-NE exercise lead-

ership not only by ensuring that its naval-critical “lead” capabilities are
being furthered by its R&D investments, but also by being attuned to
developments in an array of S&T domains and leveraging relevant technol-
ogy from some and monitoring progress in others. Through its leveraging
function, the program may make targeted R&D investments to increase
the naval applicability of S&T developments from outside the traditional
NE domain. Its role in monitoring S&T developments implies a level of
engagement and attention that is sufficient to know whether an early-stage
and potentially disruptive development may be a candidate for such tar-
geted, leveraging investments. In this regard, leveraging and monitoring
should not be viewed as secondary activities but as functions central to the
program’s mission.
When applied to S&T topics, the “lead, leverage, and monitor” frame-
work can provide a basis for setting priorities within the NNR-NE S&T
portfolio. It can also guide ONR’s choices about when and how to change
the content, reach, and connections of its NNR-NE S&T portfolio to meet
changing platform innovation needs and concepts. Indeed, as it periodically
reviews its S&T portfolio to make these choices, NNR-NE should adopt a
platform-centric approach to identifying innovation needs, challenges, and

SUMMARY 5
opportunities. Informed by the promise of the technologies that it leads,

leverages, and monitors, NNR-NE should be anchored by a strategic vision
of naval platforms 20 to 30 years out.
This expanded concept of NNR-NE leadership, however, should not
imply that the program will no longer assume a central role in sustaining
basic research in the naval-critical, core areas. While many technical areas
will have a bearing on a naval-critical NE capability, in only a few of them
can, or should, the program own the responsibility to shape and sponsor
the basic research needed to further that capability. The committee there-
fore recommends that NNR-NE maintain a strong focus on basic research
in its lead core areas. This NE research should continue to be viewed as the
key building block for the future Navy.
ONR has long recognized the vital role of NNR-NE in supporting a
portfolio of basic research, which is now focused on the following six tech-
nical areas relevant to naval-critical capabilities and interests:
1. advanced naval power

2. hydrodynamics
3. propulsors
4. ship structural reliability
5. control and automation
6. ship design
However, in considering these six technical areas according to the

“lead, leverage, and monitor” framework, the committee observed that
one of them, “control and automation,” consists largely of tests being
performed on an automated surface vessel without supporting any basic
research or unique new S&T. Additionally, the committee began to question
whether an emphasis on “automation” could detract from the program’s
attentiveness to developments from the more encompassing and promis-
ing field of “autonomy.” In the case of autonomy, however, a great deal
of relevant S&T is being advanced in other domains, making it a strong
candidate for NNR-NE leveraging and monitoring for opportunities to fur-
ther the naval-critical capability of platform control. The array of research
needs relevant to platform control, however, extends beyond an interest in
autonomy and is accompanied by a host of research needs related to the
Navy’s critical interest in platform maneuverability (e.g., to understand the
complex coupled platform motions when performing dynamic maneuvers
and control in challenging environments).
Accordingly, the committee believes that ONR should replace “Con-
trol and Automation” as a core area of NNR-NE research with “Platform
Control and Maneuverability,” a more encompassing interest and one that
requires research in many technical areas in addition to automation and

autonomy. While autonomy is a technical area vital to the future of naval

operations, considerable research investments are being made in autono-
mous systems and related fields, such as robotics, elsewhere within the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD) (including other parts of ONR) and the
commercial sector. In this instance, it would be appropriate for NNR-NE
to track and seek opportunities to leverage these other efforts to further the
Navy’s critical interest in platform control and maneuverability.
Finally, in considering the platform as the forcing function, or driver,
of innovation, the committee began to question whether the six techni-
cal areas that currently constitute the NNR-NE’s core are being pursued
in a manner that is sufficiently integrated at the platform level and with
an adequate focus on the affordability that will be needed for innovation
deployment. Even as the six specific elements of NNR-NE’s core research
portfolio may change over time, the need to integrate at the platform level
and the prospect of affordability will remain ongoing concerns. Therefore,
the committee recommends that “platform innovations integration and
affordability” be added as a new core NNR-NE S&T area for the specific
purpose of creating and managing broad platform and multi-platform
challenges and designed to identify S&T gaps and opportunities across the
technology spectrum.
BUILDING THE FUTURE NAVAL ENGINEERING WORKFORCE

Being the lead in furthering naval-critical NE capabilities also implies that
NNR-NE is responsible for sustaining and developing the S&T workforce
and research infrastructure needed for those capabilities, as the three p
illars
must function together to ensure that the program’s NE responsibilities
are met. Therefore, ONR should apply the “lead, leverage, and monitor”
framework for guiding its NNR-NE education and workforce development
priorities and programs.
The NNR-NE’s mission is to ensure that the NE workforce possesses
the requisite talent and skills to meet the future Navy’s NE needs. The pro-
gram envisages NE workforce development along a continuum from grade
school to college and university programs to professional development. Its
efforts to build the NE workforce are therefore designed to be holistic and
progressive, starting with inspiring science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) interest in grades K–12, providing NE experiential
learning opportunities, encouraging training and education in community
and 4-year colleges, supporting graduate studies and university research,
and providing professional development opportunities.
The NNR-NE’s efforts to promote NE may be paying dividends, as
evidenced by the growing number of graduate and post-doctoral students
supported by the program. Indeed, this positive development could have

SUMMARY 7
its roots in NNR-NE’s efforts to interest K–12 students in STEM and to

inspire undergraduate students to pursue advanced degrees in NE. However,
it may also be reflective of the broader upward trend in the number of indi
viduals entering relevant STEM fields to create a larger body of interested
and capable candidates for NNR-NE support. Unfortunately, impact metrics
are not available for assessing the validity of inferences about the long-term
effects and value of the NNR-NE’s STEM and experiential learning invest-
ments. Therefore, to inform its investment choices, ONR should perform
periodic assessments of the effectiveness of NNR-NE workforce development
programs, such as faculty summer fellowships, student internships, and cen-
ters for innovation, in connecting faculty and students with Navy challenges
and problems. The assessments should be supported by reporting metrics that
track career outcomes and paths.
Because NE is multidisciplinary, it shares the same workforce pipeline
as many other technical and engineering fields. Faced with high demand
for needed engineering and technical expertise, and competition for skilled
workers by many other S&T domains, the NE enterprise cannot become
complacent. It must look for opportunities to expand and target its reach to
attract students and workers who remain underrepresented in STEM fields.
For this reason, NNR-NE should emphasize the importance of engaging
individuals from underrepresented groups to maximize the talent pool
when developing and expanding programs aimed at inspiring students and
recruiting workers to the NE enterprise.
The recruitment and retention of NE professionals can be further chal-
lenged by the need for security clearances for new hires. The difficulty of re-
cruiting in an environment that demands security clearances is a DOD-wide
problem; however, ONR may be able to ease the problem, at least margin-
ally, for recruiting to the NE enterprise. ONR should consider innovative
means to expedite the final stages of recruitment of STEM professionals
engaged in NE, such as by providing funding for newly hired personnel to
train and work productively on unclassified projects while awaiting facility
access clearances.
Even when its workforce-related budget limits the scope of efforts it
can lead, the NNR-NE can make targeted investments to capitalize on the
education and workforce programs of others, making them aligned with
and relevant to the needs of the NE enterprise. As a logical place to start,
ONR should use NNR-NE funds to leverage the STEM education and
workforce programs that already exist in the U.S. Department of the Navy
and the U.S. Department of Defense, such as the National Defense Science
& Engineering Graduate Fellowship and the Science, Mathematics, and
Research for Transformation Scholarship-for-Service Programs, as a means
of increasing participation by naval engineers and naval architects in ac-
cordance with the importance of these disciplines to the Navy and DOD.

SUSTAINING A VITAL R&D INFRASTRUCTURE

Success in furthering the R&D pillar of the NNR-NE—as well as the S&T
workforce development pillar—requires an infrastructure of experimental
facilities and modeling and simulation resources. NNR-NE investments
in the maintenance, invigoration, and advancement of this physical and
computational infrastructure can therefore be critical to meeting the future
Navy’s unique NE needs. However, because NNR-NE does not own, man-
age, or program the capital investments made in much of this infrastructure,
especially the large-scale experimental facilities, it must be astute in finding
ways to ensure its availability and suitability for conducting and integrating
needed R&D. Accordingly, ONR should use the “lead, leverage, monitor”
framework to guide NNR-NE’s efforts to ensure the availability and suit-
ability of the NE R&D infrastructure.
NE R&D continues to require experimental infrastructure, even as the
requisite types of infrastructure may be changing. This report identifies a
number of challenges that NNR-NE faces in ensuring the availability and
suitability of the needed infrastructure, including cost and access constraints.
While NNR-NE supports the design and development of R&D infrastructure
at the smaller scale (often in university settings), the nature of NE research
can often require large-scale infrastructure with unique capabilities. Compre-
hensive solutions will therefore be needed to overcome the cost and access
constraints of large-scale facilities and explore ways to leverage the many
other existing experimental assets both within and outside the NE domain.
As a first step in the development of such solutions, ONR should
undertake a thorough inventory and assessment of NE testing infrastructure
needs and capabilities, large and small, in the Navy, elsewhere in DOD, at
universities, in the private sector, and at institutions abroad. The inventory
and assessment should consider options for making greater use of relevant
testing infrastructure from within and outside DOD, including the assets
of other government agencies. ONR needs to be systematic in its choices
about when and how it should lead, leverage, and monitor for the purpose
of ensuring that the adequate experimental infrastructure is available for
the NE enterprise. Accordingly, ONR should develop a comprehensive plan
for increasing the availability and utilization of needed S&T experimental
infrastructure, including making large-scale facilities more affordable to
NNR-NE researchers and smaller-scale facilities less redundant and more
open to shared use.
ENSURING THE PROGRAM’S ENDURING SUCCESS

Many of the findings from this review reflect positively on ONR’s execu-
tion of the NNR-NE, suggesting that a number of individual program

SUMMARY 9
elements are performing as intended to sustain and develop the nation’s NE

capacity for the benefit of the Navy. At the same time, the review surfaced
challenges to the longer-term health of the NE enterprise and the impact
of the NNR-NE program—notably, technology developments and innova-
tions across a wide range of S&T fields have evolved the NE enterprise;
increased competition for STEM talent in a technology-driven economy
threatens the quality and quantity of the future NE workforce; and the
U.S.-based experimental infrastructure for NE is at risk of eroding due to
a smaller number of researchers having to bear the high-cost of operating
and maintaining physical facilities.
These challenges will create important choices for ONR as it prioritizes
its NNR-NE research, workforce, and infrastructure investments. Carried
out for each of the three pillars (see Table S-1), the committee found the
“lead, leverage, and monitor” framework to be promising as a guide for
strategic choices, and believes the same analytic tool can, and should, be
used by ONR for making choices both within and across the NNR-NE
portfolio. Used in this way, the framework can signal to NNR-NE program
leaders when they should reallocate resources among the three pillars and
also when they should seek high-level support from ONR to supplement
pillar resources. The committee therefore recommends that ONR adopt a
“lead, leverage, and monitor” framework for the strategic programming,
prioritization, and integration of NNR-NE investments both within and
across the research, workforce, and R&D infrastructure pillars.
As the NE enterprise changes, driven by new S&T developments and
changing naval operational concepts, the “lead, leverage, and monitor”
construct can also be used by ONR to assess NNR-NE’s progress and ac-
complishments to inform needed changes at a strategic, program-wide level.
Such assessments, however, will require that NNR-NE develop more impact
metrics that are tracked on a multi-year basis, such as workforce retention
statistics for NE students, researchers, and practitioners as opposed to
simple measures of output or activity (e.g., number of papers published,
number of graduate students funded). Ideally these impact metrics would
be accompanied by leading metrics, such as the number of undergraduate
students choosing majors in NE and related disciplines, to provide an ear-
lier indication of program successes, opportunities, and challenges.
The “lead, leverage, and monitor” construct will aid future external
reviews of the NNR-NE. Indeed, as the technological landscape changes
at an increasingly faster pace, this also implies that such external reviews
should be conducted on a commensurate time scale if the results are to be
used to inform decisions about needed changes to the program. Therefore,
the committee recommends that ONR consider leveraging a body of diverse
experts to serve in a periodic advisory capacity. Ideally, the full NNR-NE
portfolio, including its classified elements, would be reviewed at intervals

TABLE S-1 Example Application of the “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor”

Framework Within and Across the Three Pillars of the National Naval
Responsibility—Naval Engineering Program (NNR-NE)
Lead Leverage Monitor
Research and • Platform hydrodynamics • Autonomy and robotics • Quantum science
Development • Platform structures and • Data science and and computing
materials artificial intelligence • Alternative energy
• Platform propulsion • Advanced sensors resources
• Platform power • Cybersecurity • Undersea resource
• Platform systems design • Communications utilization and
• Platform control and • Power systems and extraction
maneuverability power electronics • Nanotechnology
• Platform innovations • Advanced materials • Biomaterials
integration and and manufacturing • Synthetic biology
affordability • Multidisciplinary • Cognitive science
design optimization • Climate change
• Human–machine
interface
Workforce • Inspire naval engineering • Navy and U.S. • Developments in
education and attraction Department of Defense science, technology,
of talent (DOD) scholarships, engineering, and
• Sponsor naval fellowships, and mathematics (STEM)
engineering experiential internships toward NE outreach and
learning and training via education training programs in
university grants that • Industry internships the United States and
include undergraduate • Government and overseas
and graduate students industry faculty • Technology
• Sponsor K–12 programs sabbaticals in NE developers external
and other outreach relevant settings to DOD, including
programs relevant to • U.S. and international international
naval engineering (NE) STEM competitions sources, with a view
• Sponsor student reflecting future NE to keeping training
internships at relevant challenges programs supported
Navy and DOD facilities by the Office of
• Sponsor NE faculty Naval Research up
internships and to date, as well as
sabbaticals at relevant identifying potential
government (and possibly experiential learning
industry) facilities opportunities
Infrastructure • User group of • Warfare Center • Test capabilities
academic researchers facilities and access provided
using Warfare Center • Commercial sector test by international
infrastructure centers facilities
• Consortium of National • Private and other
Naval Responsibility government
(NNR)-NE university infrastructure
facilities • DOD high-performance
computing

SUMMARY 11
of no more than 3 to 4 years using the framework described earlier. This

review body would ideally consist of individuals from the S&T community,
the systems commands and operational Navy, and the platform-building
and platform systems sectors to bring a range of expertise and perspectives
on S&T capabilities, operational and workforce needs, and the transition of
innovations to naval platforms. Given an understanding of evolving Navy
needs, this multidisciplinary group could assess and enhance NNR-NE
research in a variety of ways on varying S&T time scales.
The committee is pleased to have had the opportunity to provide this
second external and independent review of the NNR-NE. The 15 recom-
mendations offered in this report, compiled in Box S-2, are intended to be
constructive and to provide the succinct, actionable advice that ONR needs
to support its efforts to ensure that NNR-NE achieves its vital mission in
fast-changing S&T and operational environments.
BOX S-2
Report Recommendations
Research and Development Pillar (Chapter 3)

3-1: Platform innovations integration and affordability should be added as a new
core National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering (NNR-NE) science and
technology (S&T) area for the specific purpose of creating and managing broad
platform and multi-platform challenges and designed to identify S&T gaps and
opportunities across the technology spectrum.
3-2: The Office of Naval Research (ONR) should replace “Control and Automa-
tion” as a core area of NNR-NE research with “Platform Control and Maneuver-
ability,” a more encompassing interest and one that requires research in many
technical areas in addition to automation and autonomy.
3-3: ONR should adopt a “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework for prioritizing,
programming, and integrating NNR-NE’s S&T investments. This framework should
be used not only to guide decisions about critical naval engineering interests that
require NNR-NE’s lead support for S&T but also to identify S&T from outside the
program that can be leveraged to further these critical interests.
3-4: As it periodically reviews the coverage, relevance, and linkages of the S&T
that it leads, leverages, and monitors, NNR-NE should adopt a platform-centric
approach to identifying innovation needs, challenges, and opportunities. In-
formed by the promise of the technologies that it leads, leverages, and monitors,
NNR-NE should be anchored by a strategic vision of naval platforms 20 to 30
years out.
continued

BOX S-2 Continued
3-5: NNR-NE should maintain a strong focus on basic research in its lead core
areas. This NE research should continue to be viewed as the key building block
for the future Navy.
Workforce Pillar (Chapter 4)

4-1: ONR should perform periodic assessments of the effectiveness of NNR-NE
workforce development programs, such as faculty summer fellowships, student
internships, and centers for innovation (e.g., the Center for Innovation in Ship
Design and Centers for Innovation in Naval Technologies), in connecting faculty
and students with Navy challenges and problems. The assessments should be
supported by reporting metrics that track career outcomes and paths.
4-2: ONR should use NNR-NE funds to leverage the science, technology, en-
gineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce programs that
already exist in the U.S. Department of the Navy and the U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD), such as the National Defense Science & Engineering Gradu-
ate Fellowship and the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation
Scholarship-for-Service Programs, as a means of increasing participation by
naval engineers and naval architects in accordance with the importance of these
disciplines to the Navy and DOD.
4-3: ONR should consider innovative means to expedite the final stages of
recruitment of STEM professionals engaged in naval engineering, such as by
providing funding for newly hired personnel to train and work productively on
unclassified projects while awaiting facility access clearances.
4-4: When developing and expanding NNR-NE programs aimed at inspiring

and recruiting students and workers to the naval engineering enterprise, ONR
should emphasize the importance of engaging individuals from underrepre-
sented groups to maximize the talent pool.
4-5: ONR should apply the “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework for guiding
its education pipeline and workforce priorities and programs.
Research and Development Infrastructure Pillar (Chapter 5)

5-1: ONR should undertake a thorough inventory and assessment of naval engi-
neering testing infrastructure needs and capabilities, large and small, in the Navy,
elsewhere in DOD, at universities, in the private sector, and at institutions abroad.
5-2: ONR should use the “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework to guide
NNR-NE’s efforts to ensure the availability and suitability of the naval engineering
R&D infrastructure.
5-3: ONR should develop a comprehensive plan for increasing the availabil-
ity and utilization of needed S&T experimental infrastructure, including making
large-scale facilities more affordable to NNR-NE researchers and smaller-scale
facilities less redundant and more open to shared use.
continued

SUMMARY 13
BOX S-2 Continued
Summary Advice (Chapter 6)

6-1: ONR should adopt a “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework for the stra-
tegic programming, prioritization, and integration of NNR-NE investments both
within and across the R&D, workforce, and infrastructure pillars.
6-2: ONR should consider leveraging a body of diverse experts to serve in a pe-
riodic advisory capacity. Ideally, the full NNR-NE portfolio, including its classified
elements, would be reviewed at intervals of no more than 3 to 4 years using the
framework described earlier. This review body would ideally consist of individuals
from the S&T community, the Systems Commands and operational Navy, and
the platform-building and platform systems sectors to bring a range of expertise
and perspectives on S&T capabilities, operational and workforce needs, and the
transition of innovations to naval platforms. Given its understanding of evolving
Navy needs, this multidisciplinary group could assess and enhance NNR-NE
research in a variety of ways on varying S&T time scales.


1
Study Background, Request,
and Approach
BACKGROUND
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) conducts the extramural science and
technology (S&T) programs of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Headed
by the Chief of Naval Research, ONR includes six departments that fund
programs in support of S&T research areas outlined in Navy strategic plan-
ning documents. In 2001, ONR designated naval engineering (NE), ocean
acoustics, underwater weaponry, and undersea medicine as National Naval
Responsibilities (NNRs). A fifth technical area, sea-based aviation, was
added to the NNRs in 2011. These designations stemmed from recogni-
tion that the Navy must have a robust and focused research community to
advance the state of the art and to generate an adequate pipeline of new
scientists and engineers in the S&T disciplines important to strengthening
the capabilities and performance of the Navy’s fleet and operational forces.
The technical areas designated as NNRs were viewed as being essential to
innovation in naval capabilities and performance and warranting special
attention by ONR because no other govenrmental agency or commercial
interest could be expected to continually support research intended to sus-
tain and further them.
The NNRs were thus envisaged as having the purpose of establishing
direction and long-term goals for a related set of basic and applied research
programs.1 In the case of the NNR for NE (NNR-NE), ONR was tasked
1 Gaffney, P., F.E. Saalfeld, and J.F. Petrik. 1999. Science and Technology from an Investment
Point of View: How ONR Handles Department of the Navy’s Portfolio. Public Management,
Sept.–Oct., pp. 12–17.
15

with dedicating the resources needed to develop innovative shipbuilding

concepts applicable to critical interests of the Navy, particularly in the areas
of ship power, hydromechanics, propulsors, structural reliability, control and
automation, and design. It was expected that ONR would conduct major
field experiments that integrate technologies into innovative ship concepts
and invest in students and research infrastructure. ONR was also charged
with examining the health of the national S&T enterprise vital to the long-
term strength of NE and with sustaining this health through means such
as developing university–industry–laboratory consortia and encouraging
industry–university partnerships for career development of future naval

engineers.
The 2001 memorandum designating the NNRs was followed by addi-
tional policy documents specifying required activities in the specific NNR
initiatives and the functions and responsibilities of the program office
responsible for administering them. One of the requirements is for the
NNRs to be reviewed every 5 years by an independent body. Thus, in 2009,
ONR commissioned the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine (the National Academies), operating through the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) and its Marine Board, to convene a committee to
review the state of basic and applied research in the scientific fields that sup-
port NE and to advise on whether the NNR-NE initiative has been effective
in sustaining these fields. The study committee was also asked to identify
opportunities to enhance innovation, research, and graduate education in
these fields and to identify areas of scientific research that provide oppor-
tunities to make fundamental advances in naval ship capabilities.
The TRB study committee that produced the report Naval Engineering
in the 21st Century: The Science and Technology Foundation for Future
Naval Fleets2 conducted its work during 2009 and 2010. To inform its
effort, the committee commissioned a set of papers, invited presentations,
and held workshops engaging experts on topics relevant to NE research
needs and opportunities. These papers, presentations, and workshops in-
formed the committee’s observations about particular areas of research that
hold promise for advancing the critical NE interests of the NNR-NE. The
committee also sought data from ONR on its prioritization and program-
ming of funds for research as well as on educational activities to attract
students and train beginning researchers in relevant fields. For example, the
committee tabulated ONR’s total spending on basic and applied research
and education in the NE fields, the number of projects by performing sec-
tor (e.g., universities, Navy labs, and industry), and the division of projects
across the NNR-NE’s technical fields. The committee also reviewed ONR’s
output metrics associated with this spending, including papers and book
2 See http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/165502.aspx.

STUDY BACKGROUND, REQUEST, AND APPROACH 17
chapters published, number of principal investigators, and number of grad-

uate and undergraduate students supported by NNR-NE-sponsored work.
The subject matter of the main conclusions and recommendations of
the 2011 TRB report is listed in Box 1-1. The study committee concluded
that the NNRs are a useful means of organizing ONR’s support for basic
and applied research in the S&T fields, especially for NE, because this
enterprise draws from a large number of technical fields that depend on
Navy interest and support. The study committee recommended that ONR
carry out regular and systematic assessments of the state of health of these
fields to better program its resources. The committee also offered a series
of recommendations for identifying and exploiting opportunities to enhance
research and education pertaining to NE and to improve the effectiveness of
the NNR-NE initiative through means such as strategic planning, measur-
ing the balance of the portfolio, conducting external reviews of proposals
and projects, and emphasizing interdisciplinary and integrative research.
REQUEST FOR THIS STUDY

In keeping with the expectation that the NNR-NE undergo an independent
review every 5 years, in 2017 ONR commissioned this follow-on study.
As with the 2011 study, ONR asked for an assessment of the status of
efforts under the NNR-NE to ensure that a healthy S&T and educational
BOX 1-1
Subject Matter of TRB Special Report 306:
Naval Engineering in the 21st Century: The Science and
Technology Foundation for Future Naval Fleets
1. Need for and value of NNR-NE

2. State of S&T supporting naval engineering
Research
Education
Infrastructure
3. Wholeness of the ONR NNR-NE research portfolio
Overall portfolio
Portfolio in each technical field
4. Opportunities to enhance research and education
Enhancing research
Enhancing education
5. NNR-NE effectiveness
Overall NNR-NE effectiveness
Increasing NNR-NE effectiveness

enterprise exists and is capable of meeting the future technology needs

of the Navy for developing highly capable and affordable sea systems.
However, certain aspects of the study charge, or Statement of Task, were
changed in comparison to the charge given to the first study committee.
That earlier study was commissioned when the NNRs were still in their
formative stages, and thus that study committee’s report provided guid-
ance on how ONR should carry out the NNR-NE both strategically (e.g.,
by advising ONR to dedicate resources to problems whose solutions have
broad applicability to future ship programs) and procedurally (e.g., by
recommending the development of an enterprise-wide information system
for making information on NNR-NE projects available to proposers and
for communicating achievements). Consequently, the report contains 20
recommendations intended to inform both ONR’s vision for the NNR-NE
program and its scoping and management of the program.
The full Statement of Task for this study is provided in Box 1-2. It was not
conceived as a simple update of the earlier report; for instance, the commit-
tee was not asked to compare the number of papers, students, and principal
investigators supported by the program since 2011. Indeed, the gathering
and analysis of such output data had not yielded significant insights when
undertaken during the first study. The 2011 committee, which was specifically
tasked with collecting, synthesizing, and evaluating data on the core technical
fields of the NNR-NE, pointed out how such metrics “fall short of adequate
measures of the benefit of ONR’s investment in NNRs.”3 Instead, this second
study was conceived to be more strategic in its orientation, intended to inform
ONR’s choices as it positions a now mature NNR-NE to respond to physi-
cal, operational, and technology environments that have evolved significantly
since the NNRs were created in the early 2000s. Accordingly, ONR asked the
committee to consider whether there are other technical areas that warrant
greater attention by the program, including cybersecurity of connected vessels
and future unmanned naval systems.
The assessment and advice in this report were informed by the commit-
tee’s many consultations with officials from ONR’s Advanced Naval Plat-
forms Program, which administers the NNR-NE program, Navy leadership
and fleet representatives, other U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) officials,
industry performers, and academic researchers (see Appendix A for a list
of invited speakers and presenters). Figure 1-1 shows the position of the
Advanced Naval Platforms Program within the organizational structures of
the U.S. Department of the Navy and ONR. In meetings with the committee
to discuss the study charge, officials from the Advanced Naval Platforms
Division explained their reasoning for looking outside the traditional NE
domains. They pointed to drivers of change such as the Navy’s critical
3 See http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/165502.aspx, p. 12.

BOX 1-2
Statement of Task
The study will inform the Office of Naval Research (ONR) on the status of its
efforts under the National Naval Responsibilities for Naval Engineering (NNR-NE)
program to ensure that a healthy science and technology (S&T) and educational
enterprise exists and is capable of meeting the future technology needs of the
U.S. Navy in developing highly capable and affordable sea systems.
To do so, the study will evaluate:
a. Current practice of naval engineering and whether it is consistent with

the scope of technical areas that comprise the NNR-NE program. The
evaluation will consider cybersecurity of connected vessels and future
unmanned naval systems in addition to traditional sea platforms; ship
design tools; structural systems; hydromechanics and hull design; pro-
pulsors, platform power, and energy; and automation, control, and
system integration.
b. Health, currency, and technical adequacy of the key S&T disciplines
that support these core technical areas as well as others identified by
the review of current naval engineering practice.
c. Health of the undergraduate and graduate education systems for develop
ing future naval engineering professionals.
d. State of facilities and equipment to maintain naval engineering and the
levels and trends in resources being devoted to the NNR-NE program
relative to its mission.
In assessing the health of the key science and technology disciplines and
the systems for developing naval engineering professionals, the study will identify
potential deficiencies in educational and research programs. The study commit-
tee will also examine trends in ONR’s devotion of resources to the program. As
appropriate, the study will provide recommendations on opportunities to enhance
naval engineering innovation, research, and undergraduate and graduate edu-
cational capabilities in basic and applied research.
interest in developing advanced power systems (e.g., energy on demand,

integrate power and energy) to accommodate next generation w eaponry,
exploiting the capabilities of the rapidly changing digital world (e.g., model-
based engineering, artificial intelligence, rapid software updates), ensur-
ing the cybersecurity of highly integrated electro-mechanical systems, and
bringing about highly reliable, survivable autonomy. They pointed to the
implications of such critical interests on the NE workforce and education
pipeline as NE becomes even more multi- and interdisciplinary, and on S&T
equipment and facilities as modeling and simulation capabilities become
more advanced.

FIGURE 1-1 Position of the NNR-NE in the U.S. Department of the Navy and the
Office of Naval Research.
Furthermore, the ONR sponsors expressed a desire for succinct, action-

able advice to inform the changes that will be needed in the NNR-NE to
realize its full potential.4 In doing so, they emphasized the importance of
ensuring the NNR-NE aligns with priorities established in the Naval R&D
Framework, which demands technology-focused, integrated research port-
folios that account for the future force attributes necessary for the Navy
and Marine Corps. The Naval R&D Framework defines six integrated
research portfolios, one of which is “Mission Capable, Persistent and Sur-
vivable Naval Platforms.” This portfolio consists of NE and seven other
“enduring research responsibilities,” and it emphasizes the advancement
of naval platforms, not only ships, commensurate with the Navy’s interest
in a distributed maritime operational concept. These new mission realities
and operational paradigms were characterized as providing a charter for
change to the NNRs.
Informed by its discussions with the study sponsors and its review of
the Naval R&D Framework, the committee came to appreciate the fluidity
of the landscape in which the NNR-NE now resides. In applying the Naval
R&D Framework to the Naval Research Enterprise, the Chief of Naval Re-
search emphasized that the enterprise will be expected to accept more risk,
become more agile and flexible, and become more priority driven based on
core naval functions and domains.5 The NNR-NE and the other NNRs are
4 “National Naval Responsibility: Naval Engineering—National Academy of Sciences
Study.” Briefing by Thomas Fu, Director, Advanced Naval Platforms Division, April 30, 2018.
5 See https://www.onr.navy.mil/our-research/naval-research-framework.

expected to be responsive to the rapidly evolving physical, operational, and

technology environments of future naval platforms. Accordingly, the study
sponsors expressed an interest in having a report with a strategic focus and
that contains high-level advice that will remain viable as the environment
in which the NNRs function evolves, as opposed to a review of the finer
details of the existing program and its processes and management.
STUDY APPROACH
In considering how best to fulfill the study’s Statement of Task, the com-
mittee gave careful consideration to the sponsor’s expressed desire for an
actionable, strategic-level report that recognizes the changing operational
demands of the Navy, the dynamic technological landscape, and the chang-
ing composition and requirements of naval platforms. In accordance, the
committee adopted a fairly broad and open working definition of NE
as “the field of study, expertise, and practice that concerns the design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of all naval platforms, which
includes traditional Navy ships/vessels as well as other platforms such as
an operating unit of networked manned or unmanned systems.” In the com-
mittee’s view, such a broad-based definition of naval platforms is consistent
with the interest of the Navy in implementing the operational concept of
distributed maritime operations, which will create demands for platforms
having increased modularity, reconfigurability, and connectivity.6
After reviewing the 2011 report, it became evident to the committee
that the context for today’s NNR-NE is very different from the context of
the program’s inception and that expectations for the program continue to
evolve in response to new Navy demands and interests, as expressed in the
Naval R&D Framework. The committee also recognized that a data-based
review of the program that focused on NNR-NE’s past accomplishments
and performance, similar to that requested for the 2011 study, would be
unresponsive to the interests of ONR leadership in addressing prospective
needs. As a practical matter too, such a review would not have been pos-
sible in light of subsequent shifts in Navy priorities that have led to changes
in ONR’s portfolio structure and performance measurement data. The
committee thus determined that an update of the 2011 review was neither
practical nor preferred. Instead, it approached the study with the intention
of providing top-level, strategic guidance to ONR by seeking answers to
the kinds of questions contained in Box 1-3, which concern the NNR-NE’s
6 Congressional Research Service. 2019. Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress, August 26. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.

pdf.

BOX 1-3
Questions Posed During the Study’s NNR-NE Review
Strategic Alignment to Navy Direction:

• S&T Portfolio Relevance: Given an evolving threat environment and
transformative U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) strategy, are these
the most important areas of research to enable the Next Navy, and the
Navy-after-Next?
• Portfolio Management: What methods and metrics may be used to
strategically evaluate the full naval engineering (NE) portfolio in support
of Navy strategy and in conjunction with the broader U.S. Department
of the Navy enterprise?
Research Project Value:

• Research Quality: Is the current research well focused on future Navy
needs?
• Research Investment Optimization: Given finite resources, where and
how should the Office of Naval Research (ONR) build on the work of
other research and development efforts, government agencies, or com-
mercial entities?
Long-Term Health of the NE Enterprise:

• Naval Engineering Talent: Is there adequate workforce depth and
breadth to address the NE portfolio today and in the future? What is the
role of NE versus ONR or DOD at large in inspiring the NE talent pool?
Will the U.S. Department of the Navy enterprise attract the top talent it
needs?
• Proof of Concept: What is the health of the nation’s test infrastructure
to validate or inspire new discoveries? Are there any concerning trends
or promising new approaches related to technology evaluation?
• Research Viability: What must be done to nurture/protect the process
of scientific discovery while ensuring viable technology is efficiently
fielded for operational use?
strategic alignment to Navy direction, research project value, and long-term

health of the NE enterprise.
The committee sought answers to these and other questions in meet-
ings with ONR officials and program leaders who briefed the committee
on the NRR-NE program and by inviting speakers from industry, aca-
demia, the Navy, and elsewhere in DOD who provided their views on
naval engineering S&T, workforce, and infrastructure needs and oppor
tunities for the NNR to help meet them. These invited speakers (listed
in Appendix A) provided the committee with a range of information and
insight on warfighter, industry, technologists, and educator perspectives

as they pertain to the NNR-NE’s technical (S&T) research, workforce,

and infrastructure.
To retain a strategic focus, the committee also developed an evaluation
framework for reviewing each of the three main elements, or pillars, of the
NRR-NE. These three pillars and the evaluation framework became central
to the committee’s approach in conducting the study and advising ONR in
a strategic manner. The pillars and evaluation framework are explained in
the next chapter and are used as the basis for analysis in the remainder of
the report, which is structured to consider one pillar at a time.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The committee believes the report, organized around this framework, is
responsive to the Statement of Task. The logic and purpose of the frame-
work are discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 addresses the first two items
(“a” and “b”) of the Statement of Task, which call for an examination
of the scope of the NNR-NE’s core S&T areas. Chapter 3 points to the
importance of NNR-NE extending its reach outside the traditional bounds
of NE by leveraging and monitoring S&T developments in other fields.
The chapter also gives a number of examples of candidate S&T areas that
can be leveraged and monitored. While the committee expects ONR to
find value in these examples, it believes the “lead, leverage, and monitor”
framework will prove most valuable to ONR over the longer term, as it
rationalizes its future research portfolio choices critical to this first pillar
of the NNR-NE program.
Chapter 4 addresses item “c” of the Statement of Task, which the com-
mittee refers to as the education and workforce pillar. Consideration is given
in this chapter to NNR-NE’s accomplishments in sponsoring undergraduate
and graduate NE students and inspiring science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics interest among younger students through educational
and experiential learning programs. The chapter also discusses some of the
impediments to attracting students to the NE field, including the need for
security clearances. Chapter 4 concludes by examining opportunities for
NNR-NE to strengthen this pillar, such as by leveraging the S&T programs
that are administered elsewhere in ONR, the Navy, and DOD.
Item “d” of the Statement of Task is examined in Chapter 5, which
considers the NE experimental infrastructure pillar. Much of the discussion
in this chapter is devoted to issues pertaining to the physical infrastructure,
and particularly the challenges that NE researchers face in covering the
cost of using and gaining access to the larger, government-run test facilities.
Chapter 5 also considers emerging developments such as the increasing role
of computational capabilities and how their use may create demands for
investment in new experimental infrastructure.

The report does not give a lot of attention to characterizing the cur-
rent “health” of the NE enterprise and its three pillars, as requested in the
Statement of Task. Because characterizing the health of a large enterprise
can be a complex and subjective matter, any such characterizations would
have required access to a robust and diverse set of metrics and data, which
the committee could not find. At various places throughout the report,
however, examples are given of the kinds of data that would be helpful to
assessing the health of the NE enterprise and the impact of the NNR-NE
and its three pillars. These examples are offered in recognition that ONR
has recently established a Data and Analytics Lab led by a Chief Analytics
Officer, whose mission includes supporting the strategic decision making of
the NNRs through in-depth analysis of their programs and portfolios. In
Chapter 6, the report concludes with advice aimed at ensuring the NNR-NE
achieves enduring success. The importance of strengthening data, includ-
ing leading indicator and impact metrics, is emphasized as part of a more
comprehensive effort to shape program priorities and track their effects that
includes the use of regular external reviews.

A Framework for National

Naval Responsibility for Naval
Engineering Evaluation
Recognizing the changing environment in which the National Naval

Responsibility (NNR) programs reside, the committee considered how it can
best help Office of Naval Research (ONR) leadership with strategic advice
intended to position the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering
(NNR-NE) program in accordance with the new Naval R&D Framework’s
focus on “aligning, allocating, and accelerating” research and development
(R&D) to better meet the technology and innovation needs of the future
Navy. The committee took note of the Framework’s emphasis on ensuring
that the NNRs’ portfolio allocation priorities are made in an explicit and sys-
tematic manner that considers factors such as technology timelines, capacity
to create evolutionary versus revolutionary capabilities, and risk potential.1
One factor cited as having especially strong relevance to the NNRs is the
importance of ONR carefully determining when it should lead, and when it
should “fast-follow.” The Framework points to the need to “lead those areas
critical to naval warfighting or where the naval force has a unique require-
ment or use,” and to “fast-follow and/or leverage expertise in other areas
common among service partners or commercial interests.”
The NNRs were conceived with the clear intention of ensuring that
ONR leads in investing in and sustaining the science and technology (S&T)
in areas of critical and enduring importance to naval superiority and that
are not likely to be adequately supported by the S&T investments of indus-
try, other military services, or other government agencies. In the case of the
NNR-NE, its critical research areas are intended to further naval-critical
1 See https://www.navy.mil/strategic/2017-Naval-Strategy.pdf, p. 8.
25

NE interests and capabilities that could not be expected to be sustained by

other ONR research programs or by research programs at other agencies
or the private sector in the long term. The Framework’s emphasis on ONR
taking the “lead” in such areas is therefore well established as a basis for
each NNR’s programming of its R&D portfolio. The Framework’s empha-
sis on the NNRs also having a “fast-follow” or “leverage” role when mak-
ing portfolio choices, however, has been an implicit, if not always explicit,
part of each NNR’s scope of responsibility. Indeed, when it created a fifth
NNR on sea-based aviation in 2011, ONR offered the following taxonomy
to define the scope of this NNR’s responsibility2:
• Navy-Unique Challenges: Areas related to the unique operating

environment or requirements of the Navy that have little leverage
from other organizations’ investments and must be addressed by
Naval S&T
• Navy-Driven Challenges: Research areas that may attract S&T
investments from other organizations but that require additional
Navy investments to address specific Navy needs and requirements
• Common Challenges: Research areas that are common to multiple
services, in some cases the commercial sector, and where addi-
tional S&T is required to continue to address Navy needs and
responsibilities
This taxonomy distinguishes among those instances in which the NNR

should be prepared to take the lead (Navy-unique challenges) and when
it should be prepared to leverage its resources (Navy-driven and common
challenges) to different degrees. The taxonomy is illustrated further by
Figure 2-1, which shows how the NNR-NE portfolio fits within the larger
universe of related S&T programs both within and outside ONR. While
ONR can formulate programs under its purview, represented by the inner
two circles, it must by necessity partner in various ways to engage the rest of
the S&T universe of naval engineering programs and related S&T fields. In
the case of Navy-unique needs, the potential for partnerships is limited, and
therefore the inner circle represents the core of NNR-NE’s scope of respon-
sibility. Examples of naval-unique needs are stealth hull designs, shock- and
impact-resistant structures, propulsors that are quiet and can survive high-
intensity impact loads from undersea explosions, and platform design tools
for integrating complex warfighting systems. While opportunities for lever-
aging may exist across all of the circles, the NNR’s emphasis on exploiting
them will depend in part on the kind of distinctions made in the foregoing
2 See https://www.onr.navy.mil/-/media/Files/35/NNR-Sea-Based-Aviation.ashx?la=en&hash=
E0B8262597CFA7E1AF6923EC4905B06486923333.

A FRAMEWORK FOR NNR-NE EVALUATION 27
FIGURE 2-1 Global context for the NNR-NE program.

NOTE: DOD = U.S. Department of Defense; NNR = National Naval Responsibility;
ONR = Office of Naval Research; US Gov = U.S. government.
taxonomy about whether the challenges are Navy-driven or common among

many services and/or commercial sectors. The former may be candidates for
formal partnership arrangements while the latter may be better suited to
active monitoring and other means of ensuring mutual awareness.
“LEAD, LEVERAGE, AND MONITOR” EVALUATION

FRAMEWORK
Because naval engineering is multidisciplinary, each of the circles in
Figure 2-1 can be expected to include a large number of S&T disciplines
and skill specialties, with an even broader array in the outside circles where
S&T is supported by other services, federal agencies, and the private sec-
tor. The S&T disciplines, skill specialties, and R&D investments in these
many programs, however, are fluid, as are the needs of the future Navy.
Accordingly, not only does this fluidity imply a recurring need to reassess
the activities and investments that constitute the core of the NNR-NE to
ensure that they remain relevant to the future Navy’s unique NE needs but
also to assess the changing importance of other disciplines and fields to this
core. This further implies that NNR-NE has a role in understanding and
monitoring the health of the disciplines and skill specialties that are becom-
ing increasingly important to NE, and in seeking opportunities to leverage
investments made by external programs that otherwise might not be made.

The way the committee chose to think about these multiple functions
of the NNR-NE program is to categorize them into the following three
responsibilities:
• Lead—where NNR-NE assumes lead responsibility for ensuring

the vitality, performance, and desired outcomes of the NE field in
meeting naval-unique NE interests and capabilities. This responsi-
bility would include, but not be limited to, providing intellectual
leadership in particular S&T subjects that are unique and vital to
the Navy’s NE needs.
• Leverage—where NNR-NE relies on partners within and outside
ONR to advance the state of the art to a point where the program
can adapt the technical advance to meet NE interests or even con-
tribute to an expansion in the state of the art for application to the
NE enterprise. Leveraging activities may range from co-funding
S&T activity to program coordination.
• Monitor—where NNR-NE maintains “situational awareness” of
the emerging state of the art across a broad front. Not a passive
task, one can view monitoring as involving the periodic study of
emergent areas of technical interest to consider whether they war-
rant “leverage” or “lead” investments.
By definition, an NNR portfolio—when considered in its entirety—is a

“lead” program responsibility. In the case of NNR-NE, it has lead responsi-
bility for sustaining and furthering naval engineering interests and capabili-
ties that are vital to the Navy. Within each of the NNR portfolios, however,
one would expect to find leading, leveraging, and monitoring activities.
APPLYING THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK TO

THE THREE PILLARS
The NNR programs have the common purpose of ensuring that ONR
meets its responsibilities to maintain the health, currency, and technical
superiority of the S&T research enterprise in each program area; a robust
pipeline of scientists, engineers, and other technical experts in disciplines
critical to the program area; and the needed testing and other infrastruc-
ture to support the S&T enterprise. In this report, the committee refers to
these purposes as the three pillars of the NNR-NE program, constituting
the following:
1. An integrated, world class S&T research program that reaches

from discovery and invention to advanced development outcomes
that can consistently meet and anticipate naval needs.

A FRAMEWORK FOR NNR-NE EVALUATION 29
2. Efforts to sustain the workforce pipeline of human talent for future

research and development, as well as for the overall U.S. naval
engineering enterprise.
3. Efforts to ensure that critical infrastructure remains available to
the research community and to the overall U.S. NE enterprise. This
entails the creation of new infrastructure as well as retirement or
modification of existing facilities.
The matrix in Table 2-1 shows how the evaluation framework, struc-
tured around the three levels of program responsibility (i.e., lead, leverage,
monitor), can be used to examine ONR’s role with regard to these three
pillars of the NNR-NE. In each cell, the committee identifies some specific
roles that the program can play to fulfill the three responsibilities for each
of the pillars.
In the three chapters that follow, the matrix is used to consider how
the NNR-NE is fulfilling, and can better fulfill, its responsibilities for lead-
ing, leveraging, and monitoring to ensure that the future Navy’s NE needs
are met. Chapter 3 uses this framework to evaluate the R&D content of
the NNR-NE, while Chapters 4 and 5 use the framework to evaluate the
workforce pipline and S&T infrastructure, respectively. In each case, the
application of the framework is helpful for identifying the strategic needs
TABLE 2-1 Example NNR-NE Strategic Responsibilities for Each of the

Three Pillars of the Program
Science and Technology Workforce
Content Development Infrastructure
Lead Set research scope, Sponsor/inspire Ensure quality
priorities, and performance National Naval and availability of
metrics; fund and manage Responsibility for critical NNR-NE
programs Naval Engineering computational
(NNR-NE) education and experimental
and talent infrastructure
Leverage Become an agile adopter Foster NE Facilitate access to
through program partnering perspective in U.S. novel infrastructure
across the Office of Naval science, technology, capabilities
Research and elsewhere engineering, and
mathematics (STEM)
programs
Monitor Engage, follow, and Track relevant STEM Maintain awareness
incorporate emerging activities, trends, and of relevant
relevant technologies products international
infrastructure and
trends

for each pillar and for considering NNR-NE’s role in meeting needs. Indeed,
the framework proved sufficiently robust for this purpose that in Chapter
6, the committee considers how such a framework might be used by the
NNR-NE program managers, and perhaps more broadly within ONR, for
strategic management of the NNR-NE and its S&T portfolio.

Naval Engineering Research

and Development
The maritime operating environment imposes challenges and requires ca-

pabilities that can be especially—and often solely—relevant to the U.S. De-
partment of the Navy. It is for this reason that the Office of Naval Research
(ONR) is charged with conducting and sustaining basic research aimed at
discovering, advancing, and innovating in core areas of naval engineering
(NE) that provide unique capabilities critical to the Navy. As the pace of
technological change accelerates, however, new science and technology
(S&T) developments from outside the core, or traditional, NE fields have
the potential to revolutionize and disrupt future naval platforms. A highly
effective capability to identify, leverage, and monitor these fast-changing
S&T developments has thus become vital to ONR and the Navy.
This chapter applies the “lead, leverage, and monitor” construct devel-
oped in Chapter 2 to the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineer-
ing (NNR-NE) program’s research and development (R&D) mission. This
first pillar of the program has long consisted of six core NE research areas,
each associated with a naval-critical interest or capability. To assume the
“lead” in each of these six areas implies that the NNR-NE sets the research
scope, priorities, and performance metrics, in addition to providing funding
for and active management of the S&T programs. Being the lead also implies
that NNR-NE is responsible for sustaining and developing the needed S&T
workforce and infrastructure, as the three pillars must function together to
ensure that the national NE responsibility is met. Through its leveraging
function, the NNR-NE program may make targeted R&D investments to in-
crease the applicability of an S&T development to furthering one or more of
the lead areas of critical interest. Monitoring S&T developments, including
31

those being furthered elsewhere in ONR, implies a level of engagement and

attention sufficient to know whether a development may be a candidate
for such targeted investments by NNR-NE. Applied to S&T topics in this
way, the “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework can be helpful for setting
priorities within the NNR-NE S&T portfolio. It can also guide the choices
made by ONR when deciding on the content and reach of its NNR-NE S&T
portfolio, and it can make the linkages and interdependencies among S&T
in core and non-core areas more apparent. In this regard, monitoring and
leveraging should not be viewed as low-priority activities, but as functions
that are central to the program’s mission.
In the next section, the status of NNR-NE’s six core S&T areas, which
now constitute the program’s “lead” interests, is summarized with a brief
assessment of their relevance to the Navy’s NE enterprise. This is followed
by a discussion of the growing imperative for expanding the NNR-NE’s
reach to S&T areas outside the traditional bounds of naval engineering. The
reasons for this imperative are explained, including the Navy’s expanding
concept of what constitutes a “platform” as it places increased emphasis
on distributed maritime operations for maintaining naval superiority. Ex-
amples are given of S&T areas that could warrant leveraging and monitor-
ing to meet this imperative. The chapter concludes by discussing how the
diverse requirements of varied naval platforms in the operational concept of
distributed maritime operations will drive the demand for innovation from
a wide variety of S&T domains, which naval engineering—an inherently
multidisciplinary enterprise—can and should be expected to play a central
role in fostering.
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT NNR-NE S&T PORTFOLIO

The NNR-NE S&T portfolio consists of the following six core topics us-
ing the nomenclature of and as described in ONR overview briefings to the
committee:
1. advanced naval power

2. hydrodynamics
3. propulsors
4. ship structural reliability
5. control and automation
6. ship design
The following sections summarize the main elements of each of these

core S&T topics along with committee observations. It merits reiterating
that the topics summarized do not include elements of the NNR-NE port-
folio that are classified, such as on platform survivability.

NAVAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 33
Advanced Naval Power

The advanced naval power program focuses on the S&T advances required
for integrated platform power systems that can meet the energy demands
of advanced directed-energy weapons, more powerful detection systems,
electrified propulsion equipment, and unmanned platforms.1 Meeting the
demands of many new electrical loads will require major increases in the
electric power capacities of future naval platforms.2
Individual research areas cover the following five major topics, the
content of which is illustrated by some example topics:
1. Power Generation: fuel cells and fuel reforming, and advanced

generators including new features such as superconducting field
windings and advanced shipboard turbine engines with higher ef-
ficiency and lower emissions.
2. Energy Storage: lithium-ion batteries, ultra-capacitors, and high-
speed flywheels.
3. Distribution and Control: AC and DC architectures, high-voltage
DC breakers, solid-state transformers, and multi-level power con-
verters using wide-bandgap power semiconductor switches.
4. Heat Transfer and Thermal Management: high waste heat removal;
advanced chiller technologies; heating, ventilation, and air condi-
tioning equipment; forced air and liquid convection; 3D-printed
heat exchangers; and heat pipes.
5. Motors and Actuators: high-efficiency, high-speed permanent mag-
net and superconducting motors, high-power linear machines for
electromagnetic launch and rail guns, carbon nanotube conductors,
integrated motor drives, and fault-tolerant machines.
The program is designed to address enduring S&T gaps:
• High-voltage, high-power DC and AC architectures, including

high-voltage DC breakers
• High-amplitude, long-duration pulse power delivery capabilities,
including energy storage
• Platform systems efficiency and energy supply duration to minimize
energy resupply
1 H.S. Coombe. Advanced Naval Power. Presentation to the committee, April 2018. See
also NPES. 2019. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Resources/NPES-Tech-Development-Roadmap.

2 In his 2017 white paper The Future Navy, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John
Richardson maintains that “to leave room for future modernization, we should buy as much
power capacity as we can afford.” See https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/
Resource/TheFutureNavy.pdf.

• Power distribution system reconfigurability and survivability to with-

stand battle damage/failures
• Thermal management to handle high heat fluxes, enabling in-
creased power density
• On-station autonomous energy harvesting, including wave energy
recovery
Based on the information provided in the ONR briefings, the advanced

power program of NNR-NE is aggressively seeking to fill these S&T gaps
through a number of projects. For example, the 12 kV DC architecture that
has received considerable attention within the advanced power program
hinges critically on the successful development of reliable, compact, and
cost-effective DC breakers to protect the DC system against faults caused
by equipment failures or battle damage. Likewise, thermal management
technologies that take advantage of developments in materials and compact
structures are critical to address the increasing demands and complexity of
high-energy thermal loads required to meet emerging needs for Navy plat-
forms. While the briefing information provided to the committee was not
sufficient to judge the extent to which the Advanced Naval Power program
is making progress in overcoming major technical challenges and filling
critical S&T gaps, these examples illustrates the criticality of ensuring that
sufficient resources are devoted to developing and integrating all of the com-
ponents that constitute the electrical power systems needed by future naval
platforms—a need that is noted when examining the other S&T core areas.
Hydrodynamics
The hydrodynamics program seeks to understand, characterize, and predict
critical physics associated with the design and control of naval platforms.3
The program’s main research areas cover following topics:
• Turbulence and Stratified Flow: turbulent flows at high Reynolds

number, including non-equilibrium boundary layers and surface
roughness, and wake flow physics in a stratified layer
• Ship Wave-Breaking and Bubble Wakes: unsteady wake features
and mechanisms for naval platforms operating in a relevant sea
environment
• Submarine Maneuvering and Control: submarine maneuvering
performance
• Ship Motion and Loads: ship motions and hydrodynamic loads for
all ship types in all sea conditions
3 J. Gorski. Hydrodynamic Research Overview. Presentation to the committee, April 2018.

The research employs a well-established hierarchy of experimental

(small, medium, and large scale) and computational approaches (Direct Nu-
merical Simulations, Large-Eddy Simulations, Reynolds-Averaged Navier-
Stokes Simulations, and potential flow simulations). This program is highly
dependent on experimental facilities and advanced computing resources.
The study of hull hydrodynamics requires large-scale and specialty labora-
tories to understand the complex physics and scaling effects involving mul-
tiphase flows and material and structural interactions. While academic labs
may be adequate for basic research in this area, only the Navy laboratories
can meet these scale and specialization needs.
The committee notes that the program has produced a steady improve-
ment in understanding of the driving physics, as well as development of pre-
dictive hydromechanical models to facilitate design, analysis, and control.
The program is also moving toward machine learning.
Propulsors
The propulsors program seeks to understand, characterize, and predict the
governing physics of multiphase flows, propulsor dynamics, and platform
interaction to provide advanced naval platforms with quiet, efficient, and
affordable propulsor concepts.4 The program’s research areas cover the
following four major topics:
1. Modeling of Cavitation and Erosion: advanced measurements tech-

nologies and high-fidelity computational tools to study and predict
cavitation dynamics and material erosion
2. Propulsor Effects on Underwater Vehicles Dynamics: propeller/
propulsor effects on underwater vehicle dynamics (with focus on
crashback and near-surface operations with wave effects), and
6-degrees of freedom dynamics of fully appended underwater ve-
hicles with propulsors
3. Advanced Propulsor Concepts: predictive computational tools and
experimental studies of advanced propulsor concepts and materials
4. Turbulence Ingestion Sound: turbulence ingestion sound generation
mechanism, as well as reliable prediction methods for sound gener-
ated by inhomogeneous and non-isotropic turbulence ingested by
propulsors
The research employs a spectrum of experimental and computational

approaches, and thus, like the NNR-NE research on hull hydromechanics,
it is highly dependent on experimental facilities and advanced computing
4 K. Kim. Propulsor Research Overview. Presentation to the committee, April 2018.

resources. The program has yielded steady improvements in understanding

of governing physics, as well as furthering the development of predictive
capabilities and the exploration of innovative concepts. It has successfully
transitioned technology to higher technology readiness levels and to the
fleet.
Ship Structural Reliability

The ship structural reliability program seeks to develop reliability-based
knowledge and tools to improve performance and affordability of ship hull
structural systems over their full life cycles.5 The program’s research areas
cover the following three major topics:
1. Structural Longevity Models: integrated monitoring and predictive

models to support operational and maintenance decisions, includ-
ing network-based models to fuse measurements with high fidelity
simulations and probabilistic optimal planning of structural health
monitoring
2. Structural Capability, Degradation, and Repair: composite overlay
repair, survivability of degraded or damaged compartments and/or
platforms, fatigue life prediction, and stiff anisotropic and adapt-
able structures
3. Seaway Load and Structural Response: coupled structural and
hydrodynamic modeling, seaway ice impact and structural dam-
age prediction, and topside ice accretion performance and stability
impact prediction
The program’s research, which includes experimental testing and com-

putational modeling, has produced steady improvements in the develop-
ment of tools to enable reliability-based design and analysis, and support
life cycle management and service life prediction and assurance. Some of the
tools developed in this program are being used to assess the vulnerability
of existing naval platforms and to aid in the design of future naval surface
combatants and auxiliaries. The program depends heavily on experimental
facilities and advanced computing resources, and some of the major testing
relies on overseas facilities and equipment.
Control and Automation

The control and automation program seeks to aid in the development of un-
manned or autonomous surface vessels capable of event-driven operations
5 P. Hess. Ship Structural Reliability Program. Presentation to the committee, April 2018.

in complex sea environments and swarm maneuvers with other platforms.6

The program’s research covers the following major topics:
• Unmanned Surface Vessel Swarm: multi-platform autonomy

and self-managed multi-unit task allocation in complex mission
environments
• Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel: blue water dem-
onstration of prototype vessel (SEA HUNTER developed by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) with minimal remote
operator control, and complementary modeling and simulation
The ONR briefings on these two program areas centered on the work
being undertaken on automation and control, as well as employing at-sea
testing, modeling, and simulations. In both program areas, the work is
being executed by consortia, whose performers appear to have the needed
range and complementarity of expertise. However, it was not apparent from
the information provided that the program is furthering unique, new S&T
on automation and control.
Ship Design
The ship design program focuses on (a) developing skilled people and the
needed knowledge base and concepts to support future innovative naval
technologies, (b) maintaining a workforce pipeline capable of substantive
research contributions to the naval research enterprise, and (c) reinvigorat-
ing interest in naval-unique research and technology development through
topical, short-term innovation cell activities.7 The program’s research con-
sists of the following:
• Integrated Design and Software Tools: integrate emerging research

into multidisciplinary, physics-based design and performance eval-
uation tools for advanced naval platforms; translate higher-order
physics-based models to fast surrogate models for rapid design and
analysis; develop new methods to treat all aspects of design as a
variable; develop alternative geometric design representations and
analytical techniques to reduce design cycle time and acquisition
cost; develop interfaces with proprietary design software to address
naval-unique issues such as integration of complex warfighting
6 R. Brizzolara. National Naval Responsibility Naval Engineering: Control and Automation.
Presentation to the committee, April 2018.

7 K. Cooper. Sea Warfare and Weapons Department. Presentation to the committee, April
2018.

systems, large variability in operational profile, and survivability

for wartime environments.
The program’s focus on the education and development of a U.S. work-

force capable of supporting the Navy’s naval engineering is also pursued
through means such as Centers for Innovation in Naval Technologies and
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities cen-
tered on the science of naval ship design.
THE IMPERATIVE OF CAPITALIZING ON S&T ADVANCES

OUTSIDE TRADITIONAL NE FIELDS
In A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, Version 2.0,8 Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral John Richardson contends that the fu-
ture Navy will be shaped by the increasing use of the maritime domain, the
rise of global information systems, and the increasing rate of technological
creation and adoption. He stresses the importance of identifying and adopt-
ing new and emerging technologies to develop future naval platforms in
the face of new extreme operating environments (e.g., arctic, deep sea, surf
zone) and new means of operation (e.g., human-in-the-loop, unmanned,
and autonomous systems) and to overcome new technological challenges
to ensure mission effectiveness, physical and cybersecurity, survivability,
sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. These new platforms, he points out,
must carry a diverse suite of innovative offensive and defensive capabili-
ties, including high-power directed-energy weapons, networked sensors and
electronics, and cyber-connected systems with persistent maritime domain
awareness.
To prepare for this future, in a white paper on The Future Navy, the
CNO stresses the importance of the Navy not only having many more naval
platforms but also platforms that can incorporate new technologies and
new operational concepts.9 He maintains, for instance, that
the pace of change also demands that we design ships with modernization
in mind. The “core” of those future ships—the hull, and the propulsion
and power plants—will likely be built to last for decades. To leave room
for future modernization, we should buy as much power capacity as we
can afford. On top of that hull and power plant, we must plan from
the outset to modernize the “punch”—the combat systems, sensors, and
payloads—at the speed that technological advances allow. Future ships
should be made for rapid improvement with modular weapons canisters
8 A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, Version 2.0, December 17, 2018. See
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Resource/Design_2.0.pdf.
9 See https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Resource/TheFutureNavy.pdf.

and rapidly swappable electronic sensors and systems. Related, future

designs must aggressively go after ways to drive down the costs to operate
and maintain the future fleet, no matter its composition.
The CNO’s strong views—that the Navy must get started now in think-
ing forward and innovating—are consistent with numerous other Navy
policy documents that point to the need for the naval R&D enterprise to
be responsive to the rapidly evolving physical, operational, and technology
environments of future naval platforms. Notably, the new Naval R&D
Framework stresses the importance of expanding the technical foundation
of Navy research to increase opportunities for cross-discipline innovation
and scientific breakthroughs.10 As noted in Chapter 1, the R&D Frame-
work is explicit in the expectation that the NNRs will do more than just
concentrate on their long-standing S&T topic areas, but also “fast/follow”
and “leverage” the S&T advancements from other fields and domains to
further those interests and capabilities critical to the Navy and that are
central to each NNR’s mission.
The NNR-NE program was conceived two decades ago, along with
NNRs for other naval-critical interests, to ensure a core capability to
support the naval engineering needs of the Navy in the face of decreased
budgets and the absence of peer competitors that could risk complacency
in technological development. As articulated by Navy leadership in the
documents cited earlier, this environment has changed, both because of the
accelerating pace of technology development and because of its adaptation
by adversaries. Under these changed circumstances, all of the NNRs are
expected to adopt a broader view across relevant S&T domains to deliver
the advanced technologies required to meet the changing innovation needs
of the naval platform concepts that will be the drivers of future force ca-
pability. Inasmuch as naval engineering is an inherently platform-centric
enterprise, the new expectation of purpose can be viewed as being especially
pertinent to the NNR-NE and its capacity to transition and integrate in-
novation across the full spectrum of platform-relevant S&T.
Having considered the current NNR-NE portfolio of R&D projects, the
committee finds no reason to question its relevance to advancing the state
of knowledge and technology in each of the six core topic areas. However,
one can question whether the R&D portfolio is sufficient to furthering the
naval-critical NE interests and capabilities that each of these six core areas
represents. In an S&T landscape that is expanding and rapidly changing,
the portfolio can address only a slice of the technological spectrum that is
radically transforming what is possible and needed for the future Navy. In
this environment, an NNR-NE S&T program that is defined by its portfolio
10 See https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/our-research/naval-research-framework, p. 6.

of R&D projects is too limiting, and in the committee’s view it is in need

of a strategic framework for establishing the content of this portfolio and
extending its reach.
STRATEGIC USE OF THE “LEAD, LEVERAGE, AND MONITOR”

FRAMEWORK
The committee considered a wide range of S&T fields and disciplines that
promise in some way to comprise or influence the NE discipline and naval
platform development in the future. While many of these technical areas
will have a bearing on a naval-critical NE interest or capability, in only a
few of them can, or should, the NNR-NE program “own” the responsibility
to shape and sponsor the basic research needed to further the interest or
capability. This leadership must be exercised by program managers being
attuned to developments in other S&T areas and deliberately leveraging rel-
evant technology, as well as by monitoring progress in others, to influence
how the lead capabilities should change—for example, by asking questions
such as “how can advances in robotics drive changes in platform concepts,
structures, and materials?” Other examples of S&T areas where leveraging
and monitoring of developments could be useful are corrosion and fatigue
control methods, response to extreme wave action, and other structure and
equipment design innovations from deepwater facilities, such as offshore
energy exploration and production platforms.
Thinking along these lines, the committee identified examples, pro-
vided here, of technology areas that are candidates for leading, leveraging,
and monitoring functions. In using this construct, however, the committee
began to question whether the six core, or lead, areas of the NNR-NE are
structured and pursued in a manner that renders them too independent
from one another, especially given that NE is an inherently interdisciplinary,
platform-centric enterprise. The committee did not observe any formal
means by which integration occurs at the platform and platform concept
levels, where the challenges of NE are manifest due to needs such as in-
tegrating complex warfighting systems, ensuring survivability for wartime
environments, and accommodating wide variability in operational profiles.
Indeed, in its 2019 Naval Power and Energy Systems Technology De-
velopment Roadmap, the Navy recognizes that integration of new systems
will now be an ongoing challenge throughout a platform’s life cycle in
order to maintain warfighting relevancy.11 The roadmap, therefore, calls
for a “System Integration Initiative.” Moreover, in addition to technology
integration for new platforms, an even more challenging problem may
be insertion of new technology into existing platforms, which requires
11 See https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Resources/NPES-Tech-Development-Roadmap.

multidisciplinary understanding to provide fully capable and affordable

integration. For example, adding high-power laser weapon systems requires
power generation, storage, and distribution that may not be practical and
affordable in existing mechanical platforms.
The Naval R&D Framework not only emphasizes that “a more inte-
grated approach to research and development (R&D) is needed” (p. 4) but
that “affordability permeates all modernization concepts” (p. 20). Because
integration is critical to adapting new technologies to existing and new
naval platforms, its absence from the NNR-NE core areas is notable. The
committee therefore recommends that platform innovations integration
and affordability should be added as a new core NNR-NE S&T area for
the specific purpose of creating and managing broad platform and multi-
platform challenges and designed to identify S&T gaps and opportunities
across the technology spectrum (Recommendation 3-1).
The addition of this core area would highlight the importance of in-
tegrating platform innovations, both within and across platforms, and
help stimulate creative and strategic thinking throughout the NNR-NE
enterprise to enable, for instance, the fusion of multi-platform solutions
that multiply the future combat effectiveness of distributed naval forces.
It would keep the NNR-NE program grounded in anticipating and meet-
ing the needs of the future Navy, which are—and are likely to remain for
some time—platform-centered. It would align with, and be responsive to,
the goal outlined in the R&D Framework and Design 2.0 to accelerate
technology insertion in existing and future naval platforms. As such, the
committee recommends the addition of platform technology integration as
an NNR-NE lead research area. It is important to note that this recommen-
dation is directly aligned with the recommendation in the Memorandum on
National Naval Program for Naval Engineering and the R&D Framework
to use the NNR as a core resource to ensure world-class leadership in naval
engineering.
In considering the six core areas that NNR-NE is charged with leading,
the committee also observed that one of the core areas, briefed as “Control
and Automation,” is distinct from an interest in “autonomy” and too nar-
row and limiting. For instance, the Defense Science Board’s (DSB) Summer
Study on Autonomy12 points out that
systems governed by prescriptive rules that permit no deviations are auto-
mated, but they are not autonomous. To be autonomous, a system must
have the capability to independently compose and select among different
courses of action to accomplish goals based on its knowledge and under-
standing of the world, itself, and the situation. (p. iii)
12 See https://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2010s/DSBSS15.pdf.

A focus on automation, therefore, may neglect S&T relevant to autono-

mous capabilities, which the DSB notes is spawning rapid advances in the
underlying technology base, driven in large part by the commercial sector.
However, even a focus on autonomous capabilities can be too narrow
when considered in the context of the Navy’s more encompassing interest
in “platform control and maneuverability.” While research on automation
may have relevance to this critical interest, basic research is also needed
in other areas, for instance, to understand the complex coupled platform
motions when performing dynamic maneuvers (e.g., crashback) and con-
trol in challenging environments, such as in the Arctic, extreme seas, surf
zone, or when cavitation and ventilation are relevant. The committee
therefore recommends that ONR should replace “Control and Automa-
tion” as a core area of NNR-NE research with “Platform Control and
Maneuverability,” a more encompassing interest and one that requires
research in many technical areas in addition to automation and autonomy
(Recommendation 3-2).
While autonomy and robotics are research areas that are vital to the
future of naval operations, there is a large amount of R&D investment be-
ing made in autonomous systems within the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) (including other parts of ONR) and the commercial sector. In this
instance, it would be appropriate for NNR-NE to deliberately track and
seek opportunities to leverage these other efforts to further its critical in-
terest in platform control and maneuverability. This leveraging would be
consistent with DSB’s recommendation that “DOD take steps to engage
non-traditional R&D communities in novel ways to both speed DOD’s
access to emerging research results and identify areas in which additional
DOD investment is needed to fully address DOD missions” (p. iii).
These two recommendations are indicative of how the committee be-
lieves the “lead, leverage, and monitor” construct should be used in a
strategic manner to guide and give structure to the NNR-NE program and
its priorities. They also reflect the committee’s view that naval platforms
should be central to each core area, with platforms consisting of far more
than just ships. Table 3-1 applies this strategic use of the “lead, leverage,
and monitor” framework to a vast set of technical areas, many of which are
listed in the leverage and monitor columns. Five of the current six NNR-NE
S&T topics are listed in the “lead” column, each renamed to emphasize
its relevance to platforms, and they are accompanied by the recommended
new “Platform Control and Maneuverability” lead to replace “Control and
Automation.”
For reasons already explained, autonomy and robotics are relisted as
leverage areas. Other topics in the “leverage” column include data science,
artificial intelligence (AI), advanced materials, and cybersecurity. These
are important examples of S&T topics that are the subject of considerable

TABLE 3-1 Areas Vital to NNR-NE’s “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor”

Responsibilities
Platform hydrodynamics Autonomy and robotics Quantum science and
Platform structures and Data science and artificial computing
materials intelligence Alternative energy resources
Platform propulsion Advanced sensors Undersea resource utilization
Platform power Cybersecurity and extraction
Platform systems design Communications Nano technology
Platform control and Power systems and power Biomaterials
maneuverability electronics Synthetic biology
Platform innovations Advanced materials and Cognitive science
integration and manufacturing Climate change
affordability Multidisciplinary design
optimization
Human–machine interface
R&D in other sectors, but that bear strongly on the interests of the lead
areas. NNR-NE investments that leverage this S&T to make it more ap-
plicable and relevant to the needs of a maritime environment may therefore
be desirable and worthy candidates for a “leverage” portfolio.
A number of other examples of S&T topics that are candidates for
leveraging and monitoring are also provided in Table 3-1. The topics listed
in the leverage and monitor columns are broadly defined, and in many cases
have linkages to more than one of the lead NNR-NE topic areas. Indeed,
many of the topics areas listed for monitoring are being led or leveraged by
other parts of ONR. The following are three examples of these linkages,
and indicative of the type of cross-disciplinary thinking that can offer stra-
tegic guidance to NNR-NE in furthering its lead responsibilities.
Leveraging Power Electronics and Power Systems for Platform Power

and Energy
Advanced platform power is a core topic of the NNR-NE program be-
cause of the many critical power and energy demands that are specific to
naval platforms and unlikely to receive sufficient attention and investment
from other sectors. These demands include, for example, the intense, high-
frequency energy pulses that will be required in future naval platforms for
advanced radar and directed-energy weapons systems. The delivery of these
pulse power characteristics will require large amounts of robust, compact
energy storage and power distribution equipment and other specialized
components that are not likely to be developed unless the Navy takes the
lead in supporting the needed R&D.

It is important to recognize, however, that a significant amount of in-

vestment is being made by industry in the development of advanced power
electronics and power systems for a wide range of industrial and transporta-
tion system applications. The Navy can take advantage of these investments
to further its critical interest in platform power—for instance, by leveraging
the investments made by industry and other federal agencies in areas such as
wide-bandgap power semiconductor switches and high-voltage DC power
systems. As noted earlier, the Navy needs robust, compact medium-voltage
(12 kV) breakers for its future DC power systems. While the breakers are
expected to have performance requirements that are far more demanding
than those for breakers used for other purposes, NNR-NE investments that
leverage the R&D in these other sectors may prove beneficial for making
progress in meeting the Navy’s specific performance needs.
Leveraging Advanced Materials and Manufacturing and Multidisciplinary

Design Optimization for Platform Structures and Materials
Platform structures and materials is a core NNR-NE S&T area because
of the many naval-specific demands and challenges associated with ship
structures and materials, such as stringent limits on vibration and noise and
susceptibility to marine growth, sea water corrosion, cavitation erosion,
and blast impacts. At the same time, there are clear opportunities for naval
platforms to take advantage of the S&T being pursued in other sectors on
advanced materials and manufacturing processes and in multidisciplinary
design optimization; for instance, to reduce platform design cycle time,
lower acquisition cost, and decrease operation and maintenance costs.
Examples of S&T advances being pursued elsewhere that pertain to
the Navy’s special needs for structures and materials are developments in
multi-functional materials and structures that allow on-demand changes
according to mission needs, permit self-healing and electro magnetic
shielding to enhance survivability, and enable continuous structural health
monitoring and damage prognosis. Advances in multidisciplinary design
optimization can likewise be used to simultaneously consider the multiple
physics arising from competing design requirements, a large number of
design variables, and a wide range of operating conditions. In such cases,
however, further research is needed to adapt these developments to the
special needs of the Navy—for instance, to better understand the behavior
of these new structures and materials in the complex maritime environ-
ment and the optimal distribution of multi-domain, multi-spectral, multi-
modality sensor, control, and operating systems/platforms to facilitate
decision-making processes.

Leveraging Autonomy and Robotics, Data Science and Artificial

Intelligence, Advanced Sensors, Cybersecurity, and Communications
for Platform Propulsion, Power and Energy, Structures and Materials,
Maneuvering and Control, and Hydrodynamics
Many of the example S&T topics listed in the “leverage” column of Table
3-1 would have relevance to a number of the NNR-NE’s core or lead
interests, especially when considered in the context of platform-specific
needs. To illustrate, consider the performance and capability requirements
of autonomous amphibious vehicles. These vehicles must meet the payload,
endurance, and survivability requirements of a diversity of naval mis-
sion demands. They must have the ability to communicate, keep position
(station-keep), and form coordinated maneuvers with other platforms. They
must traverse from deep water to the turbulent, noisy, and obstacle-laden
environment of the surf zone (with large breakers, turbulent bores, strong
currents, and suspended sediments). They must be able to traverse from the
surf zone to uneven and mobile grounds.
The varied and demanding performance requirements of autonomous
amphibious vehicles present numerous challenges relevant to NNR-NE’s
core S&T areas. For example, the vehicles require advances in power and
energy and in structure and materials to provide the needed light weight,
high strength, and high energy density. They require advances in propulsion
and control for station-keeping and low-speed and coordinated maneuver-
ing. Hydrodynamic challenges include complex multiphase flow dynamics,
including ventilation, cavitation, and interaction with free surface, waves,
and currents. While the NNR-NE’s core areas are addressing some of these
challenges, they will clearly require S&T advances from other areas, such
as advancements in sensors, autonomy and robotics, artificial intelligence,
cyber–physical security, and communications. By leading, leveraging, and
monitoring developments from such a diverse range of S&T areas, cogni-
zant of the platform-specific requirements of the Navy, the NNR-NE could
fulfill an essential integration role that is in many respects the hallmark of
the multi- and interdisciplinary field of naval engineering.
These three examples of how the NNR-NE program can lead and
leverage S&T to enable the Navy to be a more agile adopter of emerging
technologies illustrates why it is so important, in the committee’s view, for
NNR-NE’s S&T portfolio to be shaped in a strategic manner that gives
explicit consideration to where the program is best suited to leading, lever-
aging, and monitoring. While opportunities for monitoring were not dis-
cussed in the foregoing examples, Table 3-1 provides a number of candidate
topic areas. In such instances, one would expect the NNR-NE to make the
investments needed to ensure the S&T areas are monitored sufficiently to
know when some may be deserving of leveraging investments. Indeed, S&T

topics listed in the leverage and monitoring columns are examples, and not
intended to be a prioritization. Given the fast pace of technological change,
it is reasonable to expect that S&T topics will need to be shifted among the
two columns—necessitating frequent reviews of the coverage and linkages
of content in the NNR-NE portfolio. Figure 3-1 shows how leveraged and
monitored technologies may have application to multiple lead responsibili-
ties. NNR-NE’s integration of a leveraged technology may, in turn, create
new demands for research such as on novel system architectures and new
methods for technology insertion, maintenance, and repair.
In the committee’s view, ONR should adopt a “lead, leverage, and
monitor” framework for prioritizing, programming, and integrating
NNR-NE’s S&T investments. This framework should be used not only
to guide decisions about critical naval engineering interests that require
NNR-NE’s lead support for S&T but also to identify S&T from outside
the program that can be leveraged to further these critical interests (Rec-
ommendation 3-3).
VIEWING PLATFORMS AS INNOVATION “FORCING”

For now and into the foreseeable future, the Navy will operate from a
platform-centric perspective. However, as new technology shapes the future
force, the very concept of a naval platform can be expected to change to
encompass groups of technologies that form a deployable base for combina-
tions of hardware, software, and human systems that together can deliver
a desired military capability and effect when operating individually or net-
worked with other such naval platforms. Examples include cyber-connected
autonomous vehicles, manned-unmanned teams of surface vehicles, ships,
submarines, amphibious craft, and even ground vehicles. While the defini-
tion of a platform may be changing and expanding as the Navy migrates
FIGURE 3-1 Potential linkages between leverage and monitor areas and NNR-NE
lead areas.

to a more heterogeneous and distributed force, the U.S. naval capability

ultimately lies in the platforms that are deployed and the personnel that
design, build, and operate them. It is for this reason that the committee has
recommended that the NNR-NE’s core S&T responsibilities be expanded
to include a platform innovations integration program to facilitate broader
academic, government, and industry interaction on future force system
integration.
In the committee’s view, the addition of “platform innovations integration
and affordability” as a lead NNR-NE research area would be an important
first step to ensuring that NNR-NE R&D is addressing the platform-driven
innovation needs of the future Navy. Each platform concept creates different
challenges and demands for innovations; for instance, to expand use into new
operational domains, reduce manning, provide quieter and faster operations,
accommodate new weapon and sensory systems concepts, and accelerate
design, build, and acquisition cycles. Not only does each platform concept
have requirements that present specific S&T challenges, but these challenges
must be met by employing innovations from across the technology spectrum
and with a high degree of integration.
In developing this recommendation, it occurred to the committee that
the needs of future platforms are, in essence, the forcing function for naval
innovation and that naval engineering is central to designing, integrating,
and delivering these innovations to the expanding array of platforms that
will underpin future Navy superiority. An example of a platform forcing
function is the increasingly complex littoral and confined domains in which
naval platforms must operate, which creates new paradigms in platform
designs, operations, and manning. Another more futuristic example is to
conceptualize a next generation submarine with a crew size that is half the
size of today’s submarines, which would radically influence the design of
the platform to create new tradeoffs in size, speed, payload, etc., as well
as new technology gaps and opportunities. This platform concept might,
for instance, compel the substitution of autonomy for human operators
or h uman-in-the-loop systems in all routine functions and even the devel-
opment of self-healing machinery components tied into an AI model of
the ship.
As it periodically reviews the coverage, relevance, and linkages of
the S&T that it leads, leverages, and monitors, NNR-NE should adopt a
platform-centric approach to identifying innovation needs, challenges, and
opportunities. Informed by the promise of the technologies that it leads,
leverages, and monitors, NNR-NE should be anchored by a strategic vi-
sion of naval platforms 20 to 30 years out (Recommendation 3-4). Such
an approach could lead to the identification of new areas of S&T that are
now missing from the NRR-NE portfolio. For example, a new challenge
might be in furthering the understanding of and capabilities to measure,

characterize, and predict local platform environments that require consid-

eration of the highly nonlinear processes and coupled interactions involving
waves, currents, turbulence, bottom and boundary topographies, and pos-
sibly near-surface winds (all of which can affect the operational feasibility
and envelope, as well as safety and even survivability, of the platforms).
While not traditionally within the purview of naval engineering, in terms
of extension of operational domain and capabilities, leadership in the core
area of local platform environment could create a significant competitive
advantage for the future Navy.
While an approach for programming NNR-NE that views platforms
as “innovation forcing” would necessarily emphasize the importance of
ensuring the accelerated introduction and applicability of technology, it
might also be construed as placing resource pressures on basic research,
from which many of the technological advances cited in this chapter and
report have their roots. The recommended “lead, leverage, and monitor”
framework, however, should imply that ONR sustain the basic research
in its lead core areas. To ensure that a platform-centric approach to S&T
programming does not erode this critical ONR responsibility, the commit-
tee recommends that NNR-NE maintain a strong focus on basic research
in its lead core areas. This NE research should continue to be viewed as the
key building block for the future Navy (Recommendation 3-5).

Naval Engineering Workforce
This chapter discusses the second of three pillars supported by the Na-
tional Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering (NNR-NE): the naval
engineering workforce. To do so, the chapter begins with an overview of
trends in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) edu-
cational attainment in the United States during the past two decades since
the NNRs were established. As explained in Chapter 3, naval engineering
is multidisciplinary, and therefore it shares the same workforce pipeline
as many other technical and engineering fields. Consideration is therefore
given to trends in the overall demand for STEM graduates, particularly
from disciplines of high relevance to NE. The chapter then summarizes
initiatives by the NNR-NE, the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to encourage more students to pursue
STEM educations and careers critical to the Navy’s NE needs. The chapter
concludes by considering how NNR-NE can use the “lead, leverage, and
monitor” framework for prioritizing its pipeline- and workforce-related
activities.
It merits noting that a recent study by the BankRate.Com ranked naval
architecture and marine engineering as the most valuable college majors
when taking into account factors such as median salary and unemployment
rate. These students are finding work in maritime fields, such as offshore
energy production and commercial shipbuilding, and in non-maritime fields
where their systems engineering knowledge is valuable. While the growing
value of an NE degree can be viewed as a positive development for the NE
enterprise if it leads to more students entering NE programs, it may also
49

FIGURE 4-1 Number of engineering undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded

in the United States.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics).
make it more difficult for the Navy to attract workers due to compensation
and security clearance demands.1
TRENDS IN STEM EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

According to statistics from the National Science Foundation (NSF),2 STEM
education has been on the rise in the United States over the past two decades.
For instance, the number of engineering bachelor’s degrees increased by
63 percent, and the number of engineering master’s and doctorate degrees
increased by more than 90 percent from 2000 to 2015 (see Figure 4-1).
These gains, however, need to be placed in context with a growing
number of degrees awarded in other fields that compete for students, in-
cluding some that have less relevance to the NE workforce pipeline. NSF
data, for example, show that the social sciences regularly account for the
largest number of bachelor’s degrees awarded, and their number increased
by 50 percent between 2000 and 2015 (see Figure 4-2). The popularity of
engineering is nevertheless high at the graduate school level, where it ac-
counted for more master’s degrees than any other field in 2015 (see Figure
4-3).
As the economy has become more technology driven, competition for
STEM talent has increased, which has presumably been a factor spurring
1 See https://www.bankrate.com/career/most-valuable-college-majors.
2 National Science Foundation. 2018. See https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181.

NAVAL ENGINEERING WORKFORCE 51
FIGURE 4-2 Trends in annual number (thousands) of bachelor’s degrees awarded

in the United States in STEM and adjacent fields, 2000 to 2015.
FIGURE 4-3 Trends in annual number (thousands) of master’s degrees awarded in

the United States in STEM and adjacent fields, 2000 to 2015.

growth in the study of engineering and other technical disciplines but also
a potential challenge for channeling sufficient graduates to the NE enter-
prise, especially in disciplines of high relevance to NE, such as mechanical
engineering, naval architecture, systems engineering, modeling and simula-
tion, and data analytics. Because the broad domain of NE also includes
professionals filling positions across many different science and engineering
disciplines, it is difficult to characterize the total future labor demand in
NE. It is notable, however, that the Bureau of Labor Statistics3 forecasts
the number of U.S. positions in “Marine Engineers and Naval Architects,”
which stood at 8,200 in 2016, will grow by 12 percent over the next
decade, or “faster than average” and among the highest of all disciplines
examined for the category of “Architecture and Engineering.” To fill these
positions, the NE enterprise will need to compete with other sectors for
highly qualified STEM graduates.
Faced with high demand for needed engineering and technical exper-
tise, an option for the NE enterprise is to recruit recent graduates from
STEM fields and dedicate a period of time to training them in relevant NE
subject matter. The recruitment and retention of NE professionals, however,
can be further challenged by the long time required to process security
clearances for new hires, which the U.S. Government Accountability Office
has identified as a “high-risk” problem for federal government programs.4
As discussed in the 2012 National Academy of Engineering and National
Research Council report Assuring the U.S. Department of Defense a Strong
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce.5
DOD and its associated contractors have special and legitimate needs
to hire STEM personnel who can obtain security clearances. Under cur-
rent practices this generally requires U.S. citizenship, and special problems
therefore can arise in hiring in STEM fields in which large proportions of
students at U.S. universities are foreign nationals. In the context of the pool
of STEM workers available to DOD, the need to obtain a security clear-
ance is a two-fold source of constraint on supply. First, the time required to
obtain a security clearance for citizens represents an impediment to success
in DOD’s hiring process. Second, this requirement reduces the pool of the
potential STEM workforce for DOD in fields in which non-citizens repre-
sent substantial fractions.
3 U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook, Marine Engineers and Naval
Architects. See https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/marine-engineers-and-

naval-architects.htm.
4 See https://www.gao.gov/highrisk/govwide_security_clearance_process/why_did_study.
5 National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. 2012. Assuring the U.S.
Department of Defense a Strong Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Pp. 89–90.

The difficulty of recruiting in an environment that demands security

clearances is a DOD-wide problem; however, ONR may be able to ease
the problem, at least marginally, for recruiting to the NE enterprise. One
possible option, for instance, is for the NNR-NE to provide short-term
unclassified funding of work for new NE hires that enables them to begin
integrating into the workforce sooner as they await security clearances.
Such an option would be consistent with the advice in the 2012 National
Academy of Engineering and National Research Council report, which rec-
ommended that DOD be given additional authority to expedite the security
clearances needed for such positions, including authority for temporary
hiring for nonsensitive assignments pending security clearance.6 The com-
mittee is aware, for instance, of an agreement reached in 2018 between
the College of Engineering of the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard that allowed senior year students to perform
projects at the shipyard for credit in mechanical engineering. By earning
academic credit for an unclassified capstone project in a working shipyard,
the students were eligible for security clearance processing and therefore
given a head start in completing this critical hiring step.
RELEVANT NAVAL ENGINEERING WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMS
ONR’s Advanced Naval Platforms Division, which administers the NNR-NE,
envisages NE workforce capacity development along a continuum from grade
school to college and university programs to professional development (see
Figure 4-4). Efforts to increase the workforce supply pipeline are designed to
be holistic and progressive, starting with inspiring STEM interest in K–12,
encouraging training and education in community and 4-year colleges, sup-
porting graduate studies and university research, and providing professional
development opportunities. This outlook is consistent with the 2018 guide
to naval STEM,7 which explains how the development and sustainment of
the talent base for the Navy’s engineering and science needs require concerted
efforts aimed at the following:
• Inspiration and engagement—attracting both future and present

scientists and engineers to naval-relevant career paths via engage-
ment of K–12 students as well as undergraduate and graduate
students and professionals working in relevant disciplines.
6 National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. 2012. Assuring the U.S.
Department of Defense a Strong Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. P. 8.
7 See http://navalstem.navylive.dodlive.mil.

FIGURE 4-4 ONR’s approach to building naval engineering workforce capacity.

NOTE: STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
SOURCE: Thomas Fu. ONR. National Naval Responsibility—Naval Engineering.
Presentation to the committee, April 2018.
• Education—including the full spectrum of learners, from under

graduate and graduate students to mid-career professionals.
Hands-on, experiential learning opportunities are especially effec-
tive in both educating and inspiring prospective NE professionals.
• Recruitment—building on early engagement of undergraduate
and graduate students—and faculty—in the NE enterprise, pro-
viding exciting, meaningful career opportunities to the best of the
best.
• Retention—ensuring that these professionals are challenged, and
that they are rewarded for high performance, including via career
advancement through additional training and experience.
The Navy’s success in building the NE workforce pipeline can therefore

be measured on the basis of a number of outcomes. Perhaps the most direct
one is the population of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers
supported by ONR programs. Changes in this population over time may be
indicative of changing levels of ONR support for graduate work, but it may
also be reflective of longer-term trends in the number of individuals enter-
ing relevant STEM fields to create a larger body of interested and capable
candidates for program support.

The 2011 Transportation Research Board (TRB) review of the

NNR-NE estimated that for the 4 years from 2006 to 2009, the program
supported 1,235 graduate students and 330 post-doctoral fellows, or
about 310 and 80 per year, respectively (see Table 4-1). When queried
about recent support for these students and researchers, ONR program
staff estimated the number of graduate students had grown to an average
of about 640 per year and the number of post-doctoral fellows to about
160 per year (see Table 4-2).
These most recent numbers indicate that the NNR-NE program has
been increasingly successful in supporting the training and education of
students pursuing advanced degrees in disciplines related to naval engineer-
ing. One might infer that the NNR-NE efforts to interest K–12 students
in STEM and to inspire undergraduate NE students have contributed to
the growth in NE graduate students by creating a larger base of younger
students interested in and able to pursue those graduate-level opportuni-
ties. The NNR-NE program has a record of contributing to STEM pipeline
programs and naval engineering experiential learning opportunities, and
these efforts may be paying off in ways that are now becoming evident in
the graduate and post-doc populations.
TABLE 4-1 Graduate Students and Post-doctoral Fellows Supported by

NNR-NE, 2006–2009
Fiscal Year Graduate Students Post-doctoral Fellows
2006 275 50
2007 460 100
2008 245 80
2009 255 100
SOURCE: TRB Special Report 306: Naval Engineering in the 21st Century: The Science and
Technology Foundation for Future Naval Fleets. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 2011, p. 145.
TABLE 4-2 Graduate Students and Post-doctoral Fellows Supported by

NNR-NE, 2017 and 2018
Fiscal Year Graduate Students Post-doctoral Fellows
2017 650 129
2018 637 183
SOURCE: J. Smith, ONR, personal communication, September 2018.

Unfortunately, metrics that address outputs across all NNR-NE pipe-

line investments are not available for assessing the validity of inferences
about the long-term workforce value of investments in K–12 STEM and
experiential learning. For this purpose, ONR might need “longitudinal”
metrics that track individuals as they move into and through the NE
workforce pipeline. The idea would be to track how many funded students
transition to NE positions in the government and industry and how long
they remain in those positions. While difficult to develop, such metrics
could inform important choices about the appropriate mix of workforce
investments across the continuum, from STEM K–12 to graduate research
and professional development. Although their benefit cannot be assessed
directly, investments aimed at inspiring and attracting people to the NE
educational pipeline are being made by NNR-NE as well as the Navy
and DOD.
In reviewing the data gathered on graduate and post-doctoral NE stu-
dents from the 2011 TRB review (2006 to 2009, cited in Table 4-1) and
this review (2017 to 2018, cited in Table 4-2), the committee also observes
that the shares of the total student population from underrepresented
groups, including women, African Americans, and Hispanics, have re-
mained largely unchanged over the period, with women accounting for
between 15 and 20 percent and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups
accounting for ªbetween 5 and 10 percent. It merits noting that according
to a recent N ational Academies report on STEM graduate education the
number of master’s and doctoral degrees in STEM fields grew consider-
ably for both men and women from 2000 to 2015, but the growth rates
for women were higher.8 Women earned 96 percent more master’s degrees
and 74 percent more doctoral degrees in 2015 than in 2000, while men
earned 82 percent and 43 percent more, respectively. Hence, there would
appear to be increasing opportunity for attracting more women to NE,
especially b ecause (according to the National Academies report) women
earned 322,900 STEM degrees in 2015, nearly on parity with men (who
earned 327,100 degrees). While growth rates in STEM undergraduate and
graduate degrees earned by underrepresented minorities have been lower
than the rates of growth achieved by women, the National Academies
report points out that demographic trends are expected to increase the
former’s share of potential graduate students as well—and thus potentially
offer more opportunity to expand the NE talent pool.
8 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Graduate STEM
Education for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Pp. 33–55.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25038.

ONR/NNR-NE Programs
The SeaPerch K–12 outreach and education camp was one of the first
STEM programs funded by the NNR-NE. Based on a book of that name,
the first curriculum using this concept was created at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology to inspire young students into the ocean sciences
and NE pipelines. Students learn about robotics, engineering, science, and
mathematics while building an underwater remotely operated vehicle. With
the assistance of ONR and the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, the SeaPerch program has expanded to reach young people
across the country and abroad.
The RobotX competition is another STEM effort funded under the
NNR-NE program that has had considerable success in attracting young
people to NE disciplines, in this case by focusing on undergraduate and
graduate students. First held in 2014 in Singapore and later in Hawai‘i
in 2016 and 2018, the competition employs a standardized surface vessel
platform that students transform into an autonomous system capable of
performing a series of tasks on the water on its own. Students are respon-
sible for all aspects of the system, including sensors, controls, software,
power, communications, and the propulsion system.
The NNR-NE program has also played a major role in the establish-
ment of several internship programs to provide the experiential learn-
ing opportunities that connect both students and teachers to the NE
enterprise. They include the Naval Research Enterprise Intern Program
(NREIP), a 10-week program that offers summer appointments at Navy
laboratories to sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students from
participating universities. The program is administered by the American
Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). In 2017, 41 undergraduates
participated at Navy labs and about 20 at the Naval Postgraduate School.
The ASEE also administers the Navy/ASEE Summer Faculty Research
and Sabbatical Leave Program that enables university faculty members
to work for 10 weeks (or longer for those eligible for sabbatical leave) in
Navy laboratories on research of mutual interest. In addition to attracting
and retaining members of the NE pipeline, programs such as these can
potentially play a role in minimizing the adverse impacts on future NE
workers from delays associated with obtaining security clearances. Two
examples of similar programs from outside the ONR portfolio that are
intended to inspire and help recruit the future analytical and engineering
workforce are described in Box 4-1. They suggest a potential to leverage
ongoing collaborative efforts that engage students, scientists, startups, and
practitioners (including sailors) to band together to tackle difficult and
important challenges, such as those that span the Navy’s digital, technical,
and engineering landscape.

Over the years, the NNR-NE program has leveraged these various
internship, scholarship, and fellowship programs to increase the number
of young people and early career professionals engaged in the Navy’s NE
enterprise. The Center for Innovation in Ship Design (CISD) was created
around the same time as the NNR-NE program. The CISD is a partner-
ship between ONR, Naval Sea Systems Command, and the shipbuilding
industry. This collaborative learning environment was created to take a
total ship design approach to complex design problems. The problems are
addressed through “Innovation Cells” that employ teams from government,
academia, and industry in high-intensity, 3- to 6-month projects to create
a ship design concept; for instance, a small, fast ship.
The NNR-NE program was responsible for the creation of the Cen-
ters for Innovation in Naval Technologies (CINTs). The centers facilitate
short-term innovation cell activities in collaboration with Naval Informa-
tion Warfare Systems Command (NAVWARSYSCOM) San Diego, Naval
Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock, NSWC Panama City, NSWC
Philadelphia, and NSWC Dahlgren. Annually, each CINT selects a topic,
and creates teams of NREIP students, summer faculty, and government
employees to examine the problem and develop solutions.
DOD Programs
DOD also supports programs that support the NE enterprise workforce.
For example, the Science and Engineering Apprentice Program provides
opportunities for high school students to work as junior research assistants
in DOD laboratories. In 2017, 265 students participated in the program,
including 24 at Navy labs and about 40 at the Naval Postgraduate School.
Further along in the pipeline, the National Defense Science & Engineering
Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship Program awards fellowships to U.S. citizen
graduate students pursuing advanced degrees in STEM areas of interest to
DOD, including the Navy. Another example is DOD’s Science, M athematics,
and Research for Transformation (SMART) Scholarship-for-Service Program,
which provides full tuition and stipend support to undergraduate and gradu-
ate students pursuing a degree in a STEM discipline. SMART program
scholars, who have to be citizens of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, or the United States, are required to work for a minimum
number of years in a DOD lab or office. However, this requirement is often
viewed as an opportunity to obtain a challenging and competitive position
doing work in an area related to the scholar’s field of study. Another key
advantage of SMART scholarships is that they require an early commitment
from students, allowing the security clearance process to start sooner.
Summaries of recent NDSEG fellowship and SMART awards are
shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. The low number of fellowships and awards in

TABLE 4-3 Awards from 2014–2017 National Defense Science &

Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship Program by Field of Study
Field 2014 2015 2016 2017
Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering 15 21 19 28
Biosciences 21 18 15 21
Chemical Engineering 11 5 6 9
Chemistry 13 19 14 11
Civil Engineering 3 4 2 3
Cognitive, Neural, and Behavioral Sciences 6 14 13 9
Computer and Computational Sciences 13 23 13 15
Electrical Engineering 14 14 17 17
Geosciences 10 8 6 5
Materials Science and Engineering 22 15 26 22
Mathematics 11 9 9 11
Mechanical Engineering 14 13 12 17
Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 2 2 4 2
Oceanography 12 2 3 5
Physics 22 13 21 20
Total 189 180 180 195
Awards by Sponsoring Agency
Air Force Office of Scientific Research 67 59 0 0
Air Force Research Laboratory 0 0 60 65
Army Research Office 64 61 60 65
Office of Naval Research 58 60 60 65
Total 189 180 180 195
SOURCE: https://www.ndsegfellowships.org.
Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering is worrisome. While NNR-NE

is leveraging these two DOD programs, it cannot know how many students
from other disciplines end up pursuing careers in the multidisciplinary field
of NE either in government or in the private sector. Indeed, the collection
of data on how many students from other disciplines ultimately pursue NE
careers—including the subset that have obtained security clearances—could
shed light on this potential source of NE workers. NNR-NE efforts aimed
at increasing the applicant pools for these programs may be warranted to
ensure that each program’s participation adequately reflects the importance
of NE to the Navy and DOD.

TABLE 4-4 Summary of SMART Awards and Educational Attainment

2018 2017 2016
Number of Scholars Awarded 382 343 239
Proposed Degree Percentage Percentage Percentage
Bachelor’s 57 58 58
Joint Bachelor’s-Master’s 7 8 8
Master’s 18 15 15
Ph.D. 19 19 19
Awarded by Discipline Percentage Percentage Percentage
Aeronautical and Astronautical
Engineering 7 8 8
Biosciences 1 3 3
Chemical Engineering 1 3 3
Chemistry 1 1 1
Civil Engineering 5 7 7
Cognitive, Neural, and Behavioral
Sciences 1 1 1
Computer and Computational Sciences
and Computer Engineering 26 22 22
Electrical Engineering 22 18 18
Geosciences 2 2 2
Industrial and Systems Engineering 2 3 3
Information Sciences 2 2 2
Materials Science and Engineering 3 1 1
Mathematics 5 3 3
Mechanical Engineering 16 20 20
Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering 1 2 2
Nuclear Engineering 1 1 1
Oceanography 0 0 0
Operations Research 1 1 1
Physics 3 4 4
NOTE: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: https://smartscholarshipprod.service-now.com/smart?id=kb_category&kb_category=
6242a353dbbd0300b67330ca7c9619b9.

In addition to programs aimed at students, DOD has many workforce

development and executive education programs targeted at the existing
STEM workforce that are applicable to the NE enterprise. While most of
these programs are concentrated on uniformed service members, there is
vast potential for expansion of the programs to the civilian DOD work-
force. The programs run the gamut from short courses taken in the work-
place or online to advanced, graduate-level in-residence courses. Some
DOD institutions offer certificate and degree credit courses in a broad array
of resident, non-resident, and hybrid programs. The Defense Acquisition
University, for example, provides training at three levels of certification.
These DOD programs are obviously important for developing, maintain-
ing, and enhancing the relevance of the skills of defense industry workers.
There are also DOD institutions that can be exploited to convert non-
STEM employees into STEM workers. For example, the Naval Postgradu-
ate School (NPS) has a program to re-qualify mid-career naval officers with
non-STEM degrees into master’s degree graduates of science and engineer-
ing programs. It does so in both resident and non-resident offerings. DOD
civilians are eligible for these NPS programs, and many are enrolled now,
especially in the systems engineering domain, but further use could be made
in the future of this conversion option, short-circuiting as it does the 8- to
10-year lag time between eighth grade and the workplace, and virtually
eliminating attrition and clearance issues.
“LEAD, LEVERAGE, AND MONITOR” WORKFORCE

INVESTMENTS
In Chapter 3 it was recommended that ONR use the “lead, leverage, and
monitor” construct to guide its science and technology (S&T) portfolio
investments. This construct, in the committee’s view, is equally suited to
guiding NNR-NE’s strategic choices about education and workforce invest-
ments, as shown in Table 4-5. Its use in this way would also be consistent
with the advice in the 2011 TRB review, which pointed to the importance
of NNR-NE having an explicit, well-guided role with regard to the NE
workforce. Indeed, the earlier report concluded that “ONR research invest-
ments should be directed according to the value to the Navy of the scientific
knowledge they produce, but the connection between research support and
professional workforce supply cannot be overlooked.” The report went on
to conclude, however, that “the practical significance of managing STEM
as an essential element of the NNRs is not evident.” This study committee
agrees with the importance placed by the earlier study committee on NNR-
NE’s STEM and workforce roles, but does not find evidence that much has
changed in the program since the 2011 report was issued.

TABLE 4-5 “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor” Applied to NNR-NE

Workforce Investments
• Inspire NE education and • Navy and DOD • Developments in STEM
talent scholarships, fellowships, outreach and training
• Sponsor NE experiential and internships toward NE programs in the United
learning and training via education States and overseas
university grants that • Industry internships • Technology developers
include UG and G students • Government and industry external to DOD, including
• Sponsor K–12 programs faculty sabbaticals in NE- international, with a view
and outreach programs relevant settings to keeping ONR-supported
relevant to NE • U.S. and international training programs up to
• Sponsor student internships STEM competitions date, as well as identifying
at relevant Navy and DOD reflecting NE future potential experiential
facilities challenges learning opportunities
• Sponsor NE faculty
internships and sabbaticals
at relevant government
(and possibly industry)
facilities
NOTE: DOD = U.S. Department of Defense; G = graduate; NE = naval engineering; ONR =

Office of Naval Research; STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; UG =
undergraduate.
What the committee finds missing from the NNR-NE’s workforce

activities is an “intent-driven” approach to strategic direction. NNR-NE
has long supported programs aimed at inspiring and developing NE talent
through a variety of means across the continuum of K–12, undergraduate
student, graduate student, faculty, and government and industry employee
programs discussed earlier. The program, however, lacks insightful out-
come metrics that can be used to monitor and improve the effectiveness
of its lead workforce responsibilities and overall progress toward its NE
workforce goals. As noted earlier, the program lacks longitudinal measures
to determine whether its inspirational and experiential learning programs,
such as at the K–12 levels, are having a positive influence on the number
of students entering the STEM fields relevant to NE and whether those
students are ultimately pursuing NE careers. As the STEM fields relevant
to the NE pipeline change and expand, such metrics are becoming increas-
ingly important to ensure the NNR-NE program aligns with and leverages
the training and other pipeline activities of other parts of ONR, DOD,
and the private sector to ensure adequate workforce depth and breadth to
address the Navy’s NE needs today and in the future. Such alignment and
leveraging, for instance, could be helpful for finding ways to ensure that

DOD-sponsored fellowships and scholarships attract larger numbers of

naval engineers.
Given the observations made earlier in this chapter, and with these stra-
tegic needs of the NNR-NE workforce component in mind, the committee
offers the following recommendations:
• ONR should perform periodic assessments of the effectiveness of

NNR-NE workforce development programs, such as faculty sum-
mer fellowships, student internships, and centers for innovation
(e.g., CISD and CINTs), in connecting faculty and students with
Navy challenges and problems. The assessments should be sup-
ported by reporting metrics that track career outcomes and paths
(Recommendation 4-1).
• ONR should use NNR-NE funds to leverage the STEM education
and workforce programs that already exist in the U.S. Department
of the Navy and DOD, such as NDSEG Fellowship and SMART
Programs, as a means of increasing participation by naval engineers
and naval architects in accordance with the importance these disci-
plines to the Navy and DOD (Recommendation 4-2).
• ONR should consider innovative means to expedite the final stages
of recruitment of STEM professionals engaged in NE, such as by
providing funding for newly hired personnel to train and work
productively on unclassified projects while awaiting facility access
clearances (Recommendation 4-3).
• When developing and expanding NNR-NE programs aimed at in-
spiring and recruiting students and workers to the NE enterprise,
ONR should emphasize the importance of engaging individuals
from underrepresented groups to maximize the talent pool (Recom-
mendation 4-4).
• ONR should apply the “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework
for guiding its education pipeline and workforce priorities and
programs (Recommendation 4-5).


Naval Engineering Science and

Technology Infrastructure
The National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering (NNR-NE)

program’s programming and prioritizing of its third pillar, maintaining
and supporting the infrastructure for naval-specific naval engineering
(NE) r esearch and development (R&D), can also be guided by the “lead,
leverage, and monitor” construct. Success in furthering the first pillar of
the NNR-NE, the leading and leveraging of the R&D needed to satisfy the
future Navy’s unique and critical NE needs, requires an infrastructure of
experimental facilities and modeling and simulation resources. Investments
in the maintenance, invigoration, and advancement of this physical and
computational infrastructure are also critical to building and developing
the NE educational and research pipeline to ensure a skilled and talented
NE workforce. Because the NNR-NE does not own, manage, or program
the capital investments made in much of this infrastructure, especially large-
scale experimental facilities, it must find ways to ensure the infrastructure’s
availability and suitability for conducting and integrating needed NE R&D
and for sustaining and strengthening the NE workforce.
This chapter discusses the importance of both forms of science and
technology (S&T) infrastructure—experimental and computational—to the
Navy’s NE enterprise and considers the challenges and choices the NNR-NE
faces in ensuring its availability and suitability for meeting the future Navy’s
NE needs. The array of S&T infrastructure needed for R&D is as varied as
hydrodynamics and structures to propulsors and power creates a resource
availability and allocation challenge for NNR-NE. As discussed next, this
challenge can be vexing when it comes to ensuring the availability of large-
scale experimental assets. Small-scale testing facilities and computational
65

resources are providing alternatives to large-scale facilities, but they too can
present technical and resource-related challenges, including a demand for
complementary physical testing infrastructure.
CHANGING ROLE OF EXPERIMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The NNR-NE supports experimental research by university faculty con-
ducted using the testing facilities of the Navy’s Warfare Centers (WCs),
other federal government agencies, universities, and research institutions
outside the country. The chapter addendum contains an inventory of the
numerous experimental facilities available for outside (government and
private sector) researcher use at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC).
The facilities in the Navy’s WCs have the advantage of allowing experi-
ments close to scale and enabling valuable collaborations among university-
affiliated researchers and WC personnel. However, a significant challenge
for researchers working on NNR-NE projects is covering the use fees
charged by WC facilities, as these charges usually include large overhead
costs. Investigators who do not reside near the WC will also need to make
extended-stay travel arrangements when using the facilities, adding to the
expense of experiments. A compounding factor is the need for researchers
to obtain security clearances to access the WCs, which can delay use of the
test facilities and sometimes preclude access by non-citizens. These factors,
in turn, can have the effect of reducing the overall use of the WC facil-
ity, which means that overhead costs are divided among a small number
of researchers, further disadvantaging university researchers working on
small-budget NNR-NE projects.
Whereas underutilized WC facilities can often generate the user-based
income needed to keep equipment running; the revenues earned may not
be sufficient to finance equipment upgrades, or to operate the facility with
sufficient frequency to build the technical capabilities of testing personnel.
Consequently, the facilities can become technologically stagnant, which
further reduces their value to researchers. By way of example, data on the
average annual usage and income from user fees of the hydrodynamics fa-
cilities operated by the NSWC Carderock Division from fiscal years 2015
to 2018 are presented in Table 5-1. The data show the low usage (averaging
about 21 hours per week) and resulting low income generated by important
facilities such as the Large Cavitation Channel.
The main alternatives to large-scale WC facilities and other government
assets for experimental research are smaller-scale university facilities and
large-scale testing centers operated abroad. While there are some examples
of large-scale university facilities that remain in operation in the United
States, such as hydrodynamic testing facilities at the University of Michi-
gan and the University of Minnesota, most university facilities are small in

NAVAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE 67
TABLE 5-1 Average Annual Hours of Use and Income Generated from
User Fees, Hydrodynamics Facilities of the Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Fiscal Years 2015 to 2018
Income Usage
Hydrodynamics Facility (thousands) (hours)
Carriage 1 370 803
Carriage 2 706 1,144
Carriage 3 170 301
Carriage 5 257 163
140ʹ Basin 27 705
MASK 1,134 2,102
Rotating Arm 210 483
8ʹ×10ʹ Wind Tunnel 108 406
12ʺ Water Tunnel 1 50
LCC 1,710 1,110
Circulating Water Channel 83 371
NOTE: LCC = Large Cavitation Channel; MASK = Maneuvering and Seakeeping Basin.
SOURCE: Personal communication with NSWC-CD test facility staff.
scale, due in part to limitations on space. Such facilities may be funded by

government grants or by the institution itself (e.g., startup funds for young
investigators, capital improvement funds). For example, competitive grants
for the construction and upgrading of facilities and their equipment are
awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (e.g., Major Research
Instrumentation Program) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
(University Research Instrumentation Program). In the case of experimental
facilities that have primarily naval application, the Office of Naval Research
(ONR) and other units of the Navy may provide support for their develop-
ment, including grants by the NNR-NE for smaller-scale facilities.
While tests conducted using smaller-scale facilities may not replicate
the physics of the full-scale environment, the testing can nevertheless be
valuable for validating computational models. Another advantage is that
these local facilities can provide immediate access to researchers, who also
incur lower overhead fees. Nevertheless, it is fair to question whether it is
efficient for NNR-NE to spread its experimental infrastructure investments,
even if individual outlays are relatively small, across myriad testing facilities

BOX 5-1
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands Hydrodynamics
Facilities
• Depressurized Towing Tank (upgraded 2011)

• Deep Water Towing Tank (upgraded 1951)
• Concept Basin (upgraded 2015)
• Large Cavitation Tunnel (upgraded 1966)
• Offshore Basin (upgraded 2016)
• Seakeeping and Maneuvering Basin (upgraded 2017)
• Shallow Water Basin (upgrade unspecified)
• Ship Maneuvering Simulator (upgrade unspecified)
• High-Speed Cavitation Tunnel (upgrade unspecified)
SOURCE: International Towing Tank Conference (https://ittc.info/facilities).
because of the potential for redundancy and limited access by researchers

from other institutions. There is the possibility too that these smaller fa-
cilities may become underutilized, or even abandoned, as researchers leave
institutions or change their research direction.
For research projects that require the scale and test features comparable
to those of WC facilities, the investigator may partner with overseas institu-
tions that operate facilities with the needed capabilities. For example, the
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands1 operates several large-scale facili-
ties that are comparable to those at NSWC Carderock (see Box 5-1) and the
National Research Council of Italy operates INSEAN,2 a naval architecture
and marine engineering research institute that has invested in a large circu-
lating water channel and two cavitation channels. Other examples are the
Lir National Ocean Test Facility Wave Tank in Ireland3 and the FloWave
Ocean Energy Research Facility in Scotland.4
A comprehensive list of large-scale hydrodynamic test facilities has
been assembled by the International Towing Tank Conference.5 This inven-
tory shows that some countries operate or are building test facilities with
capabilities not offered by WC facilities. For example, Russia and China,
among other nations (primarily in Europe), have built ice basin facilities to
1 See https://www.marin.nl.
2 See http://www.insean.cnr.it.
3 See http://www.lir-notf.com.
4 See https://www.flowavett.co.uk.
5 See https://ittc.info/facilities.

accommodate research on vessel icebreaking capabilities as a warming cli-

mate has opened previously inaccessible waterways. The National Research
Council of Canada operates an ice tank in Newfoundland that is being used
for testing of icebreaker designs, including those that may be employed by
the U.S. Coast Guard.6
Researchers may choose to use such foreign facilities because they of-
fer capabilities not found in the United States and/or because they may be
accessed at less expense and with fewer security and clearance restrictions.
While the latter advantages may appeal to researchers working on projects
with constrained budgets, one can question whether sending experimental-
ists to test facilities overseas is consistent with furthering the NNR-NE’s
mission to develop the U.S. NE workforce and in meeting naval-relevant
S&T needs. Even in cases where the research is unclassified, the content
may be sensitive enough that it may not be desirable to perform tests
abroad that would be operated and observed by foreign nationals.
As computational resources become faster, less expensive, and more
nimble and capable, large investments in domestic experimental facilities
may become more difficult to justify. At the same time—and as discussed
next—until model-based engineering is proven unequivocally accurate,
experiments to validate the fidelity of computational modeling may be
required and necessitate the maintenance of a hybrid experimental-compu-
tational research paradigm.
CHANGING COMPUTATIONAL CAPABILITIES

As computing power has increased along with improvements in high-
performance computing architectures, the entire DOD enterprise has seen
a shift toward the use of modeling and simulation to drive the design,
development, and testing of highly complex military systems. Advanced
computing and modeling capabilities offer the potential for holistic evalua-
tion in accelerated time scales and faster delivery of capability to the fleet.
The trend toward a more digital representation of naval platform ca-
pabilities presents both opportunities and challenges. The study committee
heard numerous accounts from the shipbuilding industry of the use of a
digital “twin” and model-based systems engineering (MBSE) to enable a
more efficient, highly integrated systems engineering life cycle for naval
platforms (see Appendix A). From an overall cost standpoint, a true digital
twin promises significant savings in time and materials to Navy platform
programs. An integrated MBSE capability can aid design teams in identify-
ing issues earlier in the life cycle, adapting to changing requirements with
6 See https://nrc.canada.ca/en/research-development/nrc-facilities/ice-tank-21-m-research-facility.

ease, and validating the performance of new baselines through consistent,

repeatable test conditions.
However, while advances in computational capabilities promise to
compress ship design, development, and test schedules, there is good reason
to believe they will never fully replace experimental testing and may even
create a need for more sophisticated, higher precision, and larger-scale test-
ing facilities. For example, in recent years computational fluid d ynamics
(CFD) has advanced along two complementary and overlapping fronts
relevant to naval engineering: (1) modeling and simulation of complex
multi-physics, multi-scale phenomena, such as wave breaking, air entrain-
ment, and flow cavitation; and (2) incorporation of increasingly compli-
cated geometries, motions, and mechanisms in greater spatial and temporal
scales (e.g., 6 degrees of freedom motions and maneuvering of realistic hull
plus appendages and propulsors in realistic seas and wind). In the former
case, high resolution and precision whole-field 4-dimension (volume plus
time) measurements applied to canonical/“idealized” problems provide
direct quantitative comparisons to CFD that are essential for assessing and
validating the inherent assumptions, modeling fidelity, and computational
predictions of CFD. In the latter case, large-scale CFD is becoming increas-
ingly competitive with traditional tank tests. However, modeling/simulation
can only approximate reality. Integrating multiple components, even if fully
modeled, can yield unexpected, emergent behavior, and as scales and physi-
cal complexities increase (e.g., nonlinearities, unsteadiness, compressibility,
compliant non-smooth surfaces, and fluid–structure interactions), large
physical facilities and tests may become essential for both complementing
and validating CFD predictions (see Box 5-2 for an illustration).
IMPLICATIONS FOR NNR-NE’S “LEAD, LEVERAGE, AND

MONITOR” FUNCTIONS
A number of challenges that NNR-NE faces for ensuring the availability
and suitability of the NE research and testing infrastructure have already
been identified. What these challenges suggest is that the physical experi-
mental infrastructure needed for NE R&D and workforce development
is changing but not going away. While NNR-NE supports the design and
development of infrastructure at the smaller scale (often in university set-
tings), the nature of NE research can often require large-scale infrastructure
with unique capabilities. Solutions, therefore, will be needed to overcome
impediments to the development and use of the needed physical infrastruc-
ture and for exploiting opportunities for leveraging existing experimental
assets.
As a first step in the development of such solutions the committee rec-
ommends that ONR should undertake a thorough inventory and assessment

BOX 5-2
The Complementary Role of Experimental and
Computational Capabilities for Naval Engineering as
Exemplified by Cavitation Dynamics
Unsteady cavitation is known to cause noise, vibration, and erosion of marine

lifting bodies. Hence, it is important to understand the cause of unsteady cavity
shedding. Until recently, researchers believed the formation of the re-entrant jet
that initiates at the rear of the cavity and moves upstream is the primary driver of
this phenomenon, and most computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models assume
incompressible flow. X-ray densitometry experiments have shown that another
important driver is the formation and propagation of shock waves, caused by
the drop in the local sound speed of the liquid-vapor mixture. CFD models must
therefore account for the effect of flow compressibility in addition to the complex
multiphase and multi-scale dynamics of cavitation. The results also demonstrate
the need for complementary experimental and computational modeling, as it
is very difficult to simultaneously measure the spatial and temporal distribution
of vapor fraction, velocity, and pressure distribution, but experiments are also
needed to understand the validity of the fundamental assumptions in the numeri-
cal models. To add to the complexity, recent experiments have also shown that
structural vibrations can also drastically modify the cavity shedding frequency
and resulting spectral response through nonlinear fluid–structure interaction.
Preliminary results also suggest that it may be possible to control the cavitating
response by applying controlled, small-amplitude structural vibrations at the
proper frequency. The fluid–structure interaction response is very challenging
to scale in laboratory experiments because of the need to properly scale the
material, structure, and flow conditions in addition to the controller algorithm.
Simultaneously, understanding of the physics is critical to developing the correct
models to simulate the response.
of NE testing infrastructure needs and capabilities, large and small, in the

Navy, elsewhere in DOD, at universities, in the private sector, and at institu-
tions abroad (Recommendation 5-1). The inventory and assessment should
consider options for making greater use of relevant testing infrastructure
from within and outside DOD, including the assets of other government
agencies. For example, the U.S. Department of the Interior manages a large
wave and tow tank facility, the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
Environmental Test Tank, that can be booked by university researchers
and has many capabilities that overlap with NNR-NE needs. Consideration
should also be given to the applicability of small-scale testing facilities that
may exist in university settings but that are associated with faculties not
traditionally viewed as part of the NE enterprise, such as the wave tanks,
towing basins, and flumes used by researchers in civil and environmental
engineering departments.

Informed by this recommended inventory and assessment of testing

needs and capabilities, the committee recommends that ONR should use
the “lead, leverage, monitor” framework to guide NNR-NE’s efforts to
ensure the availability and suitability of the NE R&D infrastructure (Rec-
ommendation 5-2).
Table 5-2 identifies opportunities where the NNR-NE can take the
lead in ensuring the needed experimental capacity is available to NE re-
searchers and students and where it can leverage the capabilities of other
organizations. In fulfillment of its lead function, NNR-NE should consider
convening working groups of NE researchers to advise the WCs on facility
maintenance needs, capability gaps, and opportunities for upgrades. Such
an effort could be patterned after the Naval Sea Systems Command’s Re-
quest for Information for its Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program.
Consideration should also be given to identifying ways to make university
facilities constructed with NNR-NE funding or performing NNR-NE work
more accessible to researchers from other institutions. ONR might explore
the idea of establishing a consortium of these academic facilities by funding
them to set aside a small fraction of their operational time for shared-use
operations.
ONR needs to be systematic in its choices about when and how it
should lead, leverage, and monitor for the purpose of ensuring that the
adequate experimental infrastructure is available for the NE enterprise. Ac-
cordingly, the committee further recommends that ONR should develop a
comprehensive plan for increasing the availability and utilization of needed
S&T experimental infrastructure, including making large-scale facilities
more affordable to NNR-NE researchers and smaller-scale facilities less
redundant and more open to shared use (Recommendation 5-3).
A plan to make the Navy’s large-scale experimental infrastructure
more cost and security accessible to university researchers may require in-
novations in facility business models, perhaps inspired by the approaches
of other government agencies. Consideration might be given, for instance,
TABLE 5-2 Where NNR-NE Can Lead, Leverage, and Monitor to Ensure
That R&D Instructure Is Available and Suitable for NE Needs
• User group of academic • WC facilities • Test capability and
investigators using Warfare • Commercial test centers access provided
Center (WC) experimental • Private and other government by international
infrastructure infrastructure facilities
• Consortium of National Naval • U.S. Department of Defense
Responsibility for Naval high-performance computing
Engineering university facilities

to the practices employed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and

NSF in managing and funding their large-scale facilities and equipment.
As an example, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration and Of-
fice of Science administer the National Laser Users’ Facility Program to
provide access to and funding for the use of the OMEGA Laser Facility at
the University of Rochester.7 The program reaches out to the community
of academic and industrial researchers who are interested in conducting
high-energy-density physics and inertial confinement fusion research at the
facility, and has the goal of providing the research experience necessary to
maintain a cadre of trained scientists to meet the country’s future needs
in these S&T areas. It merits noting that the OMEGA facility also holds
regular user workshops to disseminate results and foster collaborations,
and it convenes scientific advisory committees whose members discuss
maintenance and formulate ideas for facility upgrades.
Addendum
The following NSWC Carderock Division facilities are available for use by
outside sources (both government and private sector) through Coopera-
tive Research and Development Agreements and Work for Private Parties
Agreements.8
• Acoustic Research Detachment

• Advanced Ceramics Laboratory
• Advanced Electrical Machinery Systems Facility
• Advanced Shipboard Machinery Development Facility
• Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Test Facility
• Anechoic Flow Facility
• Biotechnology Laboratories
• Boiler Components Test Facility
• Cargo/Weapons Elevator Land Based Engineering Site
• Center for Innovation in Ship Development
• Circulating Water Channel
• Combatant Craft Department
• Compressed Air System Facility
• Data Collection and Calibration Facility
• David Taylor Model Basin
• Deep Submergence Pressure Tank Facility
• Diesel Engine Development Facility
7 See
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=312481.
8 See
https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Carderock/What-We-Do/
Laboratories-and-Research-Facilities/List-of-Laboratories-and-Research-Facilities.

• Dosimetry Laboratories
• Electrical Power Technology Facility
• Electrochemical/Battery Laboratories
• Environmental Protection Laboratories
• Explosives Test Pond
• Fatigue and Fracture Laboratories
• Fire Tolerant Materials Laboratories
• Fox Island Laboratory
• Fuel Cell Laboratory
• Gas Turbine Development Facility
• Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical Systems Live Fire Test Facility
• Industrial Technology Laboratory
• Infrared Systems
• Large Cavitation Channel
• Large Scale Grillage Test Facility
• Machinery Acoustic Silencing Laboratory
• Machinery Automation and Controls Facility
• Magnetic Fields Laboratory
• Magnetic Materials Laboratory
• Maneuvering and Seakeeping Basin
• Manufacturing Technology Laboratory
• Marine Coatings Laboratories
• Marine Corrosion Control and Evaluation Laboratories
• Marine Organic Composites Laboratories
• Materials Characterization and Analysis Laboratory
• Metal Spray Forming Laboratory
• Mission Support Facility
• Network Integration and Fiber Optics Facility
• Nondestructive Evaluation Laboratories
• Power Generation Test and Evaluation Facility
• Radar Imaging Modeling System
• Research Vessel Lauren Reverse Osmosis Test Facility
• Rotating Arm Facility
• Ship Materials Technology Center
• Ship Motion Simulator Land Based Test Site
• Ship Virtual Prototyping Laboratory
• Shock Trials Instrumentation
• Signature Materials Laboratory
• Small Gas Turbine Test Facility
• South Florida Testing Facility
• Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility
• Steam Propulsion Support Facility
• Steam Propulsion Test Facility

• Structural Dynamics Laboratory

• Structural Evaluation Laboratory
• Subsonic Wind Tunnel
• Survivability Engineering Facility
• Torpedo Strikedown Lift System Land Based Test Site
• Undersea Vehicle Sail and Deployed Systems Facility
• Underwater Explosions Test Facility
• USNS HAYES Oceanographic Research Ship
• Welding Process and Consumable Development Laboratories


Summary Assessment and Advice
At the request of the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the study committee
reviewed the state of the National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineer-
ing (NNR-NE) program. Accordingly, the three previous chapters assess
and provide advice on the three pillars of the program: technical research,
workforce, and institutional infrastructure. The assessment and advice were
informed by the committee’s many consultations with ONR and Navy
leadership, other U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) officials, fleet repre-
sentatives, industry performers, and academic researchers. The committee
also reviewed strategic Navy documents that consider the relevance of the
science and technology (S&T) portfolio within the context of a rapidly
changing, global technology ecosystem. Because of these consultations and
document reviews, the committee gained a stronger understanding of the
vast and varied set of technologies that constitute and influence the future
of naval engineering (NE). It also developed a stronger appreciation of the
need for a highly skilled and talented workforce to implement the NNR-NE
research agenda.
The review in this report was conducted in large part by applying a
“lead, leverage, and monitor” framework to consider ONR’s programming
and prioritization of its efforts to further the NNR-NE’s three pillars. The
framework was proposed to help guide ONR’s choices about when the
NNR-NE should take the lead in ensuring that research, workforce, and
R&D infrastructure needs essential to ensuring that naval-critical platform
capabilities are met. It was also proposed as a strategic tool for inform-
ing NNR-NE’s choices about when it should leverage the work of others
to help meet these critical needs, and thus to formally recognize a shared
77

responsibility to transition and adapt S&T innovations across a wide spec-

trum for use in the NE enterprise. Additionally, the framework is seen as a
way to inform choices about when resources should be devoted to monitor-
ing S&T developments within and outside the Navy (e.g., in DOD generally
and in the commercial sectors of the United States and abroad), especially
in areas that could prove disruptive to Navy operations or to the country’s
NE technical advantage.
Carried out for each of the three pillars in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, the
“lead, leverage, and monitor” review provided a testbed for the use of the
framework to guide ONR’s vision for and implementation of the NNR-NE.
Indeed, after having reviewed the NNR-NE’s three pillars using this frame-
work, the committee recommends that ONR use the framework for guiding
its choices for each pillar. Table 6-1 provides a compilation of the committee’s
application of the framework for each pillar. In offering these examples, the
committee recognizes that as critical naval interests and S&T topics evolve,
the subject matter of the cells in Table 6-1 may change, including some mov-
ing from one category to another.
Many of the findings in the chapters reflect positively on ONR’s execu-
tion of the NNR-NE. For instance, interest in NE-relevant science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has increased over
time, and a minimal physical experimental infrastructure for NE R&D has
been sustained for full-scale testing at the Navy’s Warfare Centers and for
smaller-scale testing at an array of academic institutions, despite cost and
security availability concerns.
At the same time, the framework’s application surfaced some chal-
lenges to the longer-term NE enterprise and the impact of the NNR-NE
program. Technology developments and innovations across a wide range
of S&T fields have evolved the NE enterprise, presenting critical choices for
ONR as it prioritizes its NNR-NE research, workforce, and infrastructure
investments. Increased competition for STEM talent in a technology-driven
economy threatens the quality and quantity of the future NE workforce.
ONR must therefore be astute in its efforts to sustain and develop the
NE workforce, especially in technical areas where the Navy has unique
needs. Additionally, the U.S.-based experimental infrastructure for NE is
at risk of eroding due to a smaller number of researchers having to bear
the high cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining physical facilities
as more NE researchers make use of lower cost options such as modeling
and simulation. In cases where the United States must maintain a physical
experimental capability to meet the Navy’s special NE needs, the NNR-NE
needs a comprehensive strategy to ensure the availability and suitability of
this capability.
After having applied the “lead, leverage, and monitor” framework to
the individual pillars of the NNR-NE program, the committee believes the

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT AND ADVICE 79
TABLE 6-1 Example Application of the “Lead, Leverage, and Monitor”

Framework Within and Across the Three Pillars of the NNR-NE
Research and • Platform hydrodynamics • Autonomy and robotics • Quantum science
Development • Platform structures and • Data science and and computing
materials artificial intelligence • Alternative energy
• Platform propulsion • Advanced sensors resources
• Platform power • Cybersecurity • Undersea resource
• Platform systems design • Communications utilization and
• Platform control and • Power systems and extraction
maneuverability power electronics • Nanotechnology
• Platform innovations • Advanced materials and • Biomaterials
integration and manufacturing • Synthetic biology
affordability • Multidisciplinary design • Cognitive science
optimization • Climate change
• Human–machine
interface
Workforce • Inspire naval engineering • Navy and DOD • Developments in
education and attraction scholarships, STEM outreach and
of talent fellowships, and training programs
• Sponsor naval internships toward NE in the United States
engineering experiential education and overseas
learning and training via • Industry internships • Technology
university grants that • Government and developers external
include undergraduate industry faculty to DOD, including
and graduate students sabbaticals in NE- international
• Sponsor K–12 programs relevant settings sources, with a view
and other outreach • United States and to keeping training
programs relevant to international science, programs supported
naval engineering (NE) technology, engineering, by the Office of
• Sponsor student and mathematics Naval Research up
internships at relevant (STEM) competitions to date, as well as
Navy and U.S. reflecting future NE identifying potential
Department of Defense challenges experiential learning
(DOD) facilities opportunities
• Sponsor NE faculty
internships and
sabbaticals at relevant
government (and possibly
industry) facilities
Infrastructure • User group of academic • Warfare Center facilities • Test capabilities
researchers using Warfare • Commercial sector test and access provided
Center infrastructure centers by international
• Consortium of National • Private and other facilities
Naval Responsibility government
for Naval Engineering infrastructure
university facilities • DOD high-performance
computing

same basic framework can be used strategically for making choices both
within and across the NNR-NE portfolio, as exemplified in Table 6-2. The
committee therefore recommends that ONR should adopt a “lead, lever-
age, and monitor” framework for the strategic programming, prioritiza-
tion, and integration of NNR-NE investments both within and across the
R&D, workforce, and infrastructure pillars (Recommendation 6-1). Used
in this way, this framework can signal to NNR-NE program leaders when
they should reallocate resources among the three pillars and also when they
should seek high-level support from ONR to supplement portfolio resources.
The recommended “lead, leverage, and monitor” construct can also be
used to assess the program’s progress and accomplishments at a strategic,
program-oriented level. However, the framework’s use in this way will re-
quire impact-oriented metrics that are tracked on a multi-year basis. While
the metrics collected today can be good indicators of the activity within a
given research program (i.e., number of papers, patents, graduate students
supported) or trends relevant to a given pillar (e.g., test facility rate of
utilization, cost per day), they do not necessarily provide a measure of the
program’s effectiveness in sustaining and advancing the NE enterprise over
a longer time frame to meet the needs of the future Navy. An example of
an impact metric identified in this report is workforce retention statistics
for NE R&D talent. Ideally, these impact metrics would be accompanied
TABLE 6-2 The “Lead, Leverage, Monitor” Framework as a Strategic,

Responsibility Matrix for the NNR-NE Program
R&D Content Set research scope, Become an agile adopter Engage, follow, and
priorities, and through program incorporate emerging
performance metrics. partnering across relevant technologies
Fund and manage the Office of Naval
programs Research and elsewhere
Workforce Sponsor/Inspire Foster NE perspective in Track relevant STEM

National Naval U.S. science, technology, activities, trends, and
Responsibility for engineering, and products
Naval Engineering mathematics (STEM)
(NNR-NE) education programs
and talent
R&D Ensure quality Facilitate access to Maintain awareness
Infrastructure and availability of novel infrastructure of relevant
critical NNR-NE capabilities international
computational infrastructure and
and experimental trends
infrastructure

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT AND ADVICE 81
by leading metrics, such as the number of undergraduate students choos-

ing majors in NE and related disciplines, to provide an earlier indication of
program successes, opportunities, and challenges. Additional metrics could
assist in the evaluation of the NNR-NE portfolio:
• Research Potential: The number of graduate students (Ph.D.,

master’s), the number of cleared students
• Research Impact: Tech transition to Innovative Naval Prototype,
Future Naval Capabilities, Program of Record, and Small Business
Innovation Research
• Workforce Impact: The number of funded students transitioning to
NE roles in government, military, academia, or industry
• Workforce Flexibility: The number of students pursuing STEM (not
NE) degrees on NE projects
• Workforce Longevity: Average number of years students remain in
NE (or related) positions
Such impact metrics would be helpful for informing ONR’s required

third-party reviews of the NNR-NE program. The committee believes that
such external reviews are critical to ensuring the program’s portfolio is
aligned with evolving Navy needs and has the appropriate completeness,
breadth, and depth. However, as the technological landscape evolves at a
faster and faster pace, this also implies that the external reviews should be
conducted on a commensurate time scale if the results are to be used to
inform decisions about needed changes to the program. Therefore, the com-
mittee recommends that ONR should consider leveraging a body of diverse
experts to serve in a periodic advisory capacity. Ideally, the full NNR-NE
portfolio, including its classified elements, would be reviewed at intervals
of no more than 3 to 4 years using the framework described earlier. This
review body would ideally consist of individuals from the S&T community,
the Systems Commands and operational Navy, and the platform-building
and platform systems sectors to bring a range of expertise and perspectives
on S&T capabilities, operational and workforce needs, and the transition of
innovations to naval platforms. Given its understanding of evolving Navy
needs, this multidisciplinary group could assess and enhance NNR-NE
research in a variety of ways on varying S&T time scales (Recommenda-
tion 6-2).
The committee is pleased to have had the opportunity to provide this
second external and independent review of the NNR-NE. The recommen-
dations offered in this report are intended to be constructive and to provide
the succinct, actionable advice that ONR needs to support its efforts to
ensure the NNR-NE achieves its vital mission in fast-changing S&T and
operational environments.


Appendix A
Invited Speakers and Presenters

at Committee Meetings
April 30–May 1, 2018

Overview, Sponsor Goals, and Expectations
Thomas C. Fu, Office of Naval Research (ONR)
Program 1: Ship Design

Kelly Cooper, ONR
Program 2: Platform Structures and Reliability

Dr. Paul Hess, ONR
Program 3: Propulsors
Ki-Han Kim, ONR
Program 4: Platform Power and Energy

H. Scott Coombe, ONR
Program 5: Hydromechanics
Joseph Gorski, ONR
Program 6: Automation and Control

Robert Brizzolara, ONR
83

August 14–15, 2018

Panel 1: Industry Perspective
Howard Fireman, Senior Vice President and Chief Digital Officer,
American Bureau of Shipping
Donald M. Hamadyk, Director, Innovation & Engineering Solutions,
HII—Newport News Shipbuilding
Robert G. Keane, Jr., President, Ship Design USA, Inc.
Panel 2: Warfighter Needs

RDML Lorin C. Selby, Chief Engineer of the Navy, and Deputy Com-
mander, Naval Systems Engineering (SEA 05)
Sharon Beermann-Curtin, Deputy Director of the Office of the Secre-
tary of Defense, Strategic C
apabilities Office
Michael S. Brown, Department Head, Code 80, Naval Architecture and
Engineering Department, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
Division
John C. Hootman, Deputy Director, Surface Warfare Division, Chief of
Naval Operations (OPNAV N96B)
October 1, 2018
Bradley E. Bishop, U.S. Naval Academy
James Bellingham, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Melissa L. Flagg, U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Priya S. Hicks and Christopher J. Rock (via teleconference), Electric
Boat
Matthew R. Werner, Webb Institute of Naval Architecture
Timothy J. Dasey and Reed Jensen, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy Lincoln Laboratory (MIT/LL)
Robert T-I. Shin, MIT/LL
Michael A. Aucoin, Draper Laboratory
January 14–16, 2019

Ryan Zelnio, ONR
Nathan Hagan, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
Charles R. Cushing, independent consultant
Jeffrey D. Paduan, Dean of Research, Naval Postgraduate School
Clyde Scandrett, Dean of the Graduate School of Engineering and Ap-
plied Sciences, Naval Postgraduate School
Thomas C. Fu, ONR
May 1, 2019
Thomas C. Fu, ONR

Appendix B
Study Committee Member

Biographical Information
Heidi C. Perry, Chair, is currently Principal Staff for the Division Office
for Air, Missile & Maritime Defense Technology at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory. In her role, she is responsible
for strategic initiatives for undersea systems, and serves as the chief inno-
vation officer for the division. Previously, Ms. Perry was Director, System
Engineering, at the Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Incorporated. She also
served in other senior leadership roles, including Director, Algorithms &
Software and Director, Internal R&D Portfolio. Her expertise includes
guidance, navigation, and control; global position system anti-jam and
ground control; autonomous systems; mission-critical software; and com-
mand, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems. Ms. Perry began her career with General Electric as
a systems engineer working on the AN/BSY-2 Sonar System before moving
to IBM, as a systems engineer for avionics design and flight test programs.
From IBM she moved to Draper Laboratory as task leader for the Dolphin
Navigation System Upgrade and remained with Draper for more than
20 years. In these years at the laboratory, she served as technical director for
various research and development programs involving autonomous space-
craft, aircraft, robotics systems, and underwater vehicles. A member of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and the American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), she was named AIAA Software
Engineer of the Year 2004—New England Sector. A former member of
the Naval Studies Board (2008–2013), she also served on the National
Academies’ Committee on Capability Surprise for U.S. Naval Forces, Com-
mittee on National Security Implications of Climate Change on U.S. Naval
85

Forces, and Committee on the “1,000 Ship Navy”—A Distributed and

Global Maritime Network. Most recently, she served as the co-chair of the
National Academies’ Committee on Mainstreaming Unmanned Undersea
Vehicles into Future U.S. Naval Operations. She received a B.S. in electrical
engineering from Cornell University and an M.S. in computer engineering
from the National Technical University. She currently serves as a member
of the President’s Council of Cornell Women.
Steven E. Ramberg, Vice-Chair, is a Senior Researcher at the Applied

Research Laboratory of The Pennsylvania State University. He recently
held the Chief of Naval Research Chair at the National Defense Univer-
sity (NDU) and has regularly participated in studies, panels, and lectures
for NDU, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Ocean Coun-
cil via the Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel, and others.
During his career, he served as a Fellow and as Vice President for Arete
Associates from 2007 to 2010; as the Director of the NATO Undersea
Research Centre (NURC) in LaSpezia, Italy, from 2003 to 2007; and as
Director and Chief Scientist for the Office of Naval Research (ONR)
from 2001 to 2003 after joining ONR in 1988. His career at ONR also
involved oversight of ocean, atmosphere, and space programs in basic
research through applied programs, including the Navy-owned research
vessels in the academic fleet, as well as inaugurating the National Ocean
Partnership Program across 12 federal agencies. At NURC, he focused on
maritime, mostly undersea, research programs while advising NATO in a
number of informal and formal settings, including research and technol-
ogy strategies, coordination of programs among the 26 NATO nations,
and transformation of NATO capabilities. Earlier, he worked at the Naval
Research Laboratory where he published more than 60 unclassified papers
in the archival literature on fluid dynamics of bluff bodies, non-linear
ocean waves, stratified wakes, turbulence near a free surface, and related
remote-sensing topics. Dr. Ramberg earned his Ph.D. in mechanical engi-
neering from The Catholic University of America.
Michael S. Bruno is the Provost at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Prior to his appointment, he was the Dean of the School of Engineer-
ing and Science, and Professor of Ocean Engineering at Stevens Insti-
tute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey. He was also the Director of
the C enter for M
aritime Security, a U.S. Department of Homeland Secu-
rity National Center of Excellence. Dr. Bruno is a Visiting Professor in
mechanical engineering at the University College London. His research and
teaching interests include ocean observation systems, maritime security,
and community resilience. He is the author of more than 100 technical
publications in various aspects of these fields. He has served on numerous

APPENDIX B 87
advisory committees and boards, including chairing the Marine Board of

the N
ational Academies; the Ocean Research Advisory Panel; the N aval Re-
search Advisory Committee; and the Group on Earth Observations Coastal
Zone Community of Practice. He serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal
of Marine Environmental Engineering. A Fulbright Scholar (1996 appoint-
ment at the Aristotle University, Greece), Dr. Bruno is also a Fellow of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). He received the Office of
Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1991, and the Outstanding
Service Award from ASCE in 1988. Dr. Bruno holds a B.S. degree in civil
engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, an M.S. degree
in civil engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Ph.D.
degree in civil and ocean engineering from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program in
Oceanography/Applied Ocean Science & Engineering.
Thomas M. Jahns (NAE) is the Grainger Professor of Power Electronics

and Electric Machines at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and has
been a driving force behind the development of high-performance perma-
nent magnet (PM) synchronous machine drives, distinguished by magnets
in their spinning rotors. Since early in his professional career at General
Electric, Dr. Jahns has made important technical contributions leading to
pioneering applications of PM drives in machine tools, home appliances,
aerospace actuators, and electric vehicles. Drawing on these principles,
nearly all hybrid- and battery-electric passenger vehicles in high-volume
commercial production today have adopted PM synchronous machines for
their electric propulsion systems. An Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) Fellow, Dr. Jahns’s many honors include the 2005 IEEE
Nikola Tesla Technical Field Award that recognizes the significance of his
PM machine contributions. He has served as President of the IEEE Power
Electronics Society and as Division II Director on the IEEE Board of Di-
rectors. Both the IEEE Industry Applications Society and the IEEE Power
Electronics Society have recognized him as a Distinguished Lecturer. He
has served on a number of National Academies committees, including the
Committee on Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 1; the
Review for the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, Phase 1; and the Committee
on the Advanced Automotive Technologies Plan. He earned his Ph.D. in
electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Jennifer G. Michaeli is an Assistant Professor of engineering technology

with a joint appointment at Old Dominion University’s (ODU’s) Batten
College of Engineering and Technology (BCET) and the Virginia Model-
ing, Analysis and Simulation Center. Prior to ODU, Dr. Michaeli was a
naval architect for the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,

where she led design, construction, and experimentation programs for

high-performance vessels and associated technologies for the United States
and partnering nations. She also worked in the marine industry, overseeing
design and construction of manned and unmanned vessels for military and
commercial applications. Her current research interests focus on digital
tools and technologies to improve design, construction, and maintenance
for naval vessels and aligning workforce development programs to harness
these digital technologies. Dr. Michaeli earned her Ph.D. in mechanical en-
gineering from ODU (2010), her M.S. degree in ocean systems management
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999), and B.S. degrees in
naval architecture and marine engineering from the Webb Institute of Naval
Architecture (1998). She is the recipient of numerous honors and awards,
including the State Council of Higher Education of Virginia Outstanding
Faculty Rising Star Award (2017), ODU BCET Excellence in Research
Award (2016), RADM Melville Award for Outstanding Technical Achieve-
ment NSWCCD (2007), and the American Society of Naval Engineers
Young Engineer of the Year Award (2006). Dr. Michaeli was elevated to
Fellow by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (2017) and
was selected by the membership at large to serve as a National Councilor
for the American Society of Naval Engineers (2014–2016). She has been a
licensed Professional Engineer in the state of Virginia since 2004.
RADM Marc Y. E. Pelaez (U.S. Navy, retired) is a retired Vice President at

Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. Upon joining Newport News Shipbuilding
in 1996, he served as Vice President, Engineering and then Vice President,
Business and Technology Development. Previously, he served for 28 years in
the Navy and retired with the rank of Rear Admiral. His experience in the
Navy was very broad and included numerous nuclear-powered submarine
assignments. From 1982 to 1983 he served as head of submarine research
and development at the Naval Sea Systems Command. From 1984 to 1987
he commanded the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Sunfish (SSN
649). Following his submarine command, he served from 1988 to 1990
as Director of Submarine Technology at the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency. From 1990 to 1993 he served as Executive Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisi-
tion. From 1993 to 1996 Rear Admiral Pelaez served as the 18th Chief of
Naval Research, where he was responsible for all science and technology
development for the Department of the Navy. He currently is Lead Inde-
pendent Director at II-VI Incorporated (Nasdaq:IIVI). Rear Admiral Pelaez
is a 1968 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.
VADM Ronald A. Route (U.S. Navy, retired) served as President, Naval

Postgraduate School from September 2013 until January 2019. He came

APPENDIX B 89
to the assignment with more than 20 years of leadership experience at the

senior executive and operational level, which included responsibilities in
graduate education, program requirements and resources, international
affairs, research and development, and ethics. VADM Route’s significant
career assignments include President of the Naval War College, and Com-
mander, Navy Warfare Development Command. He also served in two
earlier flag officer assignments leading major divisions on the staff of the
Chief of Naval Operations: Director of Navy Programming and Director,
Politico-Military Affairs. A career Surface Warfare Officer, VADM Route’s
sea duty included assignments and deployments in cruisers, destroyers,
frigates, and aircraft carriers; he commanded the AEGIS cruiser USS Lake
Erie (CG 70) and the guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey (DDG 45). His
most recent command at sea was the USS George Washington (CVN 73)
Carrier Strike Group of 10 ships plus the embarked carrier air wing. After
retirement from the Navy in 2008, VADM Route spent more than 3 years
as Senior Vice President at Burdeshaw Associates, Ltd.—an executive-level
consulting firm specializing in defense industry and government business.
VADM Route holds a bachelor’s of science in systems engineering from
the U.S. Naval Academy, and a master’s of science in operations research
from the Naval Postgraduate School. He also served as the Navy’s Senior
Military Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, and
attended the Executive Business Course, Kenan-Flager Business School at
the University of North Carolina.
Jessica K. Shang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical

Engineering at the University of Rochester. Her research interests include
wakes of ships and bluff bodies; vascular fluid mechanics; fluid–structure
interactions; and biomechanics. Previously she was a post-doctoral research
fellow at the Stanford University School of Medicine where she studied bio-
logically inspired fluid mechanics (e.g., locomotion, cardiovascular flows).
In 2017, she was an Office of Naval Research Summer Faculty Research
Fellow. She has an A.B. from Harvard College and a Ph.D. in mechanical
and aerospace engineering from Princeton University.
Alexandra (Alex) H. Techet is a Professor of mechanical and ocean engi-

neering in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the M
assachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT). During her doctoral studies at MIT she
received both the prestigious U.S. Department of Defense National Defense
Science & Engineering Graduate Fellowship, as well as the Link Founda-
tion fellowship in ocean engineering and instrumentation. In 2002, after
a brief post-doc at Princeton University in the Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering Department, Professor Techet returned to MIT as an Assistant
Professor in the Department of Ocean Engineering. In 2005, Professor

Techet joined the Mechanical Engineering Department at MIT when the

two departments merged. She also holds a guest appointment at the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and works with researchers there
to develop oceangoing instrumentation. Professor Techet’s research is in
the area of experimental hydrodynamics and aims to address long-standing
hydrodynamics problems faced by the Navy and the ocean science and
engineering communities through rigorous experimental investigation and
imaging. Professor Techet was a recipient of the 2004 Office of Naval
Research Young Investigators Award. Her imaging work has been recog-
nized several times (2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011) by the American Physi-
cal Society Division of Fluid Dynamics Gallery of Fluid Motion and has
been featured on the cover of the Journal of Fluid Mechanics and in the
Discovery Channel Time Warp television series. She received her B.S.E. in
mechanical and aerospace engineering in 1995 from Princeton University
and then graduated from the MIT/WHOI Joint Program in oceanographic
engineering with an M.S. in 1998 and a Ph.D. in 2001.
Jennifer Kehl Waters is a Professor in the Department of Naval Architecture

and Ocean Engineering and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at
the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA). She teaches primarily core and elective
ocean engineering courses, and is involved in various ocean engineering and
naval architecture research projects. She is active in a variety of USNA and
external professional committees. Prior to her arrival at USNA in 1994,
she was a Research Assistant in the Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute
of Technology (1991–1994) and a Research Assistant at the Webb Insti-
tute of Naval Architecture. Professor Waters’s research interests bridge
the fields of naval architecture and ocean engineering. Research sponsors
have included the Office of Naval Research, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. She has a bachelor’s degree
in naval architecture and marine engineering from the Webb Institute of
Naval Architecture, and a master’s and a Ph.D. in ocean engineering from
the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey.
Yin Lu (Julie) Young is a Professor at the Department of Naval Architecture

and Marine Engineering and the Director of the Marine Hydrodynamics
Laboratory at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on advanc-
ing the fundamental understanding of the dynamic response and stability of
adaptive marine structures in multiphase flows. Dr. Young served as the So-
ciety of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (SNAME) representa-
tive on the U.S. National Committee on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
between 2009 and 2014, and she is an active member on the SNAME H-8
(Propulsion Hydrodynamics) Panel. Professor Young has written more than
200 journal and conference papers in the area of fluid–structure interactions

APPENDIX B 91
related to marine and coastal structures, and she has acted as a consultant
to government and industry. Dr. Young earned her Ph.D. in civil engineering
from The University of Texas at Austin.
Dick K. P. Yue is the Philip J. Solondz Professor of Engineering, Profes-

sor of Mechanical and Ocean Engineering, and Head of the Ocean Sci-
ence & Engineering Area in the Department of Mechanical Engineering
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He received all of
his degrees (S.B., S.M., and Sc.D. in civil engineering) from MIT, and has
been a faculty member at MIT since 1983. His research and teaching are
in marine hydrodynamics, fluid mechanics, and computational methods
with applications to coastal and ocean engineering. His research focus is
in theoretical and computational hydrodynamics, and he is internationally
recognized for his extensive work on ocean and coastal wave dynamics,
nonlinear wave m echanics, and large-amplitude motions and loads on
offshore structures. He has also made important contributions to elucidat-
ing the hydrodynamics of fish swimming, the complex mechanisms at the
air–sea interface, and their effects on interfacial processes. He has authored/
co-authored some 300 papers and a two-volume textbook on theory and
applications of ocean wave hydrodynamics. He was the Associate Dean
of Engineering at MIT from 1999–2007 during which time he was the
originator of MIT OpenCourseWare, the Founding Faculty Director of
the MIT Engineering Undergraduate Practice Opportunities Program, and
the Founding Faculty Director of the MIT Engineering Professional Educa-
tional Programs office. In 2008, Professor Yue received the prestigious MIT
Gordon Y. Billard Award for services of outstanding merit to the Institute.


Nu 25601

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nu 25601

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nu 25601

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25601 SHARE

Toward New Naval Platforms: A Strategic View of the Future

106 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK

FIND RELATED TITLES

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Toward New

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Committee for a Review of the National Naval Responsibility—

A Consensus Study Report of

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Research Board Special Report 333

Subscriber Category: Maritime Transportation

Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual

Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49885-2

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences,

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COMMITTEE FOR A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NAVAL

Heidi C. Perry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

Transportation Research Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii

1 Study Background, Request, and Approach 15

3 Naval Engineering Research and Development 31

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Naval Engineering Workforce 49

5 Naval Engineering Science and Technology Infrastructure 65

6 Summary Assessment and Advice 77

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASEE American Society for Engineering Education

CFD computational fluid dynamics

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

MBSE model-based systems engineering

NAVWARSYSCOM Naval Information Warfare Systems Command

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

xiv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ONR Office of Naval Research

R&D research and development

S&T science and technology

Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii