检索结果-内蒙古大学图书馆

LUNCHEON ADDRESS - UNITED-STATES NAVY PRESENT AND FUTURE - AN engineering PERSPECTIVE

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第3期94卷 47-50页

作者： FOWLER, EB COMMANDER NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND Vice Admiral Earl B. Fowler Jr. USN:was born in Jacksonville Fla. on 29 September 1925. After attending Landon High School in Jacksonville he enlisted in the Navy's V-12 Program on 18 May 1943 and entered the Georgia School of Technology from which he graduated in February 1946 receiving his Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree and his commission as Ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve. Following graduation he was ordered to duties inUSS Columbia (CL-56)andUSS Ranger (CV-4)until November 1946 when he was assigned to the Pre-commissioning Detail and later served in theUSS Wright (CVL-49). In July 1947 he entered Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduating therefrom in January 1949 and receiving his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering. He next served in theUSS Leary (DDR-879)for two years and the Naval Shipyard Charleston from 1951 until 1953 when he became Force Electronics Officer Staff of Commander Mine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet also at Charleston until 1956. Subsequently he served at the Navy Radiological Defense Laboratory (1956–57) at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard (1957–60) with the Military Assistance Advisory Group Republic of China as Material and Engineering Advisor (1960–62) on the Staff of Commander Service Force U.S. Pacific Fleet (1962–65) and as Head Ship Engineering Division Pacific Missile Range Pt. Mugu Calif. where he worked on the design of ships for the APOLLO Program and National Range Support (1965–67). Admiral Fowler came to the Naval Material Command in July 1967 as Project Manager Instrumentation Ships Project Office (PM-5) and served in that capacity until February 1968 when the project was transferred as a Ship Acquisition Project to the Naval Ship Systems Command and he became the Project Manager for the Oceanographic Mine Patrol and Special Purpose Ship Acquisition Project. He then attended the Harvard University Advanced Management Program in 1971 subsequently reporting to the Naval Electronic Systems Command in Janu

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE FFG 7 CLASS DESIGN IMPACT BY INSURV TRIALS

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第2期94卷 87-100页

作者： WOODRUFF, RB The authorgraduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with distinction in 1964. He served initially in theUSS Davis (DD-937)as Main Propulsion Assistant attended the Naval Destroyer School and then was a member of the Pre-Commissioning Crew and Engineer Officer in theUSS Julius A. Furer (DEG-6).Selected as an Engineering Duty Officer (ED) in 1968 he had a tour in the Maintenance Department Staff of Commander Cruisr-Destroyer Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet at Newport R.I. after which he attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology for graduate studies which culminated in his receiving his M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering and his degree of Ocean Engineer in 1972. Following graduation he was assigned to the Boston Naval Shipyard followed by two years in theUSS Puget Sound (AD-38)as Repair Officer after which he was ordered to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard as the Production Engineering Officer. Currently he is on duty in the Naval Sea Systems Command (PMS 399) where he is the Trials Officer and Hull Technical Director for theOliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7)Class Acquisition Program. Cdr. Woodruff is a qualified Surface Warfare Officer and among his military decorations holds the Naval Achievement Medal and the Vietnamese Meritorious Unit Citation Gallantry Cross. In addition to ASNE which he joined in 1967 he is a member of the U.S. Naval Institute. Two previous papers on Naval Shipyard Production presented at ASNE Day 1978 and 1979 were published in the Naval Engineers Journal Vol. 90 No. 2 (April 1978) and Vol. 91 No. 2 (April 1979). A paper on the Management of Surface Ship Maintenance was published in theNaval Engineers JournalDecember 1980.

This paper describes the impact made on the OLIVER HAZARD PERRY (FFG 7) Class design after numerous trials by the President, Board of Inspection and Survey and his Staff. In the early 1970s, faced with a Fleet of World War II Destroyers, the Navy embarked on a program to build large numbers of Frigates to perform an Ocean Escort role. This ship had three major design constraints placed on it by Chief of Naval Operations (CNO): fixed meaning, fixed displacement, and fixed cost or “designed to cost.” The purpose of this paper is to pass on some “lessons learned.” The acid test of any ship design is how well it does with the Fleet in regard to performance and reliability. How well has the “design-constrained” FFG-7 fared with 20 plus ship trials under its belt? Very well in some areas; not so well in others. Examples of the good aspects of this ship design (LM 2500 and main propulsion train, Standard Option Equipment, et cetera) as well as those which must be considered poor will be addressed. Some examples of the latter are the “breezeway” cargo doors, ship's service diesel generators, MK 92 Combat Systems, decontamination stations, and topside corrosion control. In many cases INSURV caused design changes to be made that were sorely needed; in other cases, changes were made (or not made) over issues that had little or no impact on making this ship more ready for war. A brief examination of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) surface ship design policies is made from the point of view of the Trials Officer (the Author) who rode most of the trials with PRESINSURV. Some of the issues addressed: •Improved NAVSEA corporate memory between ship designs. •Longer Acceptance Trial for Lead Ship. •Early deployment of Lead Ship without TECHREPS. •Improved NAVSEA/INSURV/CNO communication on Trial/Technical Issues and insertion of INSURV early into the design process. •Need for NAVSEA to stand up and say “no” to costly design changes that do little to make for a better warship.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

USE OF COMMERCIAL SPECIFICATIONS IN THE SHIPBUILDING PROCESS

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第1期93卷 77-84页

作者： LISANBY, JW HAAS, J Rear Admiral James W. Lisanby USN: graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1950 at which time he received his B.S. degree and his commission as Ensign. Subseqeuntly he was ordered to Massachusetts Institute of Technology from which he received his advanced degree in Naval Engineering (Architecture) in 1956 and more recently additional training in the Harvard Business School's Management Training Program. An Engineering Duty Officer (ED) he has had wide experience in various assignments both afloat and ashore. From 1950 to 1952 he served in the USS Mississippi (AG-128) from 1952 to 1953 in the USS LST-887 and from 1959 to 1961 in the USS Antietam (CVS-36). Shore duty assignments have included Ship Superintendent at the Charleston Naval Shipyard (1956-59) Ship Material Officer Staff of Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet (1961-63) Assistant for New Con struction in the Cruiser and Destroyer Branch (1963-65) at the former Naval Ship Systems Command (NA VSHIPS) Head of the Procurement and Production Branch Fast Deployment Logistic Ship Project Office (1965-68) Director of Industrial Engineering Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy-Installations and Logistics (1968-69) and Executive Assistant to the Commander NAVSHIPS (1969-70). He then reported as Supervisor of Shipbuilding at Pascagoula Miss. with contract administration responsibilities for both the DD 963 and LHA 1 Class ship acquisitions. Returning to Wash ington 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 of Amphibious Assault Ships (with headquarters in Washington D.C.) from 1974 until June 1977 at which time he assumed command of the former Naval Ship Engineering Center (NA VSEC). With the merger ofNA VSEC on 1 October 1979 with its parent com mand the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) he as sumed his present duties as Deputy Commander for Ship Design and Integration NA VSEA. Rear Admiral Lisanby has been activ

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).

关键词：

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

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN AIRCRAFT CARRIER DESIGN

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1980年第5期92卷 71-85页

作者： REIN, RJ RYAN, JC USN (RET.) Cdr. Robert J. Rein USN (Ret.)currently is the Director of Naval Support Systems for the Columbia Research Corporation Washington D. C. At the time this paper was presented he was on active duty in the U.S. Navy serving as the Ship Design Manager for the CVV Naval Sea Systems Command. Prior to that his duty assignments included Deputy Program Manager for the Sea Control Ship Assistant Ship Material Officer. Staff of Commander Naval Air Force U.S. Pacific Fleet and Type Desk Officer for Cruisers/Destroyers and New Construction (CG 30) at the former Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard. He is a graduate of General Motors Institute an accredited private college sponsored by the General Motors Corporation: the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey. Calif.: and the Defense Systems Management College. Fort Belvoir. Va. Additionally. he has had extensive postgraduate study in Systems Management at The George Washington University. Cdr. Rein is extremely active in his support of professional engineering societies and as a member of ASNE since 1964 has been responsible for the founding of ASNE Local Sections on the west coast and presently is serving as the Society's National Assistant Secretary-Treasurer. In addition he also was the creator and coordinator for the highly successful. Society sponsored Symposium “Aircraft Carriers — Present and Future.”which was held in October 1976 at the U.S. Grant Hotel. San Diego. Calif. and was the first such Symposium jointly sponsored by an Operating Fleet command and a professional society. Mr. J. Christopher Ryanreceived his B.S. degree in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from Webb Institute of Naval Architecture in 1967 and his M.S. degree in Naval Architecture from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969. His initial work experience was at Litton Ship Systems where he was associated primarily with the general arrangements development of the DD 963 Class design. Subsequently. he was employed at the former Naval Ship Engineering Center with work as

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.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

MK-92 FIRE-CONTROL SYSTEM

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1979年第4期91卷 69-76页

作者： RYAN, FN BERLIN, J Mr. Floyd N. Ryan graduated from Frostburg State College and has performed graduate studies in Technology of Management at American University and University of Southern California. He is presently Executive Director of the Surface Missile Systems Sub-Group in the Naval Sea Systems Command. He was previously Deputy Project Manager of the MK-92 FCS/MK-75 Gun Project Deputy Systems Engineering Manager in the AEGIS Project and Surface Missile Systems Branch Head in the Naval Ordnance Systems Command. His earlier experience with the Department of the Navy included the Engineering Interface Management Office in the Bureau of Ships the Foreign Ship Systems Engineering Office and Switching Systems Design Office at RCA Service Company and he served for four years in the U.S. Navy as an Electronic Technician Petty Officer. In addition to ASNE he is a member of the Association of Scientists and Engineers and is the Executive Director (NAVSEA) for the 1978-79 term. In addition to several outstanding performance awards and citations for achievement Mr. Ryan received the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award for exceptional contribution to the development of the AEGIS Weapon System. Mr. Jack Berlin received his Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from the City College of New York and his M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University. He spent eight years in the Radar and Microwave Electronics Section of the Naval Material Laboratory. Subsequently. he has had extensive experience in Radar and Fire Control Systems. This has included responsibility for the design and field evaluation of the GFCS MK 87 Radar. From 1972 to 1973 he was the Sperry Program Manager for the Fire Control System (FCS) MK 92. His current assignment is Assistant Manager for New Developments of Missile and Gun Fire Control Systems for the U.S. Navy. He is a member of the Tau Beta Pi and Eta Kappa Nu Honorary Societies.

The MK 92 Fire Control System (FCS) & a new, integrated, highly reliable and light-weight U.S. Navy Fire Control System for missile and gun control. This system, which is in production for the FFG, PCG, PGG and PHM Ship Classes, provides the detection and automation required for modern naval warfare. Search radar data & presented at a very high rate at the operator's console, a highly integrated man-machine interface. Utilization of monopulse and “track-while-scan” techniques result in multiple target tracking capability. The system console(s) offer a self-contained command and control capability and, in addition, standard digital computer channels provide the versatile interface with the ship's command and control, integrating the complete engagement process. Error cancellation techniques are employed to obtain high performance accuracy even under severe environmental conditions. The low manning requirement for both operation and maintenance is a key system attribute for all applications. Comprehensive “at-sea” evaluations, performed by the U.S. Navy, demonstrated successful system operation in all modes of surveillance, multi-target tracking and simultaneous missile and gun engagements. The “at-sea” performance record of the FCS MK 92 was cited by the Chief of Naval Operations to have established new standards for Naval Surface Weapons Systems.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION CATEGORIZATION FOR MILITARY VEHICLES

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1978年第6期90卷 67-72页

作者： TEITLER, S PROODIAN, RE Dr. Sidney Teitler after receiving his Ph.D. in Physics from Syracuse University joined the Staff of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) where he carried out studies in various areas of experimental and theoretical Physics. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and from 1966 until 1967 spent a Sabbatical Leave at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. Denmark. At present he divides his time between technical and management activities as Head of the Program and Resource Analysis Office at NRL. Mr. Robert E. Proodianreceived his BS degree in Plastics Technology from the Lowell Technological Institute and is currently enrolled in the Graduate School (Center for Technology and Administration) at The American University. He joined the Non—Metallic Materials Branch of the Naval Ship Engineering Center (NAVSEC) in 1968 where he was engaged in the technical management of R&D for new polymer systems for the Navy. In 1974 he joined NRL as a Program Liaison Officer for the Chemistry Division and in 1976 he was transferred to his present position in the Laboratory's Program and Resource Analysis Office.

The paper presents a compact method for displaying vehicle weight distributions and utilizes this in a discussion of design “trade—offs” for military vehicles.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE USE OF MAINTENANCE DATA TO IMPROVE FLEET MAINTENANCE PRACTICES

引用

Naval Engineers Journal 1978年第6期90卷 25-36页

作者： REINES, J. MCCORMICK, J.P. Mr. J. Reinesis a Program Manager with ARINC Research Corporation an Annapolis Md. based consulting engineering corporation where in addition to management of DDEOC development he is responsible for the acquisition and direction of the Company's work in support of operational ships and ship systems. Before joining ARINC Research he worked for the newly formed Litton Advanced Marine Technology Division. where as Manager System Engineering and Analysis and Director System Assurance he had responsibilities in a variety of areas including Reliability Maintainability Human. Engineering System Safety Operations Analysis and the operational and maintenance training of LHA I and DD 963 Class Navy crews. Mr. Reines received his BS degree from Columbia University in 1951 after his service in the U.S. Navy as an Aviation Machinist Mate/Combat Air Crewman. During his 27–year career since then he has worked in the automotive and aerospace industries and as a Consultant to industry and the military. Mr. John P. McCormickis a Principal Engineer and Group Manager in ARINC Research Corporation's Ships and Ordnance Division. He has been with ARINC Research since 1963 when he joined the Company to participate in reliability studies of NASA's SATURN Launch Vehicle. He was Project Leader of a comprehensive study of the Air Force Jet Engine Maintenance Management Program has conducted a number of studies involving the use of Army Maintenance Data and has considerable experience in the use and analysis of Navy Maintenance Data. Currently he is managing a number of projects involving the analysis of Navy Destroyer and Submarine Maintenance Information. Mr. McCormick received his BS degree in Physics from St. Bonaventure University in 1959. after which he was employed by the U.S. Naval Propellant Plant as an Internal Ballistics Specialist.

The purpose of this paper is to explain and demonstrate the value of using historical Navy maintenance data in analyses for developing improved Fleet maintenance practices. The Navy produces great volumes of maintenance and maintenance—related data on its ships, ship systems, and equipments. Analyses of these data by persons familiar with the intricacies of the data and the systems involved can provide the information and insight needed to evaluate present practices and develop improved Fleet maintenance. This paper identifies specific data elements, together with their sources, that have proven to be most useful. Capabilities of the data are highlighted, and the general analysis approach is described. A number of case studies are presented to trace the use of various data elements from their source, through analysis, to the requirements for improved maintenance practices. © 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

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

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：