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.
BOEING MARINE SYSTEMS
1 (pH0^fin. °ff-again history of the Pegasus feaches a ' ^'c*ass hydrofoil patrol combatants Crat'onal nCW m*lest°ne this year as the first ophite shin^1*^1^011 ke8'ns to ta^e shape around the prnP °* class. In reaching this point, the
UtUdn hfls Y\c*r\ fr\ mol/o itc u/nu r-\o o ♦ m 111 _
It
Us 5.1
Progr"UWever’ there are proponents as well, or • Wka ^ Wouldn’t have gotten as far along as it
es0f^rarn ^as had to make its way past mul- CaH the p jetractors. Among other things, the critics
,VLioUsly f8asus “the ship without a mission.” Ob
lhe ' ^^V^VCr thpro oro nrnnnnontc oo tirall ai
hasPlj8ram __________ e_____________ ^ __
^M, 0[|e *°°king at the supposed value of the E*'hs- Firr„al.t,ention must be focused along two 'Citation S ’ l^ere *s a look at the well-publicized , eWi|] ex . the hydrofoil-type platform; second, ° eXist arn’ne the perceived mission areas which
^hten^of ^a^ue ‘n Speed? Speed, as the classic p'Uiee|eSUrPnse, has always been and is still a tk11 react ^ tact*cs- A high-speed naval vessel q eUemv^UlC*C*y to any unf°reseen application of i.ngaged j S stren§th. It can cover wide areas while can prn Search or defensive barrier operations. tr,eXpect°J,^ct an offensive capability quickly and p|ace *y- It can, to a large extent, control the *cept j e’ an<I aspect of any potential engagement, latent Case.s short-range antiship missile en- s °r in cases in which missile platforms
have continuous down-range targeting support, speed can also be used to advantage in surviving an attack. The common argument that a homing antiship missile traveling at Mach 1.8 can perceive no difference in a target traveling at 15 knots and one traveling at 45 knots is oversimplified. In fact, the targeting problem of the firing unit is dramatically complicated in an over-the-horizon engagement if down-range information is infrequently updated and if the target is maneuvering at high speed.
Are Hydrofoils Usable Only in Good Weather? The PHM’s foils with their capability of automatically maintaining a set hull height above water can maintain the ability to “fly” even in moderate (State 6) seas. Based on historical environmental data, the PHM can operate foilborne at speeds in excess of 40 knots more than 95% of the time in the North Atlantic and more than 98% of the time in the North Sea. In higher seas, the foils extend under the hull during hullborne operation and actually give the PHM a larger degree of platform stability then would normally be expected for a vessel of her size. This is largely the result of damping effects that the large foil and strut surfaces have on hull motions but also is a result of a lowered vertical center of gravity and an increased metacentric height in stability calculations. In Sea States 5-6 her hullborne ride has been
the
invulnerable to torpedoes and contains
favorably compared by observers to that of FRAM destroyers. A comparison study of the ride response of a 300-ton conventional fast patrol boat, a 3,000- ton frigate, and a PHM concluded that PHM crew members can retain their working proficiency in high sea states for the longest period of time.
The prudent naval commander must certainly consider the PHM’s size and should attempt to avoid her deployment into areas in which extreme weather has been forecast, but she is far from a fair- weather craft that must be restricted to areas near shelter. She is fully capable in all but the most extreme conditions—a statement which is analogous to that made for most of today’s high-performance aircraft.
Is the PHM Endurance Limited? In a word—yes. Her speed of advance is low during transits because of conservation considerations, and her spare parts niques; limitations in machinery support can ^ sisted by an aggressive support detachmen » limitations in fuel capacity can be assisted i signed improvements. Finite interior space- ^ ever, restricts crew support activities—w^lC^aCili- range from recreation to laundry and barber -j, ties—and the small crew size increases the m ^ ual watch-standing burden. Both these aspec ^ ^ be debilitating to the crew’s effectiveness o f. extended period of time. Thus, the human e„t ance factor is one that must be taken into ac in the planning for all extended operations.
. n In 3
Is the PHM Prohibitively Expensive. ^ word—no. High technology costs money, bn ^ price for all weapon systems has spiraled UP the PHM has retained her originally planned ^ mix” status. A PHM costs roughly one-tn11" cost of the next lowest priced American nava ^ now in production. For this “low-mix’ cse$ Navy gets a vessel that is for all intents and
largest
power necessary to neutralize even the
40
Proceedings / Septel11
•uuuern ]\J- °\ VVI or auiumauun. in uui
limitatio aVy’ w’^ daily rumors of force manning 6Ven gre^' CrCW re*ate^ “costs” have taken on Perforrri >a Cr *eve[s °f importance in comparing the
mis-
yjg| •
less fue| “"'*>■ !he process, she uses considerably 'nR hpr dri a guided missile frigate in accomplish- In ad SSlons-
ing, berth'00’ 'nc*'rect costs of recruiting, train- erab|v |p 10®’ ant^ retaining personnel are consid- Say'OnhSS ^?ar<^ a PHM than they would be, crew .°ara a frigate because of the PHM’s smaller nioder„ xranc* greater level of automation. In our
rvijQrn^rv — niipui luuvv in wuuipaiiu
S|°n scenarf c*‘^erent sh*P lyPes in certain
questio^ defend Herself'’ This is a knotty Primary ^0°ia po'nt (hat strikes right at one of the form, a eaknesses of a small-displacement plat- 0f '''Cano113 vesse* *s limited in the type and variety case jjf/1 Wstems she can carry. In the PHM’s satilhyu3ult decisions were made to stress ver- 'lefensivg0 °^ens‘ve firepower at the expense of sesses mWeaP°n systems. Thus, although she pos- Jjigh speea°y 'nnate defensive qualities, including °ility, ari(j ’ a l°w radar cross section, maneuvera- % still r3 <T^la^ and electronic warfare system, Leted ant'6!!-3'115- hi8h|y vulnerable to the well-tar- ^erent can ku .m'ss'le- Furthermore, she has no in- ^arines q . ‘W against missiles launched by sub- r'Pm. J aircraft beyond the minimal range of her °eyond th ° °r surPace missile-launching platforms sVsteiT1e moderate range of her Harpoon missile lAssisted po result’ hostile forces can close the Per for an . .M at leisure and can effectively target ^here j .ahnt‘s^'P missile strike of their choosing. t|(3ns perm °0pe; as limitations in design modifica- p0rate a„ ll’ tiJe PHM may well be able to incor- t^'ion n a number of lightweight, automatic- kSted. Th°lnt ^e^ense weapon systems now being Mark Kp01^ 'nclude a lightweight version of r'e,y of tk Phalanx close-in weapon system, a va- ;l/°Ilinp ..e^ ^TO Sea Sparrow missile system, or happroach rame m'ss'lc (RAM) system. This type , ^drofoji •. -° t*le weaPon mix used in small patrol ■ ^r°foi| ls. Icientical to that used in the latest Soviet (.Point def°e Turya” class, which incorporates s'°na| gUnense rapid-firing gun system, a conven- priace rv,* system, and a medium-range surface-to-
A„y Z‘SSI'e syslem'
eot CeaP°n system is originally formulated to aP$e jj .dln design criteria and specifications. Be- a^^Vine' ae?'®ned for one specialty or type of r/1°ther sir0!’ • ° may suited to serve in
^ell l at'on that may arise. Similarly, the PHM t ^ of tb 6 ^est Possible weapon system for in ^Crf°rm ° m‘ss'ons that the Navy is called upon ti a'*'Purp ’.rnay WeH be adequate or equal to other escorts in other missions, and is un- 'ssi°nsae wrong choice to perform still other • here is not the money nor the architectural weight nor space available to modify existing PHM plans to somehow develop an optimum multithreat, high-endurance, all-weather escort with hydrofoil capabilities. But in our rush to reject naval units that cannot perform in all potential situations, let us not forget that there are certain tactical demands the PHM can fulfill as well as any contemporary frigate or guided missile frigate, and there are certain missions in which hydrofoils can significantly out-perform their frigate counterparts. The Navy has been conducting a study for several years to investigate the possible uses of hydrofoils. Very little information has appeared in print as to the results of these investigations. The mission areas listed below comprise areas of PHM employment not compiled from official studies but put forth in a fresh manner to document valued contributions the PHM can make in several naval warfare areas.
► Northeast Asia. The Soviet Pacific Fleet faces numerous disadvantages in attempting to sortie from the region around Vladivostok in a wartime situation. The island groupings that include Taiwan, the Ryukyus, the Japanese main islands, Sakhalin, and the Kuriles effectively present a long crescentshaped barrier channeling Soviet travel through a limited number of well-defined passages and straits. The stationing of surface forces to patrol these straits during times of conflict, augmented in all probability by the presence of minefields and submarines, could play a large part in sealing off these passages. The PHM appears to be a “natural” for this kind of assignment. Her significant offensive firepower poses a threat to any enemy surface combatant, and, yes, in this front-line scenario she is a much more expendable vessel than a comparable number of conventional surface ships. To base a squadron of PHMs in Sasebo, Japan, appears quite practicable and would place the hydrofoil in an environment that emphasizes all of her advantages while minimizing or completely eliminating the disadvantages.
► Choke Point Applications. Groupings of patrol hydrofoils would be useful in the Strait of Malacca, in the Baltic, in the choke points of the Mediterranean, or even in and around Arabia. The PHMs there could combine large area coverage, quick reaction time, and significant offensive capability with the advantages of close base/logistic support and land-based air cover to provide a viable naval presence that could effectively maintain local area preeminence. This is not to say that the PHM could perform local sea control entirely by herself, for the mission of controlling a waterway for one’s use—as opposed to denying its use by an enemy—requires an air, surface, and subsurface force structure.
► Third World Scenarios. A PHM can be an important adjunct in naval force planning in either the naval presence or Rapid Deployment Force scenarios. Many of the smaller neutral or Western-leaning
speed the hydrofoil combatant already holds an
nd
vantage over her adversary when in contact
ing an appropriate sensor. Those mentioned as P sibilities have included towed arrays or dipp®0^ tive sonars. Already some experimental w°rK been focused on possible active or passive st devices that may be deployed astern while fodb° but work is still apparently short of final reahzaI ^ If a breakthrough is forthcoming, then it w°u .. a fairly simple procedure to alter the PHM s ons suite to incorporate antisubmarine weap such as Mark 46 torpedoes. en-
>e oft* jj
inherent
basis to rotate crew members on station.
BOEING MARINE SYSTEMS
Because of their compactness, PHMs have little endurance and thus require frequent resupply when operating.
maritime nations of the world have developed navies that are rigidly constructed around fast patrol craft which in many cases are missile armed. Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Thailand are good examples of this developmental trend. In the past, U. S. naval assistance to and interaction with these nations has been limited because of the considerable mismatch between vessel types and each Navy’s perceived mission responsibilities. Availability of an American vessel similar to those of Third World nations would dramatically increase the dialogue between cooperating allies and might well open up to the American Navy new lines of influence in neutral Third World localities. Increased multinational naval cooperation and participation in exercises would also, undoubtedly, improve each nation’s tactical capabilities and would develop more viable naval expertise among our allies in time of conflict.
During crises or in opposition to overt moves by unfriendly Third World countries, the movement of a group of PHMs into the crisis area could well be the measured response needed to match the situation. The PHM may also have important applications in support of Rapid Deployment Force employment overseas. This support would not necessarily take the form of a quick reaction to a crisis because the long-distance transit speed of the PHM, even when towed, is limiting. Rather, employment of the PHM in a tactical situation involving light forces, large amounts of firepower, and judicious use of speed to overcome the probable numerical shortage of supporting ships and weaponry might well show her true value. She could be used for inshore support of landings, rapid reaction to changing local area threats, securing of harbor sites, and escort of supporting shipping.
* h W
► Antisubmarine Warfare Capabilities. With ^ speed may also reduce the “time late” in reac> to a datum designation. The PHM’s slight vu n^ ability to torpedo attack also is an important vantage over her hullborne counterpart. The bar though, that must be overcome if the PHM lS . realize her ASW potential is a formidable one^
ac- ► Carrier Battle Group Support. Because of the
task group operations in mid-ocean, the ^ never planned for such a role. However, the bility intrinsic in the PHM operational capa®' nS, is such that she could very well, within linnta ^ perform some missions as well as any °t*ie/s(1ips escort. In these days of a reduced number ot ^ at sea, there may come a time when PHMs m 1 available to supplement a battle group that- 0 ^ wise, would proceed to sea with less than a factory number of escorts. fll)p,
To enable her to operate with the battle; g - 9 space in the carrier’s hangar deck or on b° tj,e logistic support ship must be available 10 ^d- PHM’s support detachment and their vans °r cei. ules. Helicopters would keep the PHMs sUP^enl These requirements would be necessary to aUe 0f the modest stores and parts stowage capabnj j the PHM and may also be used on a more 1
Within this support framework, the PHM “shotgun” for antiair warfare picket units 0Pe£‘j id away from the main body, she could proce advance of the battle group and sanitize res ^ passages. Or she could act as a surface pick® up own right, patrolling a line between the battle and the direction of an expected surface ^ji (such as between the Indian Ocean’s Gonzo sgI)- and the Arabian coast). Given an antisubmarine pt sor capability, she could act as a reaction e ,, ^it to a reported datum; could act as a “pouncet s. inside of an ASW screen; or, if equipped vVItjoH sive sonar, could dart out ahead of the f°r and slow for wide area passive searches. tjoi* In a peacetime scenario involving the >nte.rc()Viet of a carrier battle group with either individual" Vc units or a Soviet task group, the PHM m)gj\ <•$' several important additional tasks. She mild1
tletaj|’’ h' h
c°ntinuoi [1][2] [3] [4] [5]®h va^e units, effectively maintaining times of *[6] P°s't'oning data on units of interest. In strike nf lacreas'ng tensions when a preemptive °w'ng exPected from those forces shad
Warning atl*e F0UP’ the PHM could provide early 0ren8ae'eCOrnP'.'cate enemy targeting procedures, missile fin '11 act‘ve counterstrike tactics against the In non8 a88ressor.
best P0J«f these possible roles is the PHM the 'nentioned C P*atf°rm. But most of these afore- Perform altems are missions that the PHM could
Craft ,aS. Wed as other assigned escorts and air-
Creasino lrnfortant point when viewing the de- hattle Urnher of defense assets available to the \Minesl P c°mmander.
Sues andT*71^ Possibilities. Employment tech- C°ncept h technology have yet to catch up with Active j Ut ce.rta’n*y the PHM’s speed should be ^Providjj? sweeping a mined area as well
j"ine time f t m®asure of defense against a triggered b°rne PHM °i a s*ower hullborne craft. A foil- netic, an(j a so Produces different acoustic, mag- tae$e mav Pressure signatures in the water, and "'bile jn .. Wed lower her vulnerability to mines fnt studio0 Pf0cess °f sweeping. Additionally, re- bydrofoj] S Uldclue pressure signatures of a
pr°mise (.Wade f°'lhorne indicate a theoretical ^ticabledt a ^ydr°f°il could become the only method of sweeping pressure mines.
Qq ^
!r°l hydrof"0^i where does the missile-armed pa- na«beenin011 stand.today? The Pegasus (PHM-1) ^°rted in ^°mmissi°n since 1977 and is now home-
f|yHr ^est’ Florida, successfully devel- '“beap e ° ^mPloyment techniques in the Ca- °Verseas nvironment while standing ready for
than°se-iat'0naI deP*°yment. She has logged ''HO f0:i. ’^00 hours under way, including some
, pive adbH°yne in over 1,750 flights.
JJO are jn ' 10na' PHMs have been contracted for //Fine sv ^ar‘ous stages of completion at Boeing ,-th c0ms ems Division in Seattle, Washington, ..^1 to tu ep°a dates ranging from the summer of 4>/e,fPuPring 1^82. These five include the J'*Hes fPm2)’ Taurus (PHM-3), Aquila (PHM- tt es Will K M_5)’ and Gemini (PHM-6). The Her- Father 0f ® Completed last of the group, and one shf^‘sPeed tbe ®rouP ‘s planned to be an unarmed a °rt|y forthCSt v.e^'cle- Follow-on designs may be j" PHm COm‘ng or may be proposed once the
d °Ut howS^aat^ron ‘s real'zed- e*si8n c0nWl11 the current PHM be accepted? This he bsheHCept ‘s obviously a new one for a long- r>t|imi,.Sea service to absorb. Additionally, in- WkU’renienft!p,ns ‘n hydrofoil concept itself and I bile a( s for exotic external support of the PHM
Vels evea L.an s°ften backing for the vessel at fleet n before she has had a chance to prove
her utility. Before the PHM becomes an expensive “black sheep” relegated to backwater exercises because “she just doesn’t fit,” or before “white elephant” status descends on her and she is tied up at the end of the pier, an attempt must be made to employ her in the full operational naval warfare spectrum.
It appears likely that once operational experience is accumulated on a squadron-wide basis and once some design changes arc considered and incorporated—such as installation of a point-defense weapon system, installation of an improved AN/ SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare suite, and modification of machinery and fuel-loading to improve endurance—the PHM will fully demonstrate her usefulness. In spite of some limitations that come about in the employment of small combatants, it can forcefully and accurately be said that there are some mission areas in which we are not doing well because we do not have PHM forces available today.
Bibliography
Adler, Commander Ronald E., USN(Ret.), “In the Navy’s Future: the Small, Fast Surface Ship," Proceedings, March
1978, pp. 102-111.
Ashburn. Lieutenant Commander E. H., USN, “Pegasus (PHM- 1): The Patrol Hydrofoil Ship,” Proceedings, January 1977, pp. 101-107.
Boeing Company, “A Patrol Hydrofoil Missile Ship for Naval Forces," D312-80938-1, 25 February 1980 (Rev. A). Friedman, Norman, “Speed in Modern Warships," Proceedings, May 1979, pp. 150-167; comment by Lieutenant William McBride, USN, Proceedings, October 1979, pp. 21, 24. Halvorson, Rear Admiral George G., USN(Ret.), “The Role of High-Speed Ships in the U. S. Navy, Proceedings, January
1979, pp. 33-41.
Kelly, Commander John P., USN, "Requiem for the PHM Program," Proceedings, August 1977, pp. 79-81.
McClelland, Vice Admiral Joseph J.. USCG(Ret.), “Mission Conversions for the Missile Hydrofoil,” Proceedings, June 1978, pp. 115-119.
Rempt, Lieutenant Commander Rodney P., USN, “Employment Plan for U. S. Navy PHMs," Proceedings, June 1976, pp. 93-96.
Tarpey, Captain John F., USN(Ret.), “A Strategic Analysis of Northeast Asia and the Northwest Pacific," Proceedings, May 1980, pp. 106-125.
Vego, Milan, “The Potential Influence of Third World Navies on Ocean Shipping." Proceedings, May 1981, pp. 94-113.
The author extends his appreciation to Mr. Ross S. Dessert of Boeing Marine Systems for assistance in the preparation of this article.
Lieutenant Commander Linder was graduated [jU from Nava' Acatlemy in 1971 and holds a
[2] JaSS master's degree in oceanography from the University of Michigan. He has served in the USS 5>TV Worden (CG-18) and USS Lynde McCormick
00 Tjjj q (DDG-8). He is now operations officer on the staff ' of Commander Destroyer Squadron 33. The Pro
, ceedings has previously published two of his
professional notes, "The First Horse Out of the Firehouse" in
December 1978 and “Man Overboard!" in July 1979.