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?
A WIG will travel over the top of a minefield at very high speed,
without damage, and perform its mission on the other side.
Clear the minefield?
Hop over the minefield?
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?
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.
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 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
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)
Uses a 30mm Bushmaster II chain gun for shallow water mines
Stationary Target/Stationary Shooter
http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/ocean/Info/RAMICS/ramics.htm
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
The Air Force is investigating an
airborne version of this current ACTD.
Whatever they develop could be adapted
to WIGs.
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/factsheets/activedenial.html
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
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
Australian HSV
Russian KM
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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Speed, kts
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

$
/
l
b

o
f

P
a
y
l
o
a
d
Ship
Aircraft
WIG
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
Strategic Airlift In Support
of
Military CONOPS
Pelican Container Cargo Aircraft
Boeing Phantom Works, Air Vehicle
Advanced Design
Long Beach, California

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 Air-
Mech 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 cost-
sharing 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 three-
megawatt 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
Minimum Wing Chord vs Sea State
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sea State
W
i
n
g

C
h
o
r
d
,

f
t
.
Min Wing Chord
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
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.
Annual Sea State Occurrences in the Northern Hemisphere
Probability of Sea State in the Northern Hemisphere
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8
Sea State
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
North Atlantic
North Atlantic (cumulative)
North Pacif ic
North Pacif ic (cumulative)
Northern Hemisphere
Northern Hemisphere (cumulative)
Source: ARPA Wingship Investigation, 1994, Vol 1, Fig 5.4.4.1-1
Wave Heights vs. Sea State
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8
Sea State
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

W
a
v
e

H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Min
Max
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:
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?


Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Question:
WIGs:
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.
Recommend we pursue WIG technology
Russian Orlyonok A90.125 Length 190 ft