Why is DOD not considering Unmanned Surface Effect Vehicles?

Perhaps because such research has not yet been released to the public. Do you have a "need to know" security clearence?

I'm sure that they are working on it.

My only experience (and feel free to tell me why it doesn't apply) with surface effect vehicles was a Soviet ekranoplan which I could only study from published documents.

As a ship they were gas-hogs but fast, as an airplane they were dangerous gas-hogs and comparatively slow.

And I think I may agree with #4

But not #5. Most leave a heck of a wake.

BUT, the text you quote:

it specifically excludes UUVs operating at or near the surface, hovercraft, surface effect aircraft and target drones that are used exclusively for training or evaluation and are part of a separate legacy program

does not exclude UUVs; it excludes UUVs ANDED with "used exclusively..." ANDED with "legacy programs"....

You do not have to have much experience to pick that out, so has your ox been gored?

Hello Edignan,

"As a ship they were gas-hogs but fast, as an airplane they were dangerous gas-hogs and comparatively slow".

As the Von Karman-Gabrielli diagram, see figure below, indicates the required power to weight ratio for given velocity wig vs aircraft or hydrofoil is almost always lower. Lower power required usually means lower fuel consumption.

But not #5. Most leave a heck of a wake. I submit the following

You do not have to have much experience to pick that out, so has your ox been gored? Ugh

As I say, my knowledge and experience was decidedly limited, but these were what I remembered:

And

But having seen your photo I understand what you mean.

And I defer to your knowledge of fuel consumption - (cool graphic btw)

That only leaves you to figure out why the exclusions do NOT apply to you - no?

It IS the government after all - I'd suggest changing the name

I am not part of any government agency or contractor pursuing a government contract.

I am just an engineer that is interested in unmanned vehicles and Surface Effect Vehicles and I notice the hole in both the DOD and Navy Unmanned System roadmaps for the next 25 years.

Surface Effect vehicles, especially WIGs, fall in that gray area between aircraft and vessels and I believe they are being overlooked as an option to performing missions that they are best suited.

I truly hope we are not overlooking WIGs because "Not Invented Here, NIH" they were invented by the Russians and the Germans.

Good pick-up on Military verbiage (rhymes with gargiage).

What little I read was that the fuel/tonnage/distance/time ratio was worthwhile for person or expedited cargo transport. It was the speed/tonnage ratio that made them dangerous, particularly in small craft avoidance. The unknowns are too great outside of normal shipping lanes where small craft are in order to avoid heavy cargo traffic. Stories abound of how little time it takes for relatively slow displacement vessels to converge at combined speeds, sometimes with catastrophic results. Fiberglass boats with carbon fiber masts have mostly replaced wood, but there are many out there, and their radar print can easily be lost in the 'sea clutter'.

What would be the mission for these?

Hello TVP45

Because what I am proposing is a combination Unmanned Surface Effect Vehicle delivering an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle. This capability can perform the following missions

From the UUV Master Plan which is available at www.navy.mil/navydata/technology/uuvmp.pdf

Using Sea Power 21 for guidance, nine Sub-Pillar capabilities were identified and prioritized:

1. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

2. Mine Countermeasures

3. Anti-Submarine Warfare

4. Inspection / Identification

5. Oceanography

6. Communication / Navigation Network Node

7. Payload Delivery

8. Information Operations

9. Time Critical Strike

The ones I checked with indicate which mission the proposed system is best suited to perform. These are also missions, I would call Battlespace Preparation for an Amphibious Assault.

Russians made them.

They, along with seaplanes are out of fashion.

It's stupid, but its true.

Edigan knows a lot about this. Typically, Pilots call it Ground Effect.

Found this Joyce, John J.; 20070817; Navy to Investigate Unmanned Military Capabilities of Hybrid Craft
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=31245

The demonstration was on July 25, 2007 which is two days after the publication date of the Navy;s Unmanned Surface Vehicle Master Plan.

I found it interesting that only junior engineers are working on the Sly Fox Program

The purpose of the briefings at Dahlgren and Quantico was to raise awareness of the craft's potential impact on several important missions. NSWC Dahlgren is also looking for sponsors to support an advanced development program to develop the mission specific modules and weapons.

Be interested in other's comments to this article

The answer is simple really, in my time in the Navy, I learned that the US Navy is the most hide bound, bureaucratic, tradition tied organization on planet earth. Nobody is going to approve research on anything which may take funding from their branch. You will never see a sub admiral approving research on anything surface or aviation. You will never see a carrier admiral approving research on subs, maybe on aircraft but subs no...

That too is true

He should try DARPA

The airfarce will buy them to try yet again to put the Navy out of business

*No offence intended, just happy service rivalry

Guest you are probably right.

But I see this being used as a prelude to an amphibious assault which usually in the realm of the Marines; however, with Seabasing now the Army is involved.

Watch the Army get funding for this. Boy wouldn't that ruffle the Navy ego. Serves them right.

I believe I found the reason why they are not considering unmanned surface effect vehicles for delivering a UUV to do Battlespace preparation prior to an Amphibious Assault. Which states the following "As naval forces move decisively "...from the sea" into the littorals - facing shallow and constricted waters, asymmetric threats, and challenging mission requirements - going "in harm's way" to achieve access will become increasingly hazardous for naval platform and their crews. This is a particular concern for the Submarine Force, which will often be "first in" to carry out intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions prior to hostilities and to serve as the Navy's primary "first strike" asset after they commence".

They are afraid they lose funding for their four billion dollar submarines.

In Vietnam, hovercraft were used. They were ideal in the extensive swampy delta country.

Of course they were incredibly noisy. The VC could hide long before the craft got to them, but they were fast and covered terrain that nothing else could satisfactorily handle.

A side benefit was that, because most of the craft consisted of empty space (plenum chamber, skirt volume etc), they could take a considerable amount of damage and still work. The probability of machine gun or even rocket fire hitting something vital was low.

In a landing, troops could be taken over the swamps and onto dry ground quickly, reducing their vulnerability, but payload was small in relation to the size of the beast.

Mines and booby traps were ineffective against them unless a lot of explosive was used. The only effective trigger for a booby trap was tripwire, because the ground pressure was too low to trip other types.

Little use seems to have been made of these since.

I can only think that "Gannets" suggestion has some truth - they are afraid that some of the other "more pure" projects will lose funds. Surface effect vessels (including hovercraft) are basically "neither fish nor fowl", not aircraft, not ships or boats and not ground vehicles, so no one really wants to have them.

In other words, the barriers are more fiscal and psychological than technical or military.

Shame, they could have a lot to offer. Okranoplanes running in close ground effect could shift significant numbers of troops over the shore defences onto land very quickly, hovercraft could do a similar job without being so restricted as to where they "land" and "take off".

Great potential, yet apparently ignored - or are they? Perhaps some "black" projects are trying to solve the stability problems of okranoplanes or the noise and inefficiency of hovercraft? Who knows.

Hello sceptic

Since you mentioned the noise associated with Hovercraft. I found this at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6402&page=67 which states the following: "The U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. Atlantic Command, and the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Study Group have all expressed an interest in WIG Technology, but fundamental research would be necessary
(1) on decreasing wing loading to facilitate entering the SGE aerodynamic regime,
(2) understanding the type of air flow, and
(3) determining why the flight of a WIG aircraft is so quiet."

When I referred to noise I was actually talking about hovercraft, not WIG.

Whereas hovercraft can stop and unload anywhere, WIG need something approaching an airstrip, limiting their use.

Because at light load WIG can travel fairly slowly, they could probably land and unload in a field or similar, if properly designed for it.

Another possibility is the use of a hybrid craft - hovercraft at rest and for takeoff, WIG for cruise.

In this case it could come in quietly, skim over the beach/swamp area and revert to hovercraft to stop and unload. The typical hovercraft noise wouldn't be a serious problem as it would only be present for a short time. By the time the enemy got troops to the area, the attackers would be landed, dug in and supplied, and the WIG/hover craft would be well on it's way back out to sea.