Applications for

Wing in Ground Effect Vessels,

a Transformational Concept
John S. Canning
NSWC DD Code D11
(540) 653-2832
CanningJS@nswc.navy.mil

What is a WIG?
A Wing-in-Ground effect craft (WIG) is a vessel with
wings that cruises just above the water surface, it is
floating on a cushion of relatively high-pressure air
between its wing and the water surface.
Is also known as a WIGE (Wing-in-Ground Effect), or a
Wingship.
It is the ultimate low-drag marine craft.
It is a very high-speed, sea-based platform.
Some WIG vehicles have the ability to fly without ground
effect as well, but inefficiently as compared to aircraft.

Airfisch 8 by Airfoil Development GmbH

Caspian Sea Monster

This is the largest WIG produced to-date

Length: 348 ft, Wing-span: 131 ft

What a WIG is not.

Although it is capable of flying, it is not an aircraft.
WIGs are not designed or built to be aircraft.
The Caspian Sea Monsters, for example, were built in
shipyards, using ship construction techniques.
However, they could benefit from modern aircraft design
and construction technologies, such as integrated product
models and composite materials.

They are also not hydrofoils, hovercraft, or surface

effect ships.
Some versions have been designed that will hover.
These distinctions are blurring, however

Two Perceived Fundamental Uses:

Weapons Platform
Traditional warship role
Includes being a Mothership for unmanned
vehicles

Logistics Platform
Falls between being a ship and an aircraft for
delivering cargo for both speed and cost.
Tendency exists to view this as an either/or choice.
Suggest that appropriate design might lead to a RO/RO
family of capabilities that could provide both uses.

A Weapons Platform View

A Transformational Question:
Is the military object to clear the minefield, or to quickly get to
the other side of the minefield, and do something to the enemy?
Clear the minefield?

Hop over the minefield?

A WIG will travel over the top of a minefield at very high speed,
without damage, and perform its mission on the other side.

A Corollary:

Q: If we can jump over minefields, how about

enemy submarine patrol areas?

A: You bet!!!

OK, So What if You Really Want to

Clear a Path Through a Minefield?
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD MINEFIELD
Have a WIG drop and control a number of UUVs designed to
hunt/kill mines on its way over the minefield, and have them
clear the path in a parallel effort, as opposed to starting at one
edge of the minefield and working through it in a serial manner.

ASCMs:
An Example for Large Ship ASUW

Utka: Armed with six SS-N-22 SUNBURN missiles. Length 242 ft.
NOTE: Due to ship construction techniques used, ONI has
concluded that Utka would be difficult to destroy.

Sea Sniper:
An Example for ASW

Based on RAMICS technology could put this on a WIG

Moving Target/Moving Shooter

FYI: Rapid Airborne Mine

Clearance System (RAMICS)

http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/ocean/Info/RAMICS/ramics.htm

Uses a 30mm Bushmaster II chain gun for shallow water mines

Stationary Target/Stationary Shooter

Small Boat ASUW

Lethal
30 mm chain gun
Same one for Sea Sniper
Look down/Shoot down
Stay out of lethal range of small boat weapons

Other guns and/or missile systems

Non-lethal
Active Denial Technology
HPM system causing intense skin pain for exposed
personnel

Running Gear Entangling System

Specially designed boat-stopping rope

Active Denial Technology

http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/factsheets/activedenial.html

The Air Force is investigating an

airborne version of this current ACTD.
Whatever they develop could be adapted
to WIGs.

Other Examples

AC-130 Gunship w/ 105mm gun

Airborne Laser

While not WIGs, these examples indicate that other,

large weapon systems have, and are, being integrated
into airborne platforms. This could be done for WIGs.

A Logistics Platform View

A Comparison
Australian HSV
Russian KM

Speed - 40 + knots
Range 4000+ nm @ 40kts
Draft 10 7
Length Overall - 370 ft
Beam - 100 feet
Weight - ?
Cargo capacity - 1100 tons
Operate at speed in 15 ft seas

Speed 270 knots

Range 930 nm
Draft Draft? What draft?
Length 348 ft
Wing span 131 ft
Weight 540 tons
Cargo capacity ?
Operate at speed in any seas

Direct comparisons are difficult due to

differences on how lift capability is figured

WIG Logistics
Do you want it there fast or do you want it there cheap? This
has always been a concern of manufacturers, merchants and
logisticians. When the shipment is trans-oceanic, mile for mile,
sea travel is the cheapest. Air shipment is faster, but costs five
times more per kilogram of weight. However, WIG technology
can deliver large amounts of cargo with significantly less fuel
consumption (50% more payload with 35% less fuel
consumption than similar-sized aircraft 75% less fuel than
comparable-sized hydrofoil ferries).
Quote from: http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/wig.htm

Russian CHDB Chaika-2

Comparison of Relative $/lb and

Speed to Move Cargo
Relative $/lb of Payload

Aircraft

5
4
3

WIG

Ship

1
0
0

100

200

300
Speed, kts

400

500

600

Implications for Strategic

Mobility Capability
Prior to the Gulf War, four separate DoD studies concluded we
didnt have enough sealift to meet mobility demands

Olds, Bradley L. The Impact of Wingships on Strategic Lift, Thesis for the Naval Post Graduate School,
Monterey, CA, SEP 1993

DoDs Mobility Requirements Study & Bottom-Up Review

Update (1995) indicate that the U.S. still had an overall strategic
mobility shortfall

Losi, Peter C. The Wingships Potential For Strategic Lift, Executive Research Project for The Industrial
College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, Washington, D.C., 1995

Does that mean we need WIGs for strategic mobility?

Depends on if a shortfall still exists when WIGs are fielded

We are undergoing the RMA
Forces getting smaller
Logistics decreasing

Pelican Container Cargo Aircraft

Boeing Phantom Works, Air Vehicle
Advanced Design
Long Beach, California

Strategic Airlift In Support

of
Military CONOPS
This is a current LAND-BASED proposal

Why are WIGs not more

Common?

The main problem is getting out of the water, since the required power
for take-off is a number of times higher than that required for cruising.
This is due to the high drag in the water just before leaving the water
surface, also called "hump drag.
Ever since the very first experimental WIG craft were built in the
1930s, longitudinal stability has been recognized as a very critical
design factor. When not designed properly WIG craft show a
potentially dangerous pitch up tendency when leaving (strong) ground
effect.
A WIG craft that fulfills all efficiency expectations would be extremely
big, hundreds, maybe thousands of tons. Only at this size the relative
height will be sufficiently small to be more efficient than for example a
747 on a trans-Atlantic route and still be clear of the waves.
Investors for a project to develop a craft this size will not be easy to
find if the technology has not proven itself first.

The Russians solved all but the last problem

Getting a WIG Out of the Water

To address the hump drag issue, Beriev produced this

WIG that incorporates a hydrofoil.

Addressing the Longitudinal

Stability Issue

Flying wings, such as the YB-49, were inherently

unstable. This issue was solved for the B-2 by the use of
computer control. The same could be done for WIGs.

A Design Challenge
Designing a WIG craft is much more challenging than
designing a ship or an aircraft. Especially in the
preliminary design phase, many problems have to be
addressed at the same time. One cannot isolate wing,
tail and fuselage design, which is common practice
to a certain extent in aircraft design. Rules of thumb
are hardly available and simple analytic calculation
methods for performance and stability of a WIG craft
do not exist.

Meeting this challenge would provide the Navy a very

valuable transformational capability

Ideal WIG Missions

Quick response precision strike platform

Special operations force insertion
Mine clearing & laying
Deep sea submergence recovery
Urgent re-supply of ships afloat
Disaster response
Source: ARPA Mission Analysis Team for 1994 wingship study

Projections on WIG Technology

Russian analysts consider that WIG technology is now at the
point where the U.S. can build an ocean-skimming WIG AirMech craft. It would weigh 5,000 tons and carry a cargo of
1,500 tons for a distance of 20,000 kilometers (12,420 miles) at
a speed of 400 kilometers per hour (250 miles per hour). Such a
craft could deliver 1,200 tons of military equipment and cargo
plus 2,000 Soldiers. Russian analysts feel that, with financial
backing, they could build a 5000-ton craft capable of lifting
1200 tons or 3000 passengers now. It could fly at 800 kilometers
per hour (500 miles per hour) with a range of 16,000 kilometers
(9936 miles).
Quote from: http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/wig.htm

Artists conception of a proposal to ARPA by Aerocon, 1993 566 ft in length

Costs

Estimates by Aerocon in 1994 put full-scale development and

production costs in the range of $6.5 - $8.5B, but would save billions
no longer necessary for other types of force projection, overseas
deployment operations, pre-positioning, and support costs
Program costs of 13 WIGs estimated to total $15.2B, using Aerocon
figures
Estimates by ARPA were as much as $50 - $60B just for development,
but admitted that costs were hard to nail down
Air Force estimated $95B, but wasnt really interested since it was
sea-based
R&D cost estimates, which vary considerably, are largely unreliable
because neither aircraft nor ship parametrics apply.

Recent Boeing figures are more than Aerocons estimates, but

much less than ARPAs. Boeing is looking at significant costsharing from commercial transportation industry. DoDs share
would be negotiable.

Schedule
Reported estimates from beginning of
development to IOC ranged from 10 years
to over 13.5 years (the median figure for
IOC from an acquisition Milestone I
decision).

Risks
Vuja De
We aint never been here before
Finding a U.S. builder willing to take this on
At least one appears to be ready to address WIG technology

Propulsion
Large engine technology
Differing power requirements for takeoff/cruise
Saltwater environment

Rough water performance

Can it stay in ground effect?
Does it need to stay in ground effect?
Russian experience indicates that you can pull up to go over rough water/obstacles

Program sponsorship
No natural sponsor
Falls in the cracks between the Air Force and the Navy
Falls in the cracks between NAVSEA and NAVAIR

Materials
Lightweight, corrosion resistant

Nuclear Propulsion for Aircraft

NB-36H
Between 1946 and 1961, the Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission spent more than $7 billion
trying to develop a nuclear-powered aircraft. Although no airplane ever flew under nuclear power, the
Air Force converted this B-36 bomber, known as the Nuclear Test Aircraft, to carry an operating threemegawatt air-cooled reactor to assess operational problems (it made 47 flights over Texas and New
Mexico between July 1955 and March 1957).
The technicians and scientists did their best to succeed with the ANP program, and they did make a great
deal of technological progress. However, without guidance their efforts were too spread out. The blame
for the failure of the ANP program cannot rest with the technology, it belongs to the politicians and the
military. While technical objectives were generally met by the contractors, there were apparently no firm
military requirements set by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thoughts on the Risk of Nuclear Propulsion

History often characterizes past civilizations by the magnitude of the energies
they harness wood fires, coal fires, coke fires, and combustion of oil. Currently, we
have reached the end of the chemical energy ladder with the combustion of hydrogen.
Very likely, we will be judged by future historians by our ability to accept the
challenge and demands presented by the use of nuclear power.
The fears invoked by the perceived risk are unreasonable.
the risk of all the nuclear power plants in the US causing ten deaths in a one-year
interval is 100,000 times less than having ten people killed in an airplane crash. Its
even 1000 times less than the chance of ten people dying from dam failures. Letting
fear of a technology rule the course of history for a civilization is irrational. We can
easily imagine early man finding a flaming branch after a lightning storm. Upon
returning to his lair to show the new light to his tribe, he accidentally burns his
fingers, drops the branch and sets fire to skins, bedding and surrounding detritus. The
conclusions by the tribe: the flame is bad, evil; put it away; hide in the dark. But those
who choose to conquer their fears will progress. Those who run and hide in the dark
will not.

Are We Afraid of a Little Fire? by Dr. Stephen D. Howe, Science Fact article in the JUL/AUG 2002 issue of Analog magazine, pg 60-61

Why a WIG Needs to be Large

Dr. V.V. Sokolov, Chief Designer at CHDB, told DARPA investigators in a 16 AUG 93 interview that the
height of the wing above the level water line is usually:
h = H/2 + 0.1c
where:
h = height of wing above level water line
H = average of 3% highest waves
c = wing chord

250

200

Wing Chord, ft.

It is easy to see from this that for zero

height, h, there is a relation between
wave height and the minimum wing
chord (the distance from leading edge
to trailing edge) required to stay above
the waters surface in a wave
environment. This relation is plotted
here. Wing size quickly becomes large
for increasing sea state.

Minim um Wing Chord vs Sea State

150
Min Wing Chord
100

50

0
1

5
Sea State

Annual Sea State Occurrences in the Northern Hemisphere

Probability of Sea State in the Northern Hem isphere

100
90
80
70
North Atlantic (cumulative)
North Pacific

50

North Pacific (cumulative)

Northern Hemisphere

40

Northern Hemisphere (cumulative)

30
20
10
Wave Heights vs. Sea State
0
0-1

50

>8

Sea State
45
40
Significant Wave Height, ft

Probability

North Atlantic
60

35
30
Min

25

Max

20
15
10
5
0
0-1

5
Sea State

Source: ARPA Wingship Investigation, 1994, Vol 1, Fig 5.4.4.1-1

>8

Significant Wave Height, ft

Ten-Day Period, JAN 2001

Significant Wave Height, ft

Ten-Day Period, JUL 2001

Shared Development
The Russians have more experience
working with this technology than any other
group.
Teamed with Aerocon for ARPA effort
Current efforts with others

Likely worthwhile developing a teaming

relationship with them in order to take
advantage of this expertise

Admiral Cebrowskis Transformational

Capability Checklist:
Question:

Does it enable a new concept of

operation?
Does the new system or idea
enable a difference in kind, not
degree?
Is it robust in the face of a wide
range of threats?
Does it broaden the competition
more than legacy approaches?

WIGs:

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Conclusions &
Recommendations
WIGs are not new, but the
technology hasnt been
fully explored.
It offers significant
advantages to the Navy that
can master it.
It is truly transformational.
Russian Orlyonok A90.125 Length 190 ft

Recommend we pursue WIG

technology