A popular cigarette advertisement from the 1960s exclaimed, "You've come a long way, Baby!" That sentiment could be applied to Naval Oceanography. The US Navy has navigated the course of developing prediction technology over many fundamental shifts in global geopolitics while addressing the evolving challenges at the forefront of the oceanography mission to ensure the safety of the nation's armed forces. Originally motivated by Soviet-era submarine programs, accurate acoustic prediction necessitated forecasting the positions of ocean fronts and eddies. Since then, the scope of Naval Oceanography has expanded to encompass a littoral focus, including applications that assist Navy SEa Air and Land (SEAL) teams, amphibious vehicle landings, and mine warfare. The fundamental physics governing the universe remains unchanged and so has the Navy's need to understand ocean physics, build numerical representations, connect to data streams, and assimilate observations in order to provide forecasts addressing the challenges of today and tomorrow. A well-planned course is no accident, and the Navy's leading edge in ocean prediction is the result. This paper provides a description of the path to this leading edge, a synthesis of the current operational architecture that enables Naval Oceanography, an analysis of the triumphs of the last 10 years that are part of today's oceanography portfolio, and a prediction of what the next 10 years holds for Naval Oceanography.

Burnett, W., S. Harper, R. Preller, G. Jacobs, and K. LaCroix. 2014. Overview of operational ocean forecasting in the US Navy: Past, present, and future. Oceanography 27(3):24–31, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2014.65.

Anonymous. 1977. Ocean forecasting. Eos Transactions, American Geophysical Union 58(5):279–281, https://doi.org/10.1029/EO058i005p00279-02.
1. Burnett, W., J. Harding, and G. Heburn. 2002. Overview of operational ocean forecasting in the US Navy: Past, present, future. Oceanography 15(1):4–12, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2002.31.
2. Clancy, R.M., and K.D. Pollak. 1983. A real-time synoptic ocean thermal analysis/forecast system. Progress in Oceanography 12:383–424, https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6611(83)90001-0.
3. Curry, W., S. Sandgathe, S. Lord, F. Toepfer, and M. Peng. 2011. The Earth System Prediction Capability: A multiagency partnership to advance US environmental prediction. Paper presented at the 24th Conference on Weather and Forecasting/20th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, WA, January 25, 2011. Available online at: https://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/meeting2011-01-25.html.
4. Doyle, J.D., R.M. Hodur, S. Chen, Y. Jin, J.R. Moskaitis, S. Wang, E.A. Hendricks, H. Jin, and T.A. Smith. 2014. Tropical cyclone prediction using COAMPS-TC. Oceanography 27(3):104–115, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2014.72.
5. Hodur, R.M. 1997. The Naval Research Laboratory’s Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS). Monthly Weather Review 125:1,414–1,430, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<1414:TNRLSC>2.0.CO;2.
6. Mettlach, T.R., Y.L. Hsu, M.D. Marchall, and E.D. Osiecki. 2000. Applications of the Navy standard surf model: SURF 3.1. Pp. 380–391 in Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting, Environment Canada, November 6–10, 2000, Monterey, CA.
7. Mooers, C.N.K, S.A. Piacsek, and A.R. Robinson. 1982. Ocean prediction: The scientific basis and the Navy’s need. A status and prospectus report. Proceedings of the Ocean Prediction Workshop, April 29–May 2, 1981, Monterey, CA.
8. Mooers, C.N.K., A. R. Robinson, and J.D. Thompson. 1986. Ocean Prediction Workshop, 1986. A status and prospectus report on the scientific basis and the Navy’s need. Proceedings of the Ocean Prediction Workshop, April 17–19, 1986, and November 5–7, 1986. Long Beach, MS.
9. Peloquin, R.A. 1992. The Navy Ocean Modeling and Prediction Program—From research to operations: An overview. Oceanography 5(1):4–8, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.1992.25.
10. Rogers, W.E., P.A. Hwang, and D.W. Wang. 2003. Investigation of wave growth and decay in the SWAN model: Three regional-scale applications. Journal of Physical Oceanography 33:366–389, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2003)033<0366:IOWGAD>2.0.CO;2.
11. Rosmond, T.E., J. Teixera, M. Peng, T.F. Hogan, and R. Pauley. 2002. Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (NOGAPS): Forcing for ocean models. Oceanography 15(1):99–108, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2002.40.
12. Seesholtz, J.R. 1986. Oceanographer of the Navy, CNO ltr Ser. 0060/6U449045, 14 Oct. 1986.
13. Tolman, H.L., B. Balasubramaniyan, L. Burroughs, D.V. Chalikov, Y.Y. Chao, H.S. Chen, and V.M. Gerald. 2002. Development and implementation of wind-generated ocean surface wave models at NCEP. Weather and Forecasting 17:311–333, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2002)017<0311:DAIOWG>2.0.CO;2.
14. Waliser, D., K. Weickmann, R. Dole, S. Schubert, O. Alves, C. Jones, M. Newman, H. Pan, A. Roubicek, S. Saha, and others. 2006. The experimental MJO prediction project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 87:425–431, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-4-425.

This is an open access article made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format as long as users cite the materials appropriately, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate the changes that were made to the original content. Images, animations, videos, or other third-party material used in articles are included in the Creative Commons license unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If the material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission directly from the license holder to reproduce the material.