检索结果-内蒙古大学图书馆

U.S. AND FOREIGN HULL FORM, MACHINERY AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN PRACTICES

Naval Engineers Journal 1983年第6期95卷 36-53页

作者： KEHOE, JAMES W. BROWER, KENNETH S. MEIER, HERBERT A. RUNNERSTROM, CDR. ERIC James W. Kehoe Jr. is well known for his work in conducting comparative naval architecture studies of U.S. and foreign warship design practices for which he received the ASNE Gold Medal for 1981 and the Legion of Merit. He is currently a partner in Spectrum Associates Incorporated Arlington Virginia where he is engaged in the feasibility and concept design of naval ships and in continuing his comparative engineering analyses of U.S. and foreign warships. Prior to his retirement from the U.S. Navy as a Captain in 1982 his naval career involved sea duty aboard three destroyers and three aircraft carriers including command of the USS John R. Pierce (DD-753) and engineer officer of the USS Wasp (CVS-18). Ashore he had duty at the Naval Sea Systems Command where he directed the Comparative Naval Architecture Program as an instructor in project management in the Polaris missile project and as a nuclear weapons officer. He holds a B.S. in mathematics from Stonehill College Massachusetts (1952) and an MA in education from San Diego State College (1959). A frequent contributor to the Naval Engineers Journal U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings and the International Defense Review he has published a number of articles on U.S. Soviet and other foreign warship design practices and the effects of design practices on ship size and cost. Kenneth S. Brower is a partner in Spectrum Associates Incorporated Arlington Virginia which he founded in June 1978. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1965 with a Bachelor's Degree in Naval Architecture. Mr. Brower has contributed to the design and construction of numerous merchant ships and warships the latter of which include the CG-47 project Arapaho the FDL and DX projects the new NATO Frigates Replacement for the ‘90's DDGX and FFX projects as well as several frigate developed for Foreign Military Sales. Since 1972 he has actively supported the Naval Sea Systems Command's Comparative Naval Architecture Program. During this period Mr. Brower has contribute

There are two principal benefits to conducting comparative engineering analyses of U.S. and foreign ship design practices and criteria: 1) they offer an opportunity to identify clever ideas from which the U.S. can benefit, and 2) they cause us to assess U.S. design practices critically that we may have been taking for granted or may have been accepting as inviolable. The results of a comparative analysis of U.S. and foreign hull form, machinery, and structural design practices are reported in this paper. Numerous studies of U.S. and foreign warships have shown that the hull form, machinery, and structural design practices of various navies differ considerably. Although most large navies operate their ships in generally similar environments, each country has developed its own unique style of hull form. Based on an assessment of foreign hull form design practices, the U.S. Navy has recently developed a style of hull form that offers improved stability and seakeeping performance and which facilitates the arrangement of internal functions. Foreign ships generally have a tighter machinery arrangement than comparable U.S. ships. However, this is not necessarily achieved by accepting less subsystem performance or by sacrificing redundancy. The tightness of foreign machinery plants seems to be achieved by tighter management control over the ship design and acquisition process. In addition, foreign navies appear to be more flexible in adjusting to a new technology such as that which occurred during the change from steam to gas turbine propulsion. U.S. ships appear to be constructed to more rigorous structural detail design standards than foreign ships. The structural configuration of foreign ships, including the integration of web frames, longitudinal girders, and stanchions also differs from U.S. practice. The configuration of ship structure and the value of rigorous U.S. structural design practices are worthy of additional research. The results of the study reported in thi

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

SEAKEEPING AND COMBAT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE - THE OPERATORS ASSESSMENT

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1983年第3期95卷 256-266页

作者： KEHOE, JW BROWER, KS COMSTOCK, EN Capt. James W. Kehoe Jr. USN (Ret.):is well known for his work in conducting comparative naval architecture studies of U.S. and foreign warship design practices for which he received the ASNE GoldMedalfor 1981 and the Legion ofMerit. He is currently a partner in Spectrum Associates Incorporated Arlington Virginia where he is engaged in the feasibility and concept design of naval ships and in continuing his comparative engineering analyses of U.S. and foreign warships. Prior to his retirement from theU.S. Navyas a Captain in 1982 his naval career involved sea duty aboard three destroyers and three aircraft carriers including command of theUSS John R. Pierce (DD-753)and engineer officer of theUSS Wasp (CVS-18). Ashore he had duty at the Naval Sea Systems Command where he directed the Comparative Naval Architecture Program as an instructor in project management in the Polaris missile project and as a nuclear weapons officer. He holds a B.S. in mathematics from Stonehill College Massachusetts (1952) and an MA in education from San Diego State College (1959). A frequent contributor to theNaval Engineers Journal U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings and theInternational Defense Review he has published a number of articles on U.S. Soviet and other foreign warship design practices and the effects of design practices on ship size and cost. Mr. Kenneth S. Brower:is a partner in Spectrum Associates Incorporated Arlington Virginia which he founded in June 1978. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1965 with a Bachelor's Degree in Naval Architecture. Mr. Brower has contributed to the design and construction of numerous merchant ships and warships the latter of which include theCG-47 projectArapaho theFDLand DX projects the new NATO Frigate Replacement for the 90's DDGX and FFX projects as well as several frigates developed for Foreign Military Sales. Since 1972 he has actively supported the Naval Sea Systems Command's Comparative Naval Architecture Proram. During this period Mr. Brower has cont

In a recent effort to improve our assessment of the Comparative seakeeping performance of existing U.S. N avy ships, a seakeeping questionnaire was distributed to the Commanding Officers of U.S. N avy frigates, destroyers, and cruisers. The objectives were to determine, (1) the operational availability of existing weapons and sensors in relation to a ship's seakeeping performance, (2) the availability of ships to make full speed and to conduct sonar, helicopter, and replenishment-at-sea operations, (3) effects of a ship's seakeeping limitations on task force and convoy operation, and (4) realistic seakeeping design crteria for use in the design of new ships. The responses to the questionnaire indicated that frigates are severely limited in their availability to conduct ASW task force and convoy operations in the North Atlantic during the winter season because of seakeeping limitations on speed, hull sonar performance, and helicopter operations. The findings suggest that in the design of future ships we need to place emphasis on improving the seakeeping performance of ships in rough water, instead of just their speed and range in calm water. They indicate that the ASW capability of U.S. ships in high sea states would be enhanced by a towed acoustic sensor; an extended range ASW missile; active fin roll stabilizers; and a helicopter recovery assistance, securing and traverse (RAST) system. They also suggest that the question of the interaction of a ship's size and seakeeping characteristics with the choice of weapons and sensors requires careful attention in the design of future U.S. N avy ships.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE IMPACT OF DESIGN PRACTICES ON SHIP SIZE AND COST

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第2期94卷 68-86页

作者： KEHOE, JW BROWER, KS MEIER, HA Capt. James W. Kehoe Jr. USN(Ret.):who is recently retired from 36 years of naval service is well known for his recent work in conducting comparative engineering analyses of U.S. and foreign warship design practices at the Naval Sea Systems Command Washington D.C. He is currently a partner in Spectrum Associates Inc. Falls Church Virginia where he is engaged in ship design and weapon system engineering analysis. Commissioned in 1952 his sea duty aboard three destroyers and three aircraft carriers included command of theUSS John R. Pierce (DD-753)and engineer officer of theUSS Wasp (CVS-18).Ashore he has had duty in nuclear weapons the POLARIS missile program and instructing in project management. He holds a BS in mathematics from Stonehill College Massachusetts (1952) and an MA in education from San Diego State College (1959). A frequent contributor to theNaval Engineers Journaland theU.S. Naval Institute Proceedingshe has published a number of articles on U.S. Soviet and other foreign warship design practices and on U.S. and Soviet aircraft tank missile and electronic design practices. Kenneth S. Brower:is a partner in Spectrum Associates Inc. Falls Church Virginia which he founded in June 1978. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1965 with a Bachelor's Degree in Naval Architecture. Mr. Brower has contributed to the design and construction of numerous merchant ships and warships the latter of which include the CG-47 project Arapaho the FDL and DX projects the new NATO frigate for the ‘90s DDGX and FFX projects as well as several frigates developed for Foreign Military Sales. Since 1972 he has actively supported the Naval Sea Systems Command's Comparative Naval Architecture Program. During this period Mr. Brower has contributed to or been the author of numerous widely distributed technical reports on international ship design practices. Recently Mr. Brower has contributed as an analyst editor and author of an extensive assessment of the engineering design practices o

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

SESSION NO 1 KEYNOTE ADDRESS - THE CHALLENGE OF DESIGN

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第3期93卷 75-87页

作者： LISANBY, JW was 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 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.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

COMPARATIVE NAVAL ARCHITECTURE ANALYSIS OF NATO AND SOVIET FRIGATES .2.

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1980年第6期92卷 84-93页

作者： KEHOE, JW GRAHAM, C BROWER, KS MEIER, HA USN Capt. James W. Kehoe Jr. USNreceived his U.S. Navy commission in 1952 after receiving his B.S. degree in Mathematics from Stonehill College in Massachusetts. and subsequently he attended the Sun Diego State College from which he received his M.A. degree in Education. His sea duty assignments have included three Destroyers most recently as Commanding Officer. USS John R. Pierce (DD-743).and three Aircraft Carriers. most recently as Engineer Officer in theUSS Wasp (CVS-18).Ashore he has had duty in the Navy's Nuclear Weapons Program the POLARIS Missile Program and as an Instructor in Project Management. Currently he is the Director Comparative Naval Architecture Program in the Naval Sea Systems Command. Capt. Kehoe has been a member of ASNE since 1974 and has authored two technical papers on U.S. and Soviet ship design practices which were published in theU.S. Naval Institute Proceedingsand theNaval Engineers Journal. Cdr. Clark Graham USNbetter known as “Corky.” graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1964 and subsequently received his Ph. D. degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1969. Currently. he is assigned to the Naval Sea Systems Command as the DDGX Ship Design Manager. Previous to this assignment. he was the NAVSEA Cruiser Project Manager Representative and SUPSHIP Newport News Project Officer for Nuclear Cruisers. He has served in three combatant ships including the Guided Missile CruiserUSS Gridley (CG-21)as Engineer Officer. He has had a tour of duty at the former Naval Ship Engineering Center as a Ship Design Manager and as Director U.S./Soviet Comparative Ship Design Study. During his duty in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OP-96). he was the Technical Assistant for the Advanced Naval Vehicles Concept Evaluation. In addition. Cdr. Graham has taught Ship Design in the Naval Construction and Engineering Curriculum at MIT. and recently he developed a course in Comparative Naval Ship Design for the MIT Professional Summer Program. He has had over 15 Techn

This paper is a report of a comparative naval architecture analysis of United States, Canadian, French, Netherlands, German, British, and Soviet Frigates. The investigation covered general arrangements, weapons and sensors, survivability, intact and damaged stability, manning and personnel support (all of which me discussed in PART I), and hull form, propulsion, speed range, sea keeping, ship size, and future growth capability (to be published in PART II). Weapons and sensors were only addressed in terms of their impact on the weight and volume of the ship. The actual military effectiveness of each Frigate was not assessed.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

CABLE BURIAL IN THE DEEP OCEAN-FLOOR

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1980年第2期92卷 218-230页

作者： ROCKWELL, PK ENGEL, JH PIERCY, WB Mr. Philip K. Rockwell joined the Ocean Engineering Department at the Civil Engineering Laboratory (CEL) in 1969 after receiving his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Engineering from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and in 1973 won the WEPCOSE Scholarship which took him to the University of Washington for postgraduate studies in Fluid Power Control Systems. Since joining CEL he has specialized in Underwater Manipulator and Diver Tool Systems has been the Project Engineer and Navy certified submersible operator for the manned submersible NEMO and has been responsible for the design test and evaluation of submersible fluid power and fluid power control systems. His most recent efforts have been on the Deep Ocean Cable Burial System for which he has been responsible for concept development program management validation testing. and coordination and planning for the total system design and fabrication. Mr. Rockwell is an Engineer-in-Training (EIT) in the state of California and in 1979 was awarded the Meritorious Civil Service Award for his outstanding performance. Mr. John H. Engel Jr. is a Mechanical Engineer in the Construction Systems Division Ocean Engineering Department. of the Civil Engineering Laboratory. He is a graduate of Oregon State University for which he received both his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering. Prior to joining CEL in 1975 he was involved with the design and development of remote oceanographic devices for the School of Oceanography at Oregon State University. At CEL he has worked in the areas of Underwater Gas Generation and Buoyant Lift Systems and at the present time is responsible for the mechanical design of the shallow water mooring for the initial ocean tests of the Current Measurement System. Mr. Engle also is a registered Engineer-in-Training in the state of Oregon. Mr. William Bruce Piercy at the present time is a student at the University of California at Berkeley where he is studying for his M.S. degree in Engineering having received his B.S. degr

Bottom fishing equipment employed by scallopers and trawlers routinely damage or break important Navy Oceanographic cables resulting in substantial repair coats and unacceptable system interruption. The Civil engineering Laboratory (CEL), sponsored by the Naval Facilities engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM), has been developing and validating an engineering concept for a Deep Ocean Cable Burial (DOCB) System. This DOCB System will providethe Navy with an efficient, effective and reliable means of burying cables 3-feet deap in ocean mediments, at speeds not less than one knot, to water depths of 6,000 feet. The DOCB System b a remotely controlled machine which underruns and buries existing (previously laid) cables. It is powered and controlled from a surface ship via an electromechanical umbilica cable. The machine is self-propelled by ducted thrusters and supported on water lubricated skids. The excavation system computer an orbital vibrating plowshareand a vertical waterjet. Full-scale field testing at CEL baa keyed on three areas: •. Quantifying the reduction in drawbar force achieved by applying orbital vibration to an upward cutting plowshare. •. Evaluating a Vertically impinging jet nozzle for depth of a cut M a function of jet operating parameters. •. Demonstrating the effect on the soil drag of a flat-bottomed skid due to forcing a thin layer of water between the skid and the seafloor. The field teats of an orbital vibratory plow were performed in a 1 to 2 psi clay simllar to that found on the ocean floor. The results showed that a 70% reduction in drawbar force was achieved by applying an elliptical orbital vibration. It was also shown that the vibration feature would split or push aside buried rocks which would have stalled a conventional stationary plow. The water jet tests demonstrated that a 2 1/2-in. nozzle cuts 36-in. deep in 1 to 2 psi clay. The nozzle pressure was 75 psi and flow was 1,200 gpm. The water jet did not produce a clearly defined trench, b

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE “TRADE—OFF” BETWEEN LEARNING AND INFLATION IN SHIPBUILDING

引用

Naval Engineers Journal 1978年第4期90卷 23-40页

作者： FRISCH, FRANZ A.P. TODD, CHARLES Dr. Franz A.P. Frischgraduated from the Technical University of Vienna in Austria. He has thirty years' experience in shipbuilding and related subjects. He has worked as a Naval Architect Guarantee Engineer Chief Estimator Production Manager and Director for Shipyard Planning and Maintenance in Austria Denmark Sweden and Germany. In 1956 he was first invited to the United States to testify on foreign cost and production in subsidy cases before the Maritime Administration. From 1957 through 1962 he was associated with several U.S. Naval Architect firms: was Owner's Representative in Europe and Japan conducted studies on transport economy for Venezuela ICC and shipowners and was a consultant for shipyard planning in Brazil and Europe. In 1963 he joined the Staff of the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) and became Head of the Logistic Section and Study Director. There he originated the FDL ship and ship concept and was assigned as advisor to the Project Manager. From 1968 through 1974 Dr. Frisch was a Faculty member and visiting lecturer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology he lectured on Shipyard Management Ocean Transportation Systems Theory in Transportation and in Interdisciplinary Seminars. In 1972 and 1973 he was consultant to Dubai Drydock. Ltd. for layout of a new shipyard in the Arabian Gulf but since 1973 he has been with the Naval Sea Systems Command mostly involved in special projects. Dr. Frisch is also Adj. Professor for Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (VPI) where he teaches graduate courses in Advanced Engineering Economy and Management Concepts. Mr. Charles Toddis a graduate of Howard University School of Engineering Washington D.C where he has also pursued his graduate work. He has fifteen years' experience in New Construction Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs concentrating in the areas of Major Ship Class Project Engineering and Program Management. He worked in this capacity on the LSD 36 and 37 Class ships and in the Special Craft Section of the Combatant Craft

Learning leads to a decrease in program cost and inflation leads to an increase in program cost. At a certain time, the benefits of leaming and the penalty due to inflation will balance each other. This time is defined as the “critical time.” The “critical tune” depends upon the number of ships to be built because this determines the possible gain in learning. The “Critical time” also depends upon the assumed inflation, upon the achievable learning rate, and upon the material/labor ratio of the first ship. Learning expectation can be influenced by planning and the material/labor ration by a make– or buydecision. Assumptions on future learning are as vague as assumptions on inflation. The paper shows that it is almost impossible to beat inflation. It shows that accelerated programs are preferable and that make—decisions supersede the value of buy—decisions. The result is derived from an abstract treatment of the subject. © 1978 American Society of Naval Engineers

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF OCEANS

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1976年第1期88卷 21-26页

作者： SONENSHEIN, N USN (RET.) The Author graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in the Class of 1938. His work has included instruction in Naval Construction and Marine Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology which lead to his MS degree in 1944 and in the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Graduate School in 1964. As an Engineering Duty Officer (ED) he has served in various Navy commands including Mare Island and New York Naval Shipyards USS Philippine Sea (CVA-47) during the Korean conflict as Chief Engineer and on the Staffs of both the Commander-in-Chief and the Commander Service Force U.S. Pacific Fleet as Fleet and Force Maintenance Officer. Within the Naval Ship Systems Command and its predecessor Bureau of Ships his duties included those of Director Facilities Division Head Hull Design Branch Director Ship Design Division Assistant Chief for Design Shipbuilding and Fleet Maintenance and from 1969 to 1972 as Commander Naval Ship Systems Command. Other assignments have included Project Manager for the Navy's Fast Deployment Logistic Ship Project from 1965 to 1967 Deputy Chief of Naval Material for Logistic Support from 1967 to 1969 and Chairman Naval Material Command Shipbuilding Council which commenced upon completion of his tour as Commander Naval Ships Systems Command in 1972. On 4 September 1973 he was appointed Director of the Defense Energy Task Group (DETG) and subsequently on 15 November 1973 as Director of Energy for the Department of Defense. Upon his retirement from the naval service in November 1974 he became Assistant to the President Global Marine Development Inc. based in Newport Beach Calif. A former President of ASNE from 1970 to 1971 he is currently the Vice-President of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. In addition he is a member of the honorary engineering society Sigma Xi and listed among those named in “Who's Who in America.”

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE UNITED STATES NAVY'S “DESIGN WORK STUDY” APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPBOARD CONTROL SYSTEMS

引用

Naval Engineers Journal 1976年第6期88卷 62-74页

作者： PLATO, ARTIS I. GAMBREL, WILLIAM DAVID Artis I. Plato:is Head of the Design Work Study/ Shipboard Manning/Human Factors Engineering Section Systems Engineering and Analysis Branch Naval Ship Engineering Center (NAVSEC). He graduated from the City College of New York in 1956 receiving his Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree. Following this he started work at the New York Naval Shipyard in the Internal Combustion Engine and Cargo Elevator Section. During 1957 and 1958 he was called up for active duty with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and served in Europe with a Construction Engineer Battalion. After release from active duty he returned to the shipyard where he remained until 1961 when he transferred to the Naval Supply Research and Development Facility Bayonne New Jersey. Initially he was in charge of an Engineering Support Test Group and the drafting services for the whole Facility. Later he became a Project Engineer in the Food Services Facilities Branch with duties that included planning and designing new afloat and ashore messing facilities for the Navy. In 1966 he transferred to NAVSEC as a Project Engineer in the Design Work Study Section and in this capacity worked on selected projects and manning problems for new construction and also developed a computer program (Manpower Determination Model) that makes accurate crew predictions for feasibility studies. In 1969 he became Head of the Section. He has been active in the U.S. Army Reserve since his release from active duty and his duties have included command of an Engineer Company various Staff positions and his present assignment as Operations Officer for a Civil Affairs Group. He has completed the U. S. A rmy Corps of Engineers Career Course and the Civil Affairs Career Course and is presently enrolled in the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College non-resident course. Additionally he completed graduate studies at American University Washington D.C in 1972 receiving his MSTM degree in Technology of Management and is a member of ASE ASME CAA U. S. Naval Instit

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a system analysis technique called “Design Work Study”, that is used by the U.S. Navy for the development of improved ship control systems. The Design Work Study approach is one which brings about the most efficient and cost effective man‐machine combination for the ship control functions. Adherence to this process insures that the advantages of automation are balanced against incurred operational and maintenance expense. At present, U.S. Navy doctrine requires that certain ship operating stations, such as steering and propulsion control, be manned at specified ship conditions of readiness. Therefore, if personnel are needed to fulfill these combat environment obligations, excessive automation may only result in unnecessary additional acquisition costs and increased personnel skill requirements. The Design Work Study process can be applied to establish the required fine balance between the degree of built‐in automation and the shipboard manpower levels. In order to explain the techniques that are used for this process, the Authors will present a brief summary of the Design Work Study approach for optimizing shipboard control systems, including an explanation of the formal procedural tools that are applicable. In addition, a practical case study of ship control system design for one of the latest classes of Navy destroyers will be presented. This example will illustrate the resultant savings and benefits that can be realized by a judicious application of this technique. © 1976 American Society of Naval Engineers

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE NAVAL ENGINEER AND SHIPBOARD MANPOWER UTILIZATION

引用

Naval Engineers Journal 1974年第1期86卷 33-38页

作者： PLATO, ARTIS I. The author graduated from the City College of New York in 1956 receiving his Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree. Following this he started work at the New York Naval Shipyard in the Internal Combustion Engine and Cargo Elevator Section. During 1957 and 1958 he was called up for active duty with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and served in Europe with a Construction Engineer Battalion. After release from active duty he returned to the shipyard until 1961 when he transferred to the Naval Supply Research and Development Facility Bayonne N.J. Initially he was in charge of an Engineering Support Test Group and drafting services for the whole Facility. Later he became a project engineer in the Food Services Facilities Branch with duties that included planning and designing new afloat and ashore messing facilities for the Navy. In 1966 he transferred to NAVSEC as a project engineer in the Design Work Study Section and in this capacity worked on selected projects and manning problems for new construction and also developed a computer program (Manpower Determination Model) that makes accurate crew predictions for feasibility studies. In 1969 he became Head of the NAVSEC Shipboard Manning/Design Work Study/Human Factors Engineering Section. He has been active in the U.S. Army Reserve since his release from active duty his duties having included command of an Engineer Company and various staff positions and his present rank being that of Major. He is presently enrolled in the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College non-resident course and in 1972 attended American University from which he received his MS degree in Technology of Management.

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：

通借通还

建议与咨询 留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案： 新增检索档案 确定 取消

请选择收藏分类： 新增自定义分类 确定 取消

通借通还

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：