← Risk register SOC 17-2121 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Marine Engineers and Naval Architects

8,250 US workers · median $112,230/yr · Engineering

EXPOSED

Much of the day is CAD modeling, hydrostatic and stability calculations, weight estimates, resistance/powerplant sizing, specification writing and class-rule compliance checks — all of which are increasingly generated or pre-checked by parametric tools plus AI, and naval architecture already runs on heavy computational automation. What resists is the physical side: shipyard construction oversight, sea trials, damage surveys, machinery troubleshooting aboard vessels, and the signed engineering judgment that a hull or propulsion arrangement is safe and class-approvable. Modal worker here is a design-office engineer at a shipyard, design firm, or Navy/NAVSEA organization, where PE stamps, ABS/USCG approval submittals, and personal accountability for safety cases anchor the role.

10-year outlook: The design-calculation and drafting tier thins out sharply while stamped approvals, shipyard oversight, and trials work hold; expect fewer junior seats and a field that concentrates around licensed, yard-facing engineers.

US employment, 2019–2025-27.4%
11,3608,250 workers

Nearly all of this fall was the 2020 shock. It has been climbing back since.

Median pay $92,400 → $112,230 -2.8% in real terms (nominal +21.5%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+5.8% 8,500 → 9,000 on the projections basis

Growing, and only partly exposed

The BLS expects +5.8% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 54/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~600 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

EngineerBoat DesignerShip SurveyorNaval EngineerMarine EngineerMarine SurveyorNaval ArchitectPiping DesignerMarine ArchitectProject EngineerMarine ConsultantAutomation EngineerNavigation EngineerStructural DesignerStructural EngineerArchitect SpecialistMarine Civil EngineerNaval Marine EngineerEngineering SpecialistMarine Design EngineerMarine Service EngineerShip Equipment EngineerMarine Equipment EngineerConsulting Marine Engineer

Score — 54/100 resistance

Holding it up: judgment & accountability (14/20). Weakest point: trust premium (8/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 11 + 10 + 11 + 8 + 14 = 54. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 11/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Hull form optimization, hydrostatic and intact/damage stability runs, resistance-powering estimates and weight books are already parametric and largely tool-generated, but shipyard build oversight, sea trial instrumentation and troubleshooting, docking surveys and reverse-engineering legacy machinery on ships with no as-built drawings still require a person on the plating — a roughly even split, which is why it sits at 11 and not in the resistant band with field-only engineering roles.

Embodiment 10/20

Some physical or field component Most weeks are at a workstation in a design office or NAVSEA code, but the job periodically puts you in drydock, in tanks and voids during survey, on inclining experiments and on builder's/acceptance trials at sea — real confined-space and shipboard exposure, though not the daily uncontrolled-environment work of a marine surveyor or engineering officer, hence 10 rather than 15.

Liability shield 11/20

Licensed human required and personally liable Approval submittals to ABS/DNV and USCG, and structural or stability calculations released under a PE stamp, place named personal accountability on an individual engineer, but a large share of the workforce — federal civilian naval architects and shipyard design staff working under an approved quality system and industrial exemptions — practices without a licence, which pulls this to 11 instead of the 16+ of professions where no licence means no work.

Trust premium 8/20

Some relationship component Owners, class societies and program offices buy calculated compliance and drawings that a reviewer checks against rules, not your personality; the 8 reflects genuine repeat relationships with class surveyors, port engineers and fleet owners on refit and new-build programs where knowing the vessel's history has value, but a competitor firm can take the contract on price and schedule.

Judgment & accountability 14/20

Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls You decide whether a damaged-stability case is acceptable, whether a weld or scantling deficiency found during construction is a repair or a redesign, what margins to carry on a first-in-class hull, and whether a vessel is fit for trials — calls made with incomplete data where being wrong sinks ships, which is why this is 14 even though the rulebooks (SOLAS, class rules, Subchapter requirements) constrain the envelope.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: licensure, liability, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: Apprenticeship.gov — paid, employer-sponsored trade apprenticeships, searchable by trade and ZIP paid to train · Apprenticeship.gov — industrial maintenance and millwright programs paid to train · Coursera — engineering and procurement courses, auditable without paying free to audit · MIT OpenCourseWare — circuits, systems and diagnostic method, free and ungated free · Coursera — negotiation courses, audit free free to audit · MIT OpenCourseWare — finance and accounting free · Coursera — people management and team leadership specialisations free to audit · edX — supply chain and inventory management free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers SAFE · 68/100 · you already have ~74% of the skill profile

Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation, and Relay SAFE · 68/100 · you already have ~67% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Repairing, Equipment Maintenance, Equipment Selection, Troubleshooting

Construction Managers EXPOSED · 65/100 · you already have ~64% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Negotiation, Management of Financial Resources, Management of Personnel Resources, Management of Material Resources

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 69/100 — SAFE.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening task resistance +3

    Task-mix shift: this occupation genuinely has two tiers. If parametric/AI tooling absorbs the CAD production, weight books, resistance estimates and rule-check passes, the residual role concentrates on novel-arrangement safety cases, alternative-design-and-arrangement submittals under SOLAS II-2/17, ammonia and hydrogen fuel risk assessments under IGF Code alternative design approval, and reconciling as-built deviation with approved drawings — work with no verified precedent corpus.

  • already happening judgment accountability +3

    Naval and commercial adoption of ammonia, methanol, hydrogen and battery-hybrid propulsion places consequential calls (bunkering arrangement, toxic-release siting, thermal-runaway containment) under genuine ambiguity with thin rule coverage, so the engineer owns the risk-acceptance decision rather than applying a rule.

  • plausible liability shield +4

    USCG/ABS explicitly requiring a named licensed PE (or ABS-recognized responsible engineer) signature and traceable human review on stability letters, damage-stability and structural calculations where any part was machine-generated — the Subchapter M towing-vessel and Subchapter L small-passenger-vessel plan-review regimes already route approvals through named submitters, and the post-Conception (SUV) NPRMs tightened plan-approval accountability. A parallel exists in NAVSEA's Technical Warrant Holder system, where a single named warrant holder personally owns a technical authority decision; extending warrant-holder countersignature to AI-derived design products would formalize it.

  • plausible embodiment +3

    If shipyard schedule pressure and the shortage of surveyors keep pushing design engineers into on-site duty — construction oversight, weld and alignment disputes, inclining experiments, sea trials, damage surveys and grounding/allision investigations — the share of the day that is unpredictable-environment physical work rises. Class-society remote-survey expansion pushes the other way, so this only holds if remote survey stays limited to routine periodic items.

  • plausible liability shield +2

    Insurer/P&I club and class-society conditions on cover requiring documented licensed-engineer verification of software-generated hull girder and stability outputs after a casualty traced to an unverified automated calculation — IACS UR E26/E27 cyber rules show class already willing to write software-provenance requirements into class notation.

The limit. No plausible route to a higher trust_premium: buyers are shipyards, owners and government programs procuring on price, schedule and class approval — none of them pay a premium for human authorship as such, only for a signature that satisfies a regulator or underwriter. That value belongs in liability_shield, not trust. Also note liability_shield and task_resistance here partly trade off: the same class-society digitalization that could mandate human countersignature is also building remote survey and automated rule-check pipelines.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 13 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 710 $159,700 +42%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 250 $112,230 +0%
Portland-South Portland, ME 230 $104,850 -7%
Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, WA 180 $106,250 -5%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 150 $128,610 +15%
Barnstable Town, MA 120 —
Urban Honolulu, HI 120 $108,200 -4%
San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA 90 $118,100 +5%

Best paid

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 710 $159,700 +42%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 50 $140,520 +25%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 150 $128,610 +15%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $112,230. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 54. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.