This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Contents:
Vertical Missile Launchers: Part I 86 V/STOL and the CV 94
By Lieutenant Commander Rodney P. Rempt, U.S. Navy By Lieutenant Colonel John T. Tyler, U.S. Marine Corps, and
The Challenge of the Semi-Foil Ship 89 Captain A"dreW H' B°qUet’ US’ Marine CorpS
By Captain Allen Jones, Jr., U.S. Navy (Retired)
Air Logistics and Fleet Support in the Navy:
A New Career Path? 92
By Commander Harlan B. Bartels, U.S. Navy
Vertical Missile Launchers: Part I
By Lieutenant Commander Rodney P. Rempt, U.S. Navy, former Commanding Officer of the missile-armed patrol gunboat, USS Antelope (PG-86), and now assigned to the Research and Technology Directorate of the Naval Sea Systems Command as Assistant for Advanced Combat Systems
On 8 April 1976, a Standard Missile 1 was vertically launched from the deck of Surface Effect Ship (SES) 100B while traveling at 60 knots. The missile properly oriented itself and rapidly pitched over and homed down range to hit the intended surface target. This test proved that the vertical- launch concept is feasible for sea firings and that it has the potential to revolutionize shipboard missile systems. Not only are vertical launchers expected to pay big dividends in increased firepower, but they will be inherently more reliable than launchers currently in use. Furthermore, they promise a significant savings in procurement and operating costs.
The key to realizing the expected benefits is a lightweight canister that serves both as a missile-shipping container and launch rail. This canister has approximately the same dimensions as the existing Standard Missile shipping container and provides the same environmental and handling protection. Also, it contains the necessary launch rails, electrical connections, and arming/restraint mechanisms that permit firing the missile directly from the canister. The loaded canisters can be vertically attached to the exteriors of existing ship superstructures or fitted upright into ship hulls in locations similar to existing shipboard launchers and magazines.
Current fast-reaction shipboardlaunching systems employ one or two launch arms that train and elevate the missile to aim at the intended target- intercept point. Large, ready service rings carry out the mechanical functions of selecting, indexing, and positioning rounds for loading. A hoist mechanism generally propels the missile onto the launch rail prior to arming and firing. The current reload cycle time of around ten seconds appears to be a natural limit for mechanical loading systems of their bulk and weight. Because of the relatively large size and weight of the missiles and the demand for faster loading and pointing, system complexity and stress have increased, resulting in greater maintenance requirements. Modern, complex missile launchers are expensive to buy and maintain. We are at the point in mechanical launcher development where a very small improvement in capability requires a disproportionately large expense.
The vertical launching of missiles is not new. Polaris and Poseidon missiles have been ejected from submerged submarines and fired vertically for years. Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles stand ready in their vertical silos, and both manned and manned satellites have been launched vertically. In general, however, the vertical launch has been reserved f°r large, strategic or extra-terrestrial nT5' siles for which trainable mechanical launchers are neither desired nor feas1' ble. Recently, improvements in the sensitivity of inertial instrument matched with reductions in their size and cost have made the vertical launch feasible for smaller tactical missiles. lc now appears that vertically launching high-performance missiles will provide significant improvements in the rate of fire and tactical flexibility.
The threat posed by enemy high' performance aircraft and missile sat' uration raids and the realities of lower military budgets have forced reduC' tions in the cost and necessitated itn' provements in the quick-reaction capability of tactical missiles. U.S- armed forces and those of our allieS look to the potentially high fire rate and low operating costs of the vertical launch approach to save money and improve capabilities.
Within the U.S. Navy, a number of exploratory development efforts were conducted during the early 1970s. These have included successful vertical launches of Chapparral, Spar' row, ASROC, and Agile missiles. Many
place while a simplistic mechanical re-
SSLL
different propulsion techniques were emPloyed, including movable-thrust vector-control nozzles, jet vanes in the r°cket motor blast, side thrusters, and c°ntrol by normal aerodynamic sur- ffces. Also, two vertical-launch, adduced development programs were vitiated in 1972 and 1973 under the ^avy Advanced Prototyping Program Managed by the Naval Ships Systems Command.
The Vertical Launch Standard Mis- (VLSM) Prototype Program began ln November 1972, under prime contact with General Dynamics Corporator!, Pomona, California. The purpose the initial phase was two-fold: (1) t0 verify the feasibility of vertically Punching Standard Missiles, and (2) t0 design and fabricate a lightweight
Can*ster launcher.
The canister launcher was conducted of lightweight phenolic- cOre-aluminum honeycomb large en°ugh to house the SM-1 missile with *ts tail fins folded. The square canister *s hermetically sealed at either end by low-out covers designed to release at 0w internal pressure, while resisting Ngher external loads. Two longitudinal interior rails hold the missile in
AEROSPACE TEXTRON
I
straint mechanism prevents inadvertent launch. The missile is electrically connected to the canister by an umbilical cable.
The modifications required to give the SM-1 a vertical launch capability were minor. Improved gyros were installed for greater position and motion-sensing accuracy. The autopilot was adjusted to integrate the new pitch-over function with other missile-control steps. The existing aerodynamic tail surfaces were replaced with self-erecting folded tails. The tails are folded and loaded into the launch canister under tension. They are held by longitudinal-rub rails that release the tails just prior to the missile’s exiting the launcher.
Following canister fabrication and the modification of several missiles, feasibility firings were conducted at San Nicolas Island. Five vertical launches were attempted, and in each case the missile properly cleared the canister and erected its control surfaces. The feasibility of vertically launching an operational fleet-tactical missile was proven.
A second phase of the VLSM Prototype Program was initiated to verify a vertical launch capability in extremely high crosswinds such as might be encountered over the decks of future high-performance hydrofoils or surface effect ships. After extensive wind-tunnel testing and the redesigning of the self-erecting tail surfaces, four missile firings were conducted from a high-speed sled at Holloman Air Force Base, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. In each case the missile cleanly exited from the canister and experienced no undue wind “tip- off.” All four telemetry firings were successful and passed well within the lethal range of the intended target. This phase was completed with the successful missile firings from the SES at high speed off Eglin Air Force Base on the Gulf Coast.
The third and final phase of the VLSM Prototype Program had as its objective the demonstration of a plenum-chamber design to safely handle the rocket-motor blast from a below-decks installation. A test structure was built consisting of all the hardware necessary to proof the gas management system. Two launch canisters were mounted side-by-side with simple exhaust-control panels, plenum ducting, and dual-exhaust gas uptakes. The prototype launcher included the ablative materials, frangible covers, plenum joint seals, and other similar items.
Four test firings were conducted during this phase at the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake; the final test took place on 5 March 1977. First, one blast test vehicle (BTV) was fired from each canister launcher to test the plenum design. During each firing a fully instrumented, inert round was positioned in the adjacent non-firing canister to measure temperatures and pressures. The third firing consisted of the full burn of the Mk 56 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor while the missile was restrained in the canister. The plenum easily contained the extreme blast and heat and required no water cooling or other protective action. The final firing tested the abil-
o(
ity of the missile to clear the vertical canister during conditions of extreme ship’s roll. The missile easily cleared the rolling launcher, corrected for the induced angular rates, and impacted the intended surface target. This firing completed the advanced development phase with no major technical issues unresolved. The feasibility of vertically launching Standard Missiles was proven in a wide variety of conditions. As a result, engineering development of a vertical launch system has begun with low design risk.
The second advanced development program, the Vertical Ejection Launch Aero-Reaction Control (VELARC) Program, began in June 1973, under prime contract to Raytheon Company, Bedford, Massachusetts. Employing the “pop-up” instead of the “fly-out” vertical launch technique, the VELARC Program proved the feasibility of a new launch approach for point-defense missiles. Its objectives included:
► Pneumatic vertical ejection in an extremely high crosswind
► Airborne rocket motor ignition
► Accurate control by a programmable digital autopilot
y Rapid pitch-over using consumable jet vanes positioned in the rocket motor exhaust
► Smooth transition to aerodynamic control for flight to intercept
This program included extensive design verification tests, involving the rocket motor/jet vane configuration, aerodynamic features, digital autopilot parameters, and control system function definitions. Static motor firings, wind-tunnel tests, and inert pneumatic launches were conducted prior to live missile firings. Six control test vehicles were tested during the firing phase, which was successfully completed in April 1976. The tests proved a small missile could be pneumatically ejected vertically, ignited approximately 60 feet above the launch tube, and then rapidly pitched over toward the target by means of jet vanes under the control of a digital autopilot.
The cold launch, or “pop-up,” technique employed in the VELARC
Program appears to have real advan tages for small, point-defense-size missiles. The most significant advafl' tages to the ship are potentially re' duced weight and a savings in space- Since the missiles are ignited in air, no plenum is required to safety contain rocket motor blast. To reduce the risk of an inadvertent ignition, ‘l G-sensitive safety and arming device can be installed in the rocket motor- This device would then be armed bl the ejection force, but would preclude an unplanned firing of the rocket motor within the ship. The weig^ savings may be of significant imp°r’ tance to weight-critical hydrofoils ot surface effect ships. Furthermore, fbe low missile velocity at motor igniti011’ together with the positive jet vaflt control, enables an extremely 1°". pitch-over apogee which may be real tactical importance for point de' fense missiles. Finally, the rocket motor itself is saved for the flight t0 the target instead of being consume by a pitch-over maneuver. Neverthe' less, pneumatic ejection/airborne ign1' tion introduces a complicating fact°r which could adversely affect reliabilW and safety.
Still other techniques could be ployed for vertical launches. The prob' lem of interior launch rails and the
need to fold aerodynamic surfaces may alleviated by employing sabots in launch tube. A “zero stage” booster could be employed with exist- lng missiles to perform the pitch-over ^unction. A hot-gas generator could Provide ejection pressure for a “popUP approach. Over the last few years a number of different techniques have been studied and rejected for one rea- s°n or another. While the “pop-up” technique appears attractive in order to save plenum space and weight, the energy required to eject a large missile clear of the launching ship would be substantial and provides an apparent natural upper bound. Accordingly, it can be expected that “fly-out techniques will prevail for larger missiles, while “pop-up” approaches can be more easily adapted to smaller missiles.
The two tactical vertical-launch programs undertaken to date point to
successful development of a shipboard vertical-launch capability. That capability should provide benefits to the fleet in the general areas of firepower, reliability, and cost.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The second part of this professional note—to be published in the December Proceedings—will examine the firepower, reliability, and cost benefits of vertical missile launchers.
Challenge of the Semi-Foil Ship
®y Captain Allen Jones, Jr., U.S. Navy fketired), President of the Fast American f*bip Transportation Company
The semi-displacement hydrofoil ship (or semi-foil ship) derives unique Capabi 1 ities from the harmonious c°mbination of gas turbine power, advanced hydrofoil control, and new low-resistance hull design, and could be dipping along at 40 knots on the °Pen seas in the near future. The Semi-foil ship design combines the displacement and hydrofoil systems for SuPporting a high-speed ship into a new and third system of support, the Semi-displacement hydrofoil-supPorted mode.
Before I proceed further in the discussion of this concept, let me point °Ut that skepticism abounds among many of those who have made initial studies of the proposed ship concept, ^hile my detractors, using conven- tl°nal drag theory analysis, have taken cbe opposite view, I have believed for a number of years that the semi-foil sb*p is feasible on the basis of power requirements. My position was based uPon observation rather than insight. ^°r example, I asked the question, wby should the fastest container cargo sb*p, the SL-7, require one-tenth the Power calculated for my 3,500-ton ^mi-foil cargo ship? Since the feasibil- uy study for the semi-foil cargo ship had been conducted by a top naval architectural firm using conventional theory, I questioned the theory. To check the semi-foil ship design further, I presented it to scientists at three top schools of naval architecture. All of them told me in no uncertain terms that it would not work, that patents would never be issued, and to leave them alone. I have honored their request not to “disturb them.
Admittedly, I violated some long- established conclusions in naval architecture in an effort to perfect this hull configuration. With this in mind, my objective is to demonstrate what may change the style of 3,000 to 12,000 dead-weight-ton ships in the not too distant future. I am guilty of being a visionary amateur, but my efforts to perfect a new mode of transportation could prove of more immediate importance to the security of the United States than the labors of the greatest scientists of the day.
The unique features of this semi-foil ship have been recognized in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and many other countries. The following patents have already been granted: U.S. Patents No. 3,881,438 and No. 3,995,575; British No. 1,420,275; Brevet Canadian No. 991,030; and Israeli No. 42,328. Additional patents are pending in West Germany, Sweden, and Japan.
In most prior ship designs, the hulls of ships were completely supported by flotation, i.e. displacement-type hulls. Others, few in number, have employed hydrofoils or air pressure (surface effect) to lift hulls completely clear of the water, thereby reducing the drag of the hulls’ wetted surfaces. Struts or similar structures below the ships’ hulls are used in most hydrofoil ship designs to carry the hydrofoils. The surface effect ship uses a cushion of air within encompassing curtains to lift the ship clear of the water’s surface. The semi-foil ship uses the hull structure itself to mount the foils. The portion of the hull structure
on which the foils are located is, for want of a better designation, the “Jones Keel.” The Jones Keel is the heart of the semi-displacement hydrofoil ship concept.
In addition to providing the structure to mount the foils, this keel also combines with the foils to create the total lift necessary to raise the ship part way out of the water while under way at a predetermined speed. The Jones Keel is a rectangular, narrow structure, with a small water plane and wetted surface area when compared to the same areas of the semifoil ship when she’s not under way.
To the best of my knowledge the semidisplacement hydrofoil ship design is the first practical solution to the size limitations which have restricted the application of hydrofoils in commercial ship designs. Although books on the subject of semi-foil ships are yet to be written and until 1 October 1976 no semi-foil ship model had ever been tested, I have test data which completely support the semi-foil ship concept. Since the semi-foil ship does not depend upon gaining all the lift required while operating in the semidisplacement-foil-supported mode from the hydrofoils, she can be built much larger than designs dependent upon gaining the entire lift from the foils alone. The semi-foil ship has, in effect, destroyed the myth of the cube-square law.
Hydrofoil ship designs which do not have Jones Keels are limited to about 2,000 tons displacement because of the interaction of the following scaling laws:
► Law One: The weight or displacement growth of a displacement ship’s hull is governed by its volume or cube function.
► Law Two: The lift generated by hydrofoils operating at a given speed can be increased as a function of the area of the foils or square function.
These laws apply when increasing the size of a hydrofoil ship and signal the designer that, as the ship grows larger and heavier, her displacement will increase as a cube function as *n Law One, while the foils must be m- creased in their lifting capability as a square function or increase in then area. The designer soon finds that the lift area required for the supporting hydrofoils of larger ships designed to carry heavy loads soon exceeds the practical limits of the now-available construction methods and materials if struts are used to attach the hydrofoil5 to the hull.
The semi-displacement hydrofoil ship design combines the use of 11 lower drag displacement keel, which is submerged at all times, with a spe' dally shaped upper hull structure which is submerged only during the displacement operating mode. When the ship is operating in the sem>' displacement mode, the released volume of the hull is thus lifted out the water. The released area, or uppef portion of the hull, is “V” shaped above the displacement keel to accept the impact of the seas while under way without damaging the hull. The marriage of hydrofoils with the Jones Keel is a new concept and offers a completely new approach in the design ^ high-speed ocean-going ships.
The semi-foil ship design has the added advantage of being a monohull, thereby giving the hull a very compact structure with many of the features and advantages of a structural beam’ Since the foil systems are located on the bow and stern of the Jones Keel, lC is under longitudinal bending strain- And, while the semi-foil ship ,s
operating in the semi-displacement, foil-borne mode, the hull structure is loaded much as a beam supported at both ends.
Multi-hull, semi-foil ships are als° feasible. By the use of two and three hulls, the size of cargo carriers can be as high as 8,000 tons for the two-hull design and 12,000 tons for the three- hull design. The three-hull design >s ideal for nuclear-power plants because
°f shielding advantages it offers.
The semi-foil ship design accepts (he drag of the displacement keel because the lift trade-off of the Jones ^eel allows the design of much larger ships than those dependent upon all Aeir lift frorn the hydrofoils alone. Also, the very long and narrow shape the Jones Keel gives the semi-foil sb'P a very small water-plane area "hile under way, compared to the touch greater water-plane area of the semi-foil ship when in the displacement mode or when not under way, or ln comparison to the very large water P'ane found on conventional displacement cargo ships.
The lower area of the water plane and the shape of the immersed hull of ^e semi-foil ship when under way ffeatly reduce her wave making and ^'e power required for operating in ^e semi-displacement mode when compared to a conventional displacement cargo ship of the same burden and speed. This applies also to the Netted surfaces.
keeping the ship in the semi-foil m°de, rather than being completely Supported by the hydrofoils, the de- Sl8n retains many of the hydrofoil shiPs advantages, i.e. reduced drag an<J lower block coefficient. At the Sarne time many of the advantages of a Conventional-displacement-hull ship are also retained. For example, propel- ers can be positioned for efficient Powering. The lower water plane of Jones Keel provides for high sPceds in heavy seas without incurring i e pounding to be expected from the ar8e, flat bottom area found on conventional-displacement cargo ships. Instead of the flat bottom found m most cargo ships, the semi-foil ship's "V-” shaped hull structure above the keel works with the Jones ^eel to allow the semi-foil ship to Withstand the high impact loads to be expected when making high speeds in eavy seas. In addition, the “V-” shaped cross section of the hull above che keel will direct spray and water aWay from the cargo deck area.
The Jones Keel gives the semi-foil ^hip hull the added capability of e*ng supported while in drydock in much the same way a regular displacement hull ship is drydocked.
Drydock blocks can be placed under the bottom of the displacement keel to transfer the ship’s weight to the floor of the drydock.
The speeds possible for both the mono-hull and multi-hull semi-foil ships are in the 40- to 50-knot range. Power and cavitation of the propellers, hull, and foils are the factors which limit the maximum speed.
On 1 October 1976, the first model demonstration of a semi-foil cargo ship was conducted at the U.S. Navy High Speed Test Tank at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, under contract with the Fast American Ship Transport (F.A.S.T.) Company of Virginia Beach, Virginia. This test, using a crude hull model at a scale of 1:50, was designed only to demonstrate the concept feasibility of the semi-foil ship as a primary goal and to supply initial data on which to plan further tests as a
secondary goal. __
The primary goal was achieved. The semi-foil model made the transition from the displacement mode to the semi-foil mode on the first run. As for the secondary goal, the test results provided much useful data and, in my opinion, confirmed the theory of the semi-foil ship. The major findings from the data collected are as follows: ^ The semi-foil ship is feasible, i.e. she will “fly.”
I The displacement mode and the semi-foil mode “crossover” at a point after which the semi-foil is increasingly superior. (See Figure 2.)
^ The semi-foil ship will scale at least three times larger than a hydrofoil ship without the Jones Keel.
^ There is no “over-the-hump” speed for the semi-foil ship; therefore, the semi-foil ship need not be overpowered as conventional hydrofoil ships must be.
The test logic, based on the Froude free-wave theory, fails to fully explain the data recorded on 1 October 1976
9 17 25 33 41 49 57
i----- 1----- 1----- 1---- 1----- 1----- 1_
Knots (3,000 ton ship & 250 foot Jones Keel)
during my model test at the U.S. Navy High Speed Test Tank. For the semi-foil ship, theory predicts an enormously high drag for a low Froude number, three times higher propulsion power to attain the same speed as the displacement ship.
Three additional observations should be extracted from the test model data plot for operations with and without hydrofoils.
► Theory tells us that the line intersection shown in Figure 2 will never occur.
► The drag lines are parallel until the inception of semi-foil lift.
► At no point does the drag of the semi-foil model exceed the displacement model drag by greater than 50%.
What can be drawn from these facts? The Froude free-wave theory does not adequately account for drag forces when the wave train is performed by the Jones Keel in combination with the hydrofoils.
In summary, the power requirements projected for the semi-foil ship have been overstated by three to ten orders of magnitude depending upon the assumptions applied if only the Froude theory is used. While, in fact’ with a properly designed Jones Keel and matched hydrofoils, the semi-fo'l ship will require less power than any full-displacement ship operating in the 30- to 50-knot range. The potential for profit is great because semi-fo^ ships will feature great speed with super cargo space for less money, and could range in size from 3,000- to 8,000-ton mono-hull designs, giving schedule performance equal to rail and road service on coastal routes.
The challenge is not to invent but to select from the vast wealth of technical data at hand the sub-systems that will marry into a unified design.
With the acceptance of the first C-9B Skytrain II aircraft in May 1973, the Navy air logistics forces took a giant step forward. The Navy now possesses a first-class transport plane, but it has yet to develop a first class career pattern for the fleet support pilot.
Presently there are 12 C-9Bs in active Navy service; the Marine Corps currently has two C-9Bs. Although the numbers may seem small, the capabilities are large.
The C-9B, a Navy version of the commercial McDonnell-Douglas DC-9, is capable of carrying up to 90 passengers or 30,000 pounds of cargo. The aircraft can be reconfigured from all seats to all cargo or various combinations. A common configuration used is 65 seats and two cargo pallets. Cargo loading, via a hydraulically operated door on the port side, can be accomplished quickly and effectively because of unique ball transfer floor and roller assemblies.
Two active duty Navy tactical support squadrons—VR-1 at NAS Norfolk and VR-30 at NAS Alameda—currently operate C-9Bs. In a typical month each squadron carries 6,000-10,000 passengers up to 250,000 miles. In addition, more than 500,000 pounds of cargo are routinely carried. VR-30 supports CinCPacFlt and VR-1 flies for CinCLantFlt by providing reliable, on-call aircraft to conduct daily short-notice flights. Recently, the C-9B has extended its operations by acting as a navigation and communications platform for carrier aircraft during transatlantic and transpacific operations.
In addition to the C-9B, other Navy transport airplanes are the CT-39 Sa- breliner, C-1A Trader, C-2 Greyhound, and the C-130 Hercules. There are currently five active duty Navy air transport squadrons. The two newest squadrons, VR-55 and VR-56, are manned primarily by reserve personnel.
VR (air transport) pilots assigned to the C-9Bs receive initial C-9B training at Flight Safety International (FSI) in Long Beach, California. Following the three-week FSI ground school, which covers aircraft systems and simulator training, the pilots return to their squadrons for normal flight training-
Th,
loi
e so-called warfare specialities have n8 received the cream of the crop, and, consequently, the fleet support c°mmands—transport, reconnais- SariCe> composite, and training—have offered from poor retention and Motivation among junior officers. We Can no longer allow transport squad- r°ns to be manned by officers who fail to make the grade in attack, fighter, Patr°l, or antisubmarine aircraft.
There is an alternative to the time- °nored requirement for junior VR Phots to get out of the transports if they expect to survive in the Navy’s Pr°motion competition. That alterna
Rank
Years in Service
Billet
is to create a viable career pattern highly motivated junior officers in support community. This proposal
| 25 | Major shore staff such as Naval Air |
| 24 | Logistics Control Office, Eastern Pacific, |
CAPTAIN | 23 | Tactical Support Wing, OpNav, Naval Air Systems Command |
| 22 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 20 | Subspecialty, Naval Air Systems Command, |
| 19 | Op Nav |
COMMANDER | 18 | Senior service college Squadron command (VR, VQ, VC, VX, VT) |
| 17 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 14 | Squadron department head (VR, VQ, VC, VX) |
| 13 |
|
LIEUTENANT |
|
|
COMMANDER | 12 | Junior service school, |
| 11 | Billet reflecting Postgraduate School courses, Shore staff such as Naval Air Forces Atlantic, etc. |
| 10 | |
| 9 | Assignment to a carrier or air-capable ship, |
| 8 | sea staff, or squadron (VT) |
| 7 | Shore staff such as Naval Air Logistic Control |
LIEUTENANT |
| Office, Postgraduate School majoring in |
6 | transportation, management, communications, | |
| 5 | or aeronautical engineering |
LIEUTENANT | 4 | Assignment to a squadron (VR, VQ, VC, VX) |
JG | 3 |
|
| 2 |
|
ENSIGN | 1 | Flight training (jet or prop) |
Figure 1 Force Support Career Pattern
R L
y the nature of the transport business and the training, VR pilots are among the best instrument pilots in the Navy.
But, what motivates someone to . ec°me a VR pilot? Certainly, the C-9B ls a big factor. Many pilots are hoping t0 become airline pilots in the future and multi-engine jet flight time is ard to come by. Some like the fact rhat deployments are non-existent and 0vernight trips are plentiful. Whatever the reasons the C-9B has brought a new era to the Navy’s world of transport.
The C-9B fleet requires dedicated, Pf°fessional aviators who are fully aware of all aspects of fleet logistics.
tive
for
the
rriay seem difficult to develop; howeVer> there are many billets which will Ptovide a young officer with the train- lrig and background necessary to be- c°me a professional in transport, logis- f’Cs, and fleet support. Figure 1 lists ”e many options available to the offi- Cfcr assignments section in the Bureau <T Naval Personnel which would allow Jailers to fully develop a career fleet SuPport pilot.
Normal multi-engine or jet flight Gaining would be followed by a first t0ur in a transport or other support ScNadron. Subsequent tours could in- cNde postgraduate school training in tfansportation management, opera- tlons analysis, aeronautical engineer- ltlg, or system acquisition management. Following this school, a typical Career might include staff duty, since every staff needs an expert in logistics.
For example, specific staff assignments to Commander Tactical Air Support Wing One in Norfolk, or Naval Air Logistics Control Office, East Pacific at Alameda would return the transport-trained officer to the C-9B community. A second squadron tour as a department head would prepare the outstanding pilots for command screening and command of a support squadron. Many variations to this pattern exist. But, to make the system work requires a BuPers decision to develop the support community as a “warfare specialty.”
It is all too obvious to me that the Navy is losing talented people because there is no clear career path for the fleet support pilot. Although the number of command opportunities may be small when compared to othef aviation specialties, the clear career path must be available, and BuPefS must demonstrate through assign' ments that a career pattern exist*' Only through this change can we continue to develop a professional alf logistics and fleet support communit) which will consistently provide safe, reliable service to the fleet.
V/STOL and the CV
By Lieutenant Colonel John T. Tyler, U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding Officer of Marine Attack Squadron 231 and Captain Andrew H. Boquet, U.S. Marine Corps, AV-8A Harrier Pilot; both authors were attached to VMA-231 during its deployment on board the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42)
April 1977 marked the return of the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) from an historic Mediterranean cruise which saw the introduction of vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft to CKr and may have been the "Rosier” and E-lB’s last hurrah. Although much statistic gathering and analysis remains to be accomplished relative to the deployment, it is the intent of this article to examine the Harrier CV experience in a chronological manner, and to highlight some operational benefits derived from using Harriers on CVS.
In late June 1976, Marine Attack Squadron-231 left its home base, Cherry Point, North Carolina, and flew to Cecil Field, Florida, to join Carrier Air Wing-19. The West Coast air wing was preparing for an upcoming Mediterranean cruise on board the Roosevelt.
Generally, the augmenting of naval squadrons with Marine Corps aircraft is not unique, since Marine squadrons have often operated from carriers. However, the 14 aircraft of VMA-231 were not the usual complement of
Marine F-4s, A-6s, or A-4s which have flown from CVs in the recent past. Instead, they were vertical/short takeoff and landing AV-8A Harriers.
Although Marine Harriers previously had extensive shipboard experience on board LPHs and LPDs as early as 1971, the AV-8A had never been integrated into the cyclic operations of a CV. Thus, in mid 1976, the Roosevelt sailed on the first build-up cruise with two F-4 squadrons (VFs 51 and l1*)' three A-7 squadrons (VAs 155, 215, *n 153), an E-IB detachment (RVAW-U^’ a Pacific Fleet combat support hel° detachment (HC-l), and a squadron 0 AV-8A Harriers (VMA-231).
During the summer months Carrie Air Wing-19 conducted its carrier qualification period, followed W Types 1, 2, and 3 training, which le toward the Operational Readine*5
^gure 1 AV-8A Deck Marking Arrangement for CV-42
'Vere made; however, such maneuvers necessarily required reduced fuel and/or payloads due to total reliance °n engine jet lift.
In the landing phase, the AV-8A executed the standard jet approach Until it stabilized in a hover over the Ending zone, at which time it defended vertically to a touchdown. Generally the primary landing zones Vtere either just forward of the #4 "Are (spot 3), or aft of the # 1 wire (spot 4), depending on the amount of fleck available for landing. (See Figure ( for the Harrier landing spot arrangement.)
Even though the above procedures
Evaluation (ORE) in late August. Since che dictates of cyclic operations neces- s*tated 1.5-hour flight periods for the conventional takeoff and landing fcTOL) aircraft, the Harrier was employed within that framework. Gener- a*ly, the AV-SAs would launch last and fec°ver first, thereby averaging a cycle tlITle of approximately 1.6 hours airborne. Occasionally, the Harriers tv°uld launch first, rapidly accomplish a tnission, and proceed to the top of fhe stack of aircraft which were al- feady airborne. On such “yo-yo” lights the average flight time was approximately 45 minutes. In both instances a rolling short takeoff was ac- oornpfished using 300-650 feet of flec’k. Occasionally vertical takeoffs
made the Harrier quite compatible with cyclic operations, certain benefits were immediately obvious vis-a-vis CTOL jet operations. First of all, the Harrier is self-starting and thereby required that no power units be available for that purpose. Second, there was no delay in launch caused by catapult hook-up since the aircraft does not use such a system. Third, on recovery only a small amount of deck space (50 feet radius) was required, thereby effectively increasing the amount of deck available for aircraft spotting. Fourth, on recovery there were virtually no bolters (or waveoffs) since the following Harriers delayed aft, or abeam, the ship while the preceding aircraft landed. Fifth, the AV-8A had no need of the arresting gear system since the Harrier adheres to the V/STOL adage that "... it is better to stop and land, than to land and try to stop.” Finally, the Harriers unique thrust-vectoring system made deck handling easier since it was possible to back the aircraft into position under its own power. Therefore, even in the initial stages of Harrier integration into cyclic operations its advantages were becoming obvious to those involved.
Following completion of Type 3 training in early August, the Roosevelt prepared for the final examination of its combat effectiveness, the ORE. The opening scenario had the ship sailing from an anchorage following receipt of messages indicating that attack was imminent. Exiting the harbor the Roosevelt had to pass through a minefield prior to entering open seas. In transiting the minefield the ship’s course was unalterable, as was her slow speed. Consequently, the relative wind was from 40° starboard at 15 knots. Under such conditions the A-7s and F-4s could not be launched or recovered, thus the AV-8As were on alert status. Soon after entering the minefield, the ship detected hostile surface threats closing rapidly, and the Harriers were ordered to launch. Three minutes later, the first AV-8A launched vertically into the relative wind. Soon four AV-8AS were conducting simulated strikes against the targets, and 20 minutes later they recovered. The AV-8A demonstrated its value as a viable component of the carrier air wing, and the Roosevelt passed the ORE with the VMA-231 taking top honors among the jet squadrons on board.
During the Atlantic crossing the Harriers used only the axial deck area, since the aft angle-deck portion of the ship was packed with aircraft. Both rolling and vertical takeoffs were accomplished, with standard jet landing approaches being flown until the AV-8A was aft of the ship; at that time the pilot simply flew alongside the port side of the "Rosie” and across the deck to land just aft of the jet blast deflectors (JBD) on the same area from which they had just launched. None of the Harrier operations conducted crossing the Atlantic required any ship course deviations. On one occasion the wind-over-the-deck (WOD) was a 15- knot tailwind. Consequently, Harrier pilots made their landing approaches from the bow of the ship and continued to land into the wind. This feat, while posing no difficulties for the AV-8A pilots, demonstrated the flexibility of the V/STOL concept and was repeated many times subsequently. Given a WOD from any direction, which could not be aligned down the deck due to ship’s heading limitations, the Harrier could, and did, approach the ship from any one of
the 360° possibilities and land.
In mid-October, as the Roosevelt aP" proached Rota, Spain, two Harriers took off vertically 75 miles out and landed at Rota for a two-day air demonstration. Following completion of the demonstration the aircraft returned to the ship which was at anchor in the Bay of Cadiz. With the relative winds coming from 60° starboard, the Harriers decelerated into
V/STOL Aircraft and CVs
The combat value of the AV-8A, whether operating from a country road or the deck of a CV, lies in its flexibility. Using thrust vectoring during takeoff and landing, Harrier operations require minimal deck space compared to conventional aircraft. On board CVs, where conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft also require minimal distances, the Harrier has no need of the expensive, elaborate, and vulnerable catapult and arresting gear systems, without which the CTOL aircraft cannot operate.
Concurrent with the disposing of catapult and arresting gear requirements, the AV-8A has an extremely rapid reaction time when on deck alert. This is due, in part, to the selfstart capability of the aircraft, as well as its ability to launch without catapults and in approximately ten- second intervals. For example, a 15- Harrier launch could easily be accomplished within five minutes. Furthermore, given a combat damage situation where a rolling takeoff is not possible, and/or the catapults are out of action, the AV-8A could still launch vertically from any portion of the flight deck. Throughout the Roosevelt cruise, Harriers operated at times when the CTOL aircraft could not, either because of ship or aircraft limitations.
Granted, the payload of a vertically launched AV-8A is not as large as that of a catapulted A-7, but the Harrier provides a capability where there was none previously. In essence, it fills the vulnerable void at times during the cyclic operations of the conventional aircraft.
As with the vertical takeoff advantages of V/STOL, those inherent in the vertical landing mode also add to the overall combat effectiveness of the CV. Not only can the Harrier recover upwind, downwind, and crosswind, but it also can recover more rapidly than CTOL aircraft. The average interval for recovering Harriers on board the Roosevelt was 35 seconds, while the average CTOL-aircraft recovery time was 45 seconds. In addition, and perhaps more significantly, the Harrier does not have to be waved off, thus not requiring yet another time-consuming approach. Foul-deck waveoffs also contribute heavily to the standard recovery delays experienced by CTOL aircraft, yet the AV-8A simply slows to a hover and waits while the deck is cleared, and then proceeds to land in its turn. Furthermore, the Harrier can recover on virtually any open 50-foot radius of deck, thus making recovery possible anywhere on deck, even if the arresting gear system is out of action- Once again, a void is filled; a mission can be completed where none migh1 otherwise be possible due to combat damage or aircraft limitations. Herein is the key to the value of the AV-8A on board a CV.
All CTOL aircraft are totally dependent on the ability of the ship to get the needed wind-over-deck (WOD), as well as steam for the catapults and a myriad of other requirements. They have no capabilities without the ship 5 systems, yet the Harrier is virtually independent of such necessities- Therefore, the Harrier does provide a combat value that is otherwise not present in CTOL operations.
Perhaps what would best serve the CV is a detachment of Navy Harriers, suitable for special purposes similar to those achieved by the RA-5s and RF-8S of reconnaissance detachments. Some possible missions which have been flown on board the Roosevelt are surface attack, surface reconnaissance, and combat air patrol. Utilized when the ship is incapable of launching CTOL aircraft, the Harrier can provide a via-
winds and landed, amidships, adjacent to the number two elevator, s>nce the remainder of the ship’s deck was spotted with aircraft.
From mid-October to the end of November, the Roosevelt operated around Italy, with port calls to Naples and Catania. While at sea, the ongoing examination of V/STOL flexi- oility continued as the air department, act'ng on CVW-19 and squadron recommendations, scheduled Harrier takeoffs and landings off cycle. One variation occurred after a normal recovery, when the CTOL aircraft were parked forward just prior to their respot aft. On this occasion, with the deck fouled forward, the AV-8AS launched using a 300-foot rolling takeoff on the angle deck. The small outrigger tires of the Harrier prevent takeoffs and landings over raised arresting wires, which could not be lowered on the Roosevelt, so it was not possible to use the entire angle deck without removing the wires, an option the CTOL pilots did not appreciate. Also during this period AV-8AS conducted flight operations while the Roosevelt was at anchor in port. Multiple maintenance check flights were flown using vertical takeoffs from any spot on the deck that afforded a
capability that no other aircraft Can accomplish.
This analysis has considered only tlle integration of the V/STOL aircraft 0ri board the Roosevelt, since AV-8AS ^ave not operated on board any other tTlajor cVs; however, it would be un- k‘r> and certainly naive, to ignore the Vastly improved takeoff and landing systerns available in our new aircraft Carriers. Axial deck and waist catapults, with greater load capacities, arfesting gear, also with greater capacities, and larger flight decks have added more flexibility to the cyclic ^rations of CTOL aircraft. Yet cornet damage to the arresting wires or to catapult systems will negate the ability of a carrier to conduct flight operations, and possibly result in the l°ss of an entire air wing. Even if most °f the flight deck were destroyed, the Carrier still could conduct flight operations on any deck remaining. Any a,fcraft which cannot take off, or if airborne, cannot land, has lost, or will lose, its effectiveness.
There was little doubt to those on board the Roosevelt's final cruise that V/STOL technology will be the wave of the future in aircraft design. At this time the next generation Harrier, the AV-8B, which will give the Marine Corps an all-V/STOL light attack capability in the 1980s, is being built. The AV-8B will have similar payload and fuel endurance to the A-7E, yet retain all of the attributes of the present Harrier. With further and inevitable improvements in V/STOL technology, the requirements for large carriers will decrease because the need for large deck surfaces will be reduced.
The future is bright for the development of V/STOL technology, and lessons learned in the operations of the AV-8A by the Marine Corps will lead the way. The appearance of the Soviet Navy’s carrier Kiev, with her complement of vertical takeoff and landing
Yak-36 “Forgers,” only lends emphasis to the desirability of such applications. Britain is presently improving the basic design of the AV-8A with its Sea Harrier project. Having an inertial platform, search and fire control radar, and basic autopilot system, the Sea Harrier will be flown from the Royal Navy’s new through-deck cruisers now under construction. Spain, too, recently purchased the AV-8A Harrier, in order to employ the advantages of V/STOL in its naval air arm.
In conclusion, the cruise of VMA-231 as part of CVW-19 on board the Roosevelt doubtlessly provided a boost to the V/STOL concept, and the achievements of the squadron bear this out: over 2,000 sorties and landings (15% at night). Even more significant, there were no aircrew or aircraft losses, a primary goal for all carrier squadrons. Indeed, one might infer that V/STOL technology could provide an added safety factor to shipboard operations regarding takeoff and landing accidents.
No doubt the pros and cons of putting the AV-8A on board a CV will continue to be discussed. But regardless of the position taken, one must remember that the AV-8A is but the first operational aircraft of this new concept.
To sum up the feelings of those aviators who have flown the Harrier: “You can go V/STOL now, or you can go V/STOL later.”
minimum of a 50-foot radius area clear of obstructions. For recovery the Harriers simply returned to land on whatever point from which they had launched. .
From late November through the end of December, VMA-231 participated in an operation that not only demonstrated the operational flexibility and maintainability of the V/STOL concept, but also predicted future applications of the concept. Tasked to transfer from the Roosevelt while at anchor at Catania to the USS Guam (LPH-9), the squadron flew on board the Guam in Augusta Bay, after which the ship set sail for operations in the Indian Ocean. Within ten days the squadron was flying in the Indian coast of Africa. The problems associated with Uganda at that time are all too familiar. On several occasions the AV-8As were launched against unidentified air contacts, but none came any closer to the Guam than 35 miles. However, the combination of Harrier and ground-controlled intercept gave the LPH a potent airborne defense capability. After spending Christmas in Alexandria, Egypt, the Guam returned to Augusta Bay, preceded by a Harrier fly-off and return to the Roosevelt which was conducting routine air operations in the vicinity.
During January and February 1977, the AV-8As were used as in the previous months, except when they flew from the Guam once again, as well as nance with the original intents of the Marine Corps’ visionaries who select^ the Harrier in the early 1970s: obta'n an aircraft that can operate °eiir Marine ground forces so the time between tactical air requests and ord'" nance delivery is short.
In mid-March a war-at-sea exercise was conducted against the USS John Kennedy (CV-67), with the Roosevelt part of the aggressor forces. Generally, AV-8As were used in an attack or suf* face reconnaissance role taking off fifSt and recovering 1.2 hours later, just at" ter, or during, the previous respot aft' In many cases the ship was steam10# either downwind or crosswind dun0# the Harrier landings after which ,l turn into wind was made for the CTO1
Ocean, having transited the Suez Canal, Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden. While in the Indian Ocean VMA-231 Harriers participated in Kenya’s Independence Day celebrations at Nairobi, Kenya’s capitol.
After departing Kenya, the Harriers were placed on deck alert as the Guam proceeded north along the eastern from the USS Trenton (LPD-14). Supporting Marine infantry units in an amphibious exercise, VMA-231 Harriers staged from the Guam and used the 196 by 75 foot flight deck of the Trenton for refueling while conducting close air support strikes against enemy forces on the beachhead. Such employment of the AV-8A was in conso- aircraft to land. In one instance, whe° the axial deck was fouled with the juSt recovered aircraft, the Harriers v.’efe given a five-minute alert to launch' The Harriers took off from the angft deck on an air-intercept mission a°d recovered after the respot aft on the number two spot by the JBDs. Ag°l0 the landings were made while the sh»P
Was maneuvering crosswind to avoid enerny forces.
During this operation the Trenton Was used again, this time as a deck- akrt platform for AV-8AS in an air- ^Hense role. Flying from the Trenton, Harriers took off vertically and rr>ade ship-controlled intercepts of tnemy aircraft threatening the Roosevelt task force. As a day, fair-weather fighter-interceptor the Harrier demon- crated an excellent air-to-air capabil- Cy since it can carry the latest AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile, as well as us own 30-mm. Aden cannons with lead-computing gunsight. In fact, Ulany Navy and Marine fighter squad- r°ns consider the AV-8A one of the best adversary aircraft in the fleet today fiUe to its high thrust-to-weight ratio, small size, and maneuverability using chrust vectoring.
In the final days of March, while tne Roosevelt conducted refueling operations with the escorting destroyers en route to Palma, VMA-231 Harriers flew multiple reconnaissance and air-to-air sorties and recovered. Certainly the ship’s heading was not easily altered under such circumstances, but the Harrier’s takeoff and landing flexibility required no deviations in the carrier’s course or speed.
The remaining flying days of the deployment in early April saw the Roosevelt continuing to conduct routine air operations with the CTOL and V/STOL aircraft, employing the lessons learned over nine months of integrated cyclic operations. By the end of the final line period nearly every conceivable type of takeoff/recovery option had been flown as part of the V/STOL integration program. Takeoffs and landings had been accomplished upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after respots.
In essence, the Harrier demonstrated that the V/STOL concept could temper the rigid framework of cyclic operations because of its takeoff and landing flexibility. A carrier of V/STOL aircraft would not have to limit its operations to cycle times and the associated requirement for specific ship direction, but rather such a carrier could launch and recover whenever she so desired, and she could steam wherever she wished at any time. During the cruise VMA-231 Harriers often landed on spots 3 or 4, and proceeded to park themselves alongside the edges of the angle deck to await refueling and rearming. Using thrust reversal the AV-8A could, and did, require no ground support tractors for respotting as the pilot merely backed the aircraft into the proper position. Only when CTOL recoveries followed V/STOL recoveries did it become necessary to proceed forward to the axial deck and await the respot aft. With an all-V/ STOL deck it would be possible to continue an uninterrupted sequence of takeoffs forward and landings aft, since deck fouling due to respot requirements would not be binding. Basically, the V/STOL concept can allow the CV and the aircraft to be almost independent of one another, whereas CTOL aircraft requirements virtually dictate cycle times and associated ship movement.
In April 1977 the 10-month experiment with V/STOL CV operations ended when the Harriers launched from the Roosevelt for the final time. But this short trial proved two important points: (1) the Harrier can be smoothly integrated into the cyclic operations of a CV; and (2) the Harrier provided the CV with a combat capability that did not exist by using only CTOL aircraft.
U.S. NAVY (COURTESY I. B. CLAYTON)
U.S. NAVY (OUR NAVY COLLECTION)
The end came quietly for the worn-out “Rosie" when she was decommissioned I October at Norfolk. Her long, useful life began when hundreds of bluejackets lined the flight deck of the brand-new carrier for the commissioning ceremony on Navy Day 1945 at the New York Naval Shipyard. Tugs scurried around as President Truman visited in April 1946 and chatted with Fleet Admiral Nimitz in front of a hangar deck caricature of the ship’s namesake. Her first jet landing, by a modified F-80, was in November 1946. F2H Banshees lined up prior to flyoff upon return from 1952 Med cruise.
The FDR was decommissioned from 1954 to 1956 while undergoing conversion which gave her an angled deck, hurricane how, steam catapults, and deck-edge elevators. Her altered appearance is shown as she refuels the USS Gainard (DD-706) during a 1958 Mediterranean cruise. She made a record 20 Med deployments. She is surrounded hy a destroyer screen in 1975 shot. An A3D Sky warrior is poised on port cat during training cruise off Cuba in August 1962. A pilot ejects from flaming F8U Crusader in October 1961. An aerial view of the Franklin D. Roosevelt during final deployment in 1977 shows air group which includes F-4s, AV-8s, A-7s, C-ls, E-ls, and SH-3s.