Executive Research Project \\\'> ,_ I The Wingship's Potential For Strategic Lift Lieutenant Colonel Peter C. Losi United States Air Force Faculty Research Advisor Colonel Richard Unser, USAF The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319-6000 UlMObAbblir ittl SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS 2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT ,. Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; distribution is unlimited. ; _. - 4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) NDU-ICAF-95-^/^L 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Industrial College of the Armed Forces 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable) 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION National Defense University 6c. ADDRESS (G'ty, State, and ZIP Code) Fort McNair 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) NDU-LD-SCH Ft. McNair 8a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING ORGANIZATION 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable) 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 8c ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS ELEMENT NO. ACCESSION NO. 11. TITLE (Include Security Classification) L AufftOR(S) " > r&k3Ls*JO^S- Jj&A _^^\^CljUzAU 12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) /ijzn C-rY b&A^J 13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year. Month. Day) 5. PAGE COUNT ^- 16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION COSATI CODES FIELD GROUP 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) 19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) See Attached DTIS QUALITY INSPECTED 20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED B SAME AS RPT. DTIC USERS 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED 22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE" INDIVIDUAL Susan Lemke or Tina Lavato 22b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL NDU-LD-SCH DD FORM 1473.84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted. All other editions a re obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE UNCLASSIFIED DISCLAIMER This research report represents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the National Defense University, or the Department of Defense. This document is the property of the United States Government and is not to be reproduced in whole or in part for distribution outside the federal executive branch without permission of the Director of Research and Publications, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319-6000. Accesion fo NTIS CRA&I DTIC TAB Unannounced Justification Distribution/ Availability Codes Avail and/or TABLE OF CONTENTS Disclaimer ii Abstract iv About the Author v INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 3 PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES 9 ANALYSIS 16 CONCLUSION 27 ENDNOTES 30 LIST OF REFERENCES 35 A Wing-In-Ground-effect (or WIG) aircraft is a vehicle designed to fly just above the surface of the earth in an aerodynamic regime called "ground effect." Flying in ground effect allows greater fuel efficiency than realized by conventional aircraft. One large WIG design that combines the cargo capacity of a small ship with the speed of a large aircraft is currently being considered as a strategic lift vehicle. This "half-airplane/half-ship" is aptly called a "wingship." The main proponent of the wingship design is a company called Aerocon in Arlington, Virginia. In 1993, Aerocon successfully lobbied Congress to provide funding for a study to be completed by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) on the potential of wingships as strategic mobility vehicles. This report looks at the preliminary findings of ARPA and the claims of Aerocon regarding the wingship's strategic mobility potential. These two different viewpoints provide most of the "pros" and "cons" of wingship development for the strategic mobility mission. Additionally, the report examines some other military, economic, diplomatic, and political factors that should be considered in a decision to pursue this new technology. It concludes that, while wingships would make magnificent strategic lifters, they are not likely to replace current mobility assets in the near future. However, there are other missions that may be well suited for an interim prototype or technology developer. (This conclusion is in line with the preliminary recommendations of ARPA.) In any case, wingships are certainly a concept that "bears watching" and hold tremendous potential for future strategic mobility missions as well as other military and commercial applications. About the Author Lt Col Peter C. Losi (BS, United States Air Force Academy, 1975; MA, Webster University, 1986) is a C-141 airlift pilot and former B-52 bomber navigator. After graduation from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces he will be assigned to the Logistics Readiness Center (LRC) in the directorate of logistics (J-4) on the Joint Staff. He is also a graduate of the Air War College, Air Command and Staff College, and Squadron Officers School. Previous assignments include tours in personnel as a branch chief at Headquarters, Air Force Military Personnel Center and as a current operations staff officer at Headquarters, Military Airlift Command. Colonel Losi's operational assignments were at McGuire Air Force Base (AFB), New Jersey where he was an operations support squadron commander and chief of current operations during the Gulf War; and at Travis AFB where he was an C-141 B instructor aircraft commander. His tour as a B-52G navigator was at Griffiss AFB, INTRODUCTION Since the fall of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, we've seen drastic cuts in defense spending. In anticipation of a "peace dividend", we've reduced our personnel levels, closed numerous bases at home and abroad, and trimmed away significant amounts of force structure. And yet, as recent events in Somalia, Haiti, North Korea, and Bosnia illustrate, the potential for United States military involvement anywhere around the globe remains high. With a much smaller military and greatly reduced overseas presence, it is imperative that we maintain an ability to rapidly project forces wherever and whenever needed. This ability to globally project force is often referred to as "strategic mobility"~and while the United States does this better than any other nation, we still don't have all the airlift and sealift assets or prepositioned personnel and equipment required to meet all our strategic mobility needs. Over the last few decades, this mobility "shortfall" was the focus of Department of Defense attention on improving our airlift and sealift forces through such programs as the C-17 and fast sealift ships. Improvements in both modes of strategic lift were deemed necessary-airlift delivers troops and equipment quickly but in limited amounts; and sealift delivers the bulk of equipment needed for the sustainment of forces but only after considerable "steaming" time. But what if we could solve our mobility shortfall with a vehicle that could carry bulk cargo like a ship with the speed of an aircraft? Such a vehicle may be possible. The Russians have been developing a "half-airplane/half-ship" for some time now with relatively good success. These vehicles are essentially airplanes that fly close to the surface of the ocean in a region of aerodynamics called "ground effect." For this reason, these vehicles have come to be called "Wing-In-Ground-effect (WIG)" vehicles or "ekranoplanes" ("ekran" means "ground effect" in Russian). In the United States, the concept of using WIG vehicles as large commercial or military transport vehicles is gaining interest. In the transportation role these vehicles are commonly referred to as "wingships." By flying in the ground effect, wingships are said to be able to achieve the fuel efficiency of a ship while flying at the speed of an airplane. This combination of efficiency and speed would seem to make wingships ideally suited for the strategic mobility mission. However, the practicality of wingships as strategic transporters has yet to be proven. This paper will evaluate the potential of wingships as a future strategic mobility vehicle. To do this, I'll first discuss some background and history on wingship development. Next, I'll discuss some of the pros and cons of this emerging technology as uncovered by the most recent studies. I'll then analyze these pros and cons not only against the strategic mobility requirement but also in the context of our larger national interests. And finally, I'll draw some conclusions and make recommendations about the wingship's potential role as both a new transportation vehicle and an instrument of national power. BACKGROUND In 1967, a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst was studying some satellite imagery of a strange looking craft skimming over the surface of the Caspian Sea. This craft resembled an airplane with short, stubby wings and a very large empennage (tail surface) and its dimensions confirmed it to be the largest flying vehicle of any type in the world. This strange machine was also different from other aircraft in that is was never observed flying over land or at those altitudes that were normally the domain of traditional airplanes. The craft was dubbed "The Caspian Sea Monster"--and a monster, it was! Total length was over 500 feet and the estimated gross weight was over 500 tons. The craft was a Soviet design and represented a technology where the Soviet's held a clear advantage over the West. Further analysis by DIA, revealed that the "sea skimming" characteristics of the Caspian Sea Monster allowed the craft to take advantage of an aerodynamic phenomena known as "ground-effect". Simply stated, ground effect is the way that the "ground" (or surface-in this case, the surface of the sea) improves the performance of a wing when the two come close to each other. All pilots are familiar with ground-effect when landing. As an airplane gets close to the surface it seems to want to "float" on the air just before touching down. Most pilots think of the phenomena as air being compressed between the wing and the ground and make adjustments to the controls of the airplane during landing to take advantage of this "cushion" of air for a smooth landing. Aerodynamicists have a more technically correct answer as to what "ground-effect" is and why wings perform better close to the ground-more on this later. Suffice it to say, that the Caspian Sea Monster was the culmination of years of Soviet research in a new class of transporters known as Wing-In-Ground-effect or WIG Research in WIG vehicles has been around for some time. Several other countries have shown interest in pursuing this technology throughout the twentieth century. But most of the vehicles developed were on a much smaller scale than those developed by the Soviets. The Caspian Sea Monster ushered in a new era in transportation. Though the Monster was originally envisioned as an anti-ship warfare vehicle, its increased flying efficiency might make it ideally suited as a strategic mobility platform. One of the first engineers to pursue this idea was Steven Hooker, an aeronautical engineer and DIA analyst who first observed the Caspian Sea Monster in 1967. He became so convinced of the mobility potential of this new type of vehicle that he left the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1983 to pursue the full scale development of a practical WIG transporter. In 1984, Mr. Hooker founded his own company, Aerocon, to develop a Wing-In-Ground-effect vehicle that had the cargo capacity and range of a small ship. Consequently he called his concept a "wingship" and this term is now commonly used to refer to a WIG vehicle designed for a transportation role. Hooker's vision for a wingship was a vehicle that was roughly ten times the size of the Soviet's Caspian Sea Monster. The Aerocon wingship would have a gross weight of over five thousand tons and a cargo capacity of around fifteen hundred tons. This wingship would cruise at over 400 knots and have transoceanic range. Compared to a Boeing 747, the wingship would be over 12 times the weight but carry 30 times the payload. What's more, because of the advantages of flying in ground-effect, the wingship would achieve operating efficiencies (cargo delivered per fuel consumed) as much as 44% better than today's cargo airplanes. A drawing of the Aerocon wingship is at Figure 1. Figure 1 The AEROCON WINGSHIP AEROCON WINGSHIP PROPOSAL SPEED: 400+KNOTS PAYLOAD: 1500 TONS (1200 TONS OF CARGO & 2000 TROOPS AT 300 TONS) The impact such a vehicle might have on both the commercial transportation industry and military strategic mobility mission is obviousa capability to deliver much larger volumes of cargo, in a shorter amount of time, all for a lower operating cost. The wingship's potential as a solution to this nation's long-standing mobility shortfall was brought to the attention of Congress through the successful lobbying efforts of Aerocon. Subsequently, the FY93 Defense Appropriations Act provided five million dollars for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to determine if there was a military need for a wingship and, if so, how it might improve United States airlift and sealift capabilities. other words, could a wingship, like the one envisioned by Aerocon, provide a practical solution to this problem? This is one of the questions the Advanced Research Projects Agency was tasked with answering through the FY93 appropriation. Overall Congressional direction asked for a technical evaluation; a model for experiment planning; a utility analysis; and whether or not there existed a validated DoD requirement for such a vehicle. To meet Congressional guidance, ARPA established four program objectives: 1. Understand "State of the Art" in wingship technology. 2. Assess Development/Operational Risks. 3. Understand the Potential DoD Role. 4. Provide a Recommendation to the Secretary of Defense. To conduct the study, ARPA established two study teams. The Wingship Technical Evaluation Team (WTET) was tasked with the first two objectives-looking at the technical feasibility of wingships. The third objective was given to the Wingship Mission Analysis Team (WMAT) with the primary emphasis on looking at possibilities for strategic lift, but also they were asked to consider other military and/or civil missions that may be well suited to wingships. Of course the two teams would combine their studies in accomplishing the fourth objective--a final recommendation to the Secretary of Defense as to what extent wingship technology should be pursued in the United States. One particularly important advantage that the ARPA teams had in conducting this study was access to Russian WIG technology. With production of such craft as the Caspian Sea Monster, Russia is the only country that has designed, built, and operated very large WIG They have over thirty years of research experience in this technology. the Caspian Sea Monster crashed and sank some years ago, the Russians are currently building at least two different large scale WIG designs. The smaller version is called the Orlyonok and weighs about 140 metric tons. The larger version is called the Lun/Spasatel and is actually larger than a Boeing 747--weighing about 400 tons. Figure 2 shows relative sizes of the Orlyonok and Lun compared to some United States aircraft. Figure 2 RELATIVE SIZES Length 117' Length 190' Boeing 747 Length 232' Lun/Spasatel Length 242' Length 566' Members of the ARPA team traveled to Russia in the spring and fall of 1993 to visit the TsAGI Central Aero-Hydrodynamics Institute in Moscow and the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau in Nizhni Novgorod-where the large Russian WIG vehicles were produced. exchange of information between Russians and Americans proved useful in accomplishing the ARPA objectives. (It may also provide a foundation on which to build future cooperative ventures~a benefit discussed later.) Preliminary findings of the ARPA study are just now coming available. They indicate both problems and possibilities with the wingship concept. PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES Perhaps the biggest problem with the concept of a wingship for strategic lift on the magnitude of the one envisioned by Aerocon is that it has never been done before. As an Aerocon report stated, "like the Panama Canal or any number of large bridge or dam projects at the time they were first proposed the wingship is simply a major engineering enterprise that has never been before attempted." The largest WIG vehicle produced and flown by the Soviets was about 540 tons, whereas the Aerocon proposal is about ten times that at 5000 tons. This "order of magnitude" jump in size is a problem according to the ARPA study. A design in the 400-1000 ton range is seen as much more "technically feasible." (In other words no more than double the size of the largest currently operating WIG aircraft, the Lun/Spasatel). ARPA points out that the large size of the Aerocon wingship presents several other obstacles. Large size means large costperhaps more than $60 billion to develop and billions more for production, operations, and support costs-although ARPA admits that costs are difficult to nail down. As one team member was quoted as saying, "It's like asking the Wright Brothers how much a 747 costs." Large size also means large power requirements to get the vehicle out of the water and into the ground effect. One of the earliest preliminary team findings stated that "the large power requirement associated with take-off is the single greatest impediment to overall efficiency and utility of this vehicle and must be overcome if wingships are to become efficient transports." The large power required for take-off as compared to that required for flight in ground-effect has been termed a "power mismatch" and the extra weight of carrying the engines associated with this mismatch may detract from the envisioned efficiency of very large wingships. Large wingships are also "large targets." Critics of the Aerocon design say that such a vehicle would present a lucrative target~an expensive strategic lifter carrying expensive combat firepower-highly vulnerable to enemy missile attacks. But certainly a wingship moving at over 400 knots would not be any more vulnerable to such a threat than current fast sealift ships cruising at 24 knots. Furthermore, sealift ships carry over three times the cargo of the proposed wingships making conventional ships even more lucrative targets. has even argued that the wingship is an "ideal" size because it is "large enough to deliver combat units of serious proportions, but it is not so large that if destroyed or hindered, it would represent an unacce