作者:
LISANBY, JWwas born in Princeton
Kentucky on 31 January 1928. He was commissioned Ensign in the U.S. Navy after graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1950 and received his Advanced degree in Naval Engineering (Architecture) from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1956. More recently he received additional training in the Harvard Business School's Management Training Program. He is an Engineering Duty Officer (ED) with wide and varied experience both at sea and in shore assignments. He has had sea duty aboard the USS Mississippi (AG-128) from 1950 to 1952 LST-887 from 1952 to 1953 and USS Antietam (CVS-36) from 1959 to 1961. Ashore he served as Ship Superintendent at the Charleston Naval Shipyard from 1956 to 1959 and as Assistant for Ship Material on the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet from 1961 to 1963. In Washington DC he was Assistant for New Construction in the Cruiser and Destroyer Branch Naval Ship Systems Command from 1963 to 1965 and Head of the Procurement and Production Branch Fast Deployment Logistic Ship Project Office from 1965 to 1968. From 1968 to 1969 he was Director of Industrial Engineering in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Logistics) and from 1969 to 1970 he served as Executive Assistant to the Commander Naval Ship Systems Command. In 1970 he reported as Supervisor of Shipbuilding at Pascagoula Miss. with contract administration responsibilities for both the DD 963 and the LHA 1 ship acquisitions. Returning to Washington in 1973 he completed a brief tour as Assistant for Ship Design in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and then served as Project Manager for the LHA Class Amphibious Assault Ships with Headquarters in Washington DC from April 1974 until June 1977 at which time he assumed command of the Naval Ship Engineering Center (NA VSEC). With the merger of NA VSEC with its parent command the Naval Sea Systems Command on 1 October 1979 he assumed the duties of Deputy Commander for Ship Design and In
This paper provides a critical analysis of the U.S. Navy's ability to design effective warships relative to the threat we face. Influencing our ability to design are resources, organizational, and philosophical is...
This paper provides a critical analysis of the U.S. Navy's ability to design effective warships relative to the threat we face. Influencing our ability to design are resources, organizational, and philosophical issues. The Russian Fleet is, by any standard, a formidable opponent dedicated to achieving naval superiority. In addition to the well documented differences in design philosophies, there exist fundamental dissimilarities in Russian innovation and their ability to introduce new technologies into an operational environment in comparison to our own conservative, often lengthy, process. We need to reevaluate. In the limit, our collective deteriorating will to design and build effective naval ships is adversely affecting our ability to accomplish the goals we need to achieve. A strengthening of our design resources must be coupled with a reassertion of will and strong technical leadership to revitalize the ship design process.
This paper describes the method used by the Navy in the acquisition of ships, with particular reference to the some 2,500 documents referenced directly in the process. For such documents, initially mostly military, a ...
This paper describes the method used by the Navy in the acquisition of ships, with particular reference to the some 2,500 documents referenced directly in the process. For such documents, initially mostly military, a concerted effort is underway to substitute “commercial specifications” where feasible. A comparison is made between the processing of military documents and industry standards. The paper then goes into details of available Industry Documents for materials and small items, noting the general absence for large items of machinery and equipment (and a possible solution). The use of “off-the-shelf” equipment also is discussed as well as advantages and disadvantages of both methods of specifying requirements. Finally, the paper summarizes the alternatives: maximum use of industry standards (either directly or indirectly); use of Commercial Item Descriptions where feasible; and retention of military documents where necessary (mission-critical systems, where marine ruggedness is required, and for truly military applications).
This paper presents an integrated approach to Computer-Aided Ship design for U.S. Navy preliminary and contract design. An integrated Hull design System (HDS), currently under development by the Hull Group of the Nava...
This paper presents an integrated approach to Computer-Aided Ship design for U.S. Navy preliminary and contract design. An integrated Hull design System (HDS), currently under development by the Hull Group of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA 32). is the vehicle for the discussion. This paper is directed toward practicing ship design professionals and the managers of the ship design process. Primary emphasis of this paper, and of the development effort currently under way, is on aiding ship design professionals in their work. Focus is on integration and management control of the extremely complex set of processes which make up naval ship design. The terminology of the Ship designer and design Manager is used. The reader needs no familiarity with the technologies of computer science.
Since the signing of the Contract design Plane for the CVN 68 (the U.S. Navy's latest Class of Aircraft Carriers) In 1963, considerable technological advances have been made in Naval Ship design. This paper provid...
Since the signing of the Contract design Plane for the CVN 68 (the U.S. Navy's latest Class of Aircraft Carriers) In 1963, considerable technological advances have been made in Naval Ship design. This paper provides specific examples of how new technology has affected traditional Carrier design practices and techniques, and also indicates areas where future advanced technology will be needed. It is divided into four sections: 1) Computer design Application; 2) Total Ship Energy Conservation Analysis; 3) Advances in Structural design; and 4) Impact of V/STOL Aircraft. The increased use of the computer to define ship characteristics in the initial stage of ship design is discussed, followed by a report on efforts to include energy conservation as an integral part of the design process. The energy conservation approach uses traditional analytical techniques to develop innovative design configurations that will achieve energy savings. Of the many advances in Carrier structural design, two specific examples are given: 1) Elimination of the infamous “knee-knockers” (high sills in passageway openings) common to Gallery Deck structure, and 2) Successful attempts at reducing the thickness of aircraft elevator platforms. The paper concludes by pointing out some possible challenges facing the ship designer and some of the technology already created by the expected introduction of advanced design Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) aircraft.
This paper first provides a brief overview of the history of the American Merchant Marine as an introduction to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. Those sections of the Act which have been deemed to be major factors in ...
作者:
CHILDERS, RADM.K.C.GLOECKLER, FREDERICK M.STEVENS, ROBERT M.USN (RET.)RAdm. K.C. Childers
USN (Ret.):graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1939. and later completed his graduate studies at California Institute of Technology from which he received his MS and AE degrees. He was a fighter pilot in the aircraft carriers USS Ranger and USS Essex during World War II and an instructor at the Guided Missile School. Ft. Bliss Texas from 1947 until 1949 at which time he came to Washington. D.C. as an Assistant Division Director Ships Installation Division Bureau of Aeronautics. In addition his active duty career included assignments as Naval Air Systems Command Representative Atlantic Assistant Commander for Material Acquisition
Naval Air Systems Command and Deputy Project Manager for the FlllB/Phoenix Program. Bureau of Naval Weapons. During the first five years of the Polaris Program
he was responsible for all testing at the Atlantic Missile Range. He also served as Commander of the Naval Missile Center where he directed the test and evaluation of Airborne Weapon Systems and had been on an earlier assignment the Missile Test Officer. His military decorations include the Silver Star the Legion of Merit two Air Medals the Navy Commendation Medal and a Presidential Unit Citation. Currently he is employed as the Manager of the Analysis and Evaluation Department at CERBERONICS. Inc. Falls Church. Va. Mr. Frederick M. Gloeckler:
currently a Consultant to CERBERONICS Inc. graduated from New York University from which he received his BS degree. He began his career with the Department of the Navy in 1938. and culminated it with his retirement in 1972 at which time he was engaged in VSTOL aircraft analysis and was the Director Advanced Systems Division Naval Air Systems Command (and its predecessor organizations). During this period he made major contributions to the Fleet Ballistic Missile Program the F-14
A-7 and S-3 Aircraft Programs and the Phoenix
Condor and Harpoon Missile Programs. In 1951 Mr. Gloeckler organized‘ and directed the Systems Engineering Divis
This paper provides a survey of the United States Merchant Marine. It describes the overall content of the American Flag Fleet, discusses the importance and the impact of the Construction Differential Subsidy program ...
暂无评论