Dr. Larrie D. Ferreiro, DAU

Transcription

1 Dr. Larrie D. Ferreiro, DAU 1

2 Agenda History as a Design Tool Convergence of Structural Standards: The Age of Sail and Early Days of Iron and Steam, Divergence of Structural Standards: Naval Constructors Corps and Commercial Classification Societies, Re-convergence of Structural Standards: Naval Downsizing and the Information Age, post-2000 Conclusions 2

3 Why Does the Military Use History? Leadership skills: Strategic versus tactical thinking Context: wars are products of culture, politics, economics and technologies Wars are comparatively infrequent, fluid in nature and the next war is not like the last one Critical historical analysis is a key to flexible doctrine and planning 3

4 War is the continuation of politics by other means In other words, war is a way of achieving a political goal (usually of a nation-state), not simply an end in itself. Military leaders study history to place warfare in its strategic context 4

5 Engineering is also the continuation of politics by other means Every engineering project is an expression of a political goal For a nation, it can be constructing a highway system as a means of improving commerce or warships to defend the nation For a company, it can be the creation of a new smartphone to dominate a market Engineering leaders need to study history to place projects in their strategic context 5

6 Why Should Naval Engineers Use History? Naval engineering leaders must think strategically about the design and management of systems and technologies Systems and technologies are products of culture, politics, organizations, economics Major naval engineering projects can take years, and the next project will not be like the last. Experience alone is insufficient; critical historical analysis is essential for planning in the face of illdefined problems and incomplete requirements 6

7 Naval Engineer s Professional Reading List 7

8 Convergence of Structural Standards: The Age of Sail and Early Days of Iron and Steam,

9 Warships and merchant ships were often indistinguishable British Navy Frigate 28 guns British East India Company Armed Merchantman guns 9

10 Diagonal structures against hogging British Navy Robert Seppings Clipper Ships Donald McKay 10

11 HEIC Nemesis, the first ocean-going iron warship (1839) 11

12 Isambard Kingdom Brunel: The Man at the Center of Modern Naval Engineering John Scott Russell HMS Warrior William Froude and model testing Great Eastern William Fairbairn and modern ship structures HMS Rattler trials and modern propeller testing

13 The Ship as a Bridge Midship section of Great Eastern modeled after Britannia Tubular Bridge 13

14 The civil engineering inheritance of naval architecture will continue to be felt well into the 20 th century 14

15 Divergence of Structural Standards: Naval Constructors Corps and Commercial Classification Societies,

16 16 Professionalization of Naval Engineers, French Corps of Naval Engineers (Genie Maritime), active since 1765; British Royal Corps of Naval Constructors (RCNC), begun in 1885 under William White British School of Naval Architecture (now V&A Museum) William H. White

17 US Naval Engineers Study Abroad ADM Francis T. Bowles 17

18 Royal Naval College top honors (1888) David Watson Taylor 18

19 Where should naval engineering be taught in the USA? William Hovgaard, Danish naval officer and Greenwich classmate of David Taylor, asked to lead the course Secretary of the Navy left to Hovgaard the selection of the university OR? Sibley College, Cornell University MIT Mechanical Engineering 19

20 Revolution in scientific engineering allows design of large, complex ocean-going steel warships, Over a Dozen Model Basins Around the World, c

21 By contrast, commercial shipbuilders continued their civil engineering inheritance Commercial shipbuilders continue to use empirical rule-ofthumb calculations Often hindered by lack of professionally-educated engineers (Webb, Michigan just ramping up) One exception is Charles Cramp Shipbuilders, Philadelphia, which begins carrying out stress calculations c

22 Classbook of Naval Architecture: Commercial Structures Lloyd s Numerals: Scantlings based on a proportion of length, breadth, depth Two books, 1905 White s Manual of Naval Architecture: Naval Structures Scantlings based on first-principles calculation of stress in hull girder 22

23 The civil engineering inheritance: building codes through the 20 th century NYC Structural Design Code ABS Steel Vessel Rules 23

24 By contrast, this is a first-principles structural calculation for the rear fuselage of a light plane 24

25 Re-convergence of Structural Standards: Naval Downsizing and the Information Age, post

26 Environmental factors for convergence Long-standing partnership between navies and classification societies 26

27 Environmental factors for convergence Increasing professionalization and education of naval architecture community De-skilling of complex calculations via computer 27

28 Environmental factors for convergence Knowledge transfer with aeronautical community Global shipbuilding 28

29 Environmental factors for convergence : Classification societies increasingly using firstprinciple and safety-based approaches to structural design 29

30 Precipitating factors for convergence Fall of the Berlin Wall Peace Dividend Shrinking Government Workforce Outsourcing, privatization and deregulation (defense, finance, health and safety, agriculture, etc.) 30

31 1990s-2000s: Navies turn to classification societies to develop and maintain structural design standards Navies stopped maintaining or even discard in-house rules: General Specifications, Naval Engineering Standards etc. Recognition that classification society methods are often equal to or of superior quality to naval practice Pressure from industry to use commercial practice 31

32 Naval ship classification timeline 1997: Det Norske Veritas (DnV) and Lloyds Register (LR) begin developing naval rules 1998: LR publishes first Naval Ship Rules; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) begins working on naval rules 1999: Germanischer Lloyd begins working on naval rules 2000: Bureau Veritas (BV) begins working on naval rules 2002: BV publishes Rules for the Classification of Military Ships 2003: Registro Italiano Navale (RINA) publishes Rules for the Classification of Naval Ships 2004: ABS, GL, DnV all publish naval ship rules 32

33 2000s and 2010s: Naval ships increasingly built and maintained to classification society rules Queen Elizabeth Mistral Cavour Daring Littoral Combat Ships Bertholf 33

34 Naval engineering trends in the 21 st century will continue to exert pressure for greater naval / commercial convergence Government functions greatly curtailed and government staffs downsized (everywhere, not just the Navy.) Control of design devolved to industry, but without commensurate development of government oversight structures Organizations unable to manage complex systems-ofsystems 34

35 Conclusions Understanding the history of naval engineering is vital to understanding its future NOT because history repeats itself Rather, because history often rhymes : the political, cultural, organizational and economic context that surrounds engineering projects follows similar patterns Leadership thinking is not just at the point of a dilemma (like they teach at HBS): it is often recognizing the dilemma before it happens. History is what allows you to do that. 35

36 36