Register here

Author Topic: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies  (Read 15752 times)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« on: December 12, 2008, 03:37:59 am »
Hi,

Lockheed Martin sea-based Wing-in-Ground effect (WIG) transport aircraft for transporting 250,000 lb. (113, 397 kg) of cargo over 6,000 miles at 400 to 450 knots (517.8 miles per hr.) (courtesy of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems).
http://www.aee.odu.edu/img/aerosystems/jpg/11_wing_in_ground_effect.jpg
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 03:21:24 am by Stargazer2006 »

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2076
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2008, 07:27:05 am »
That looks way small for a 250,000 lbs payload...
Even with GE-90s, you would still need more than two engines.
From the look of the cockpit window, this is a much smaller vehicle. My two cents. :)
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2009, 10:41:23 am »
Hi,

the WIG aircraft and air-cushion transport concept.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800003826_1980003826.pdf
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 03:41:51 am by hesham »

Offline JJC

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2009, 12:23:14 pm »
Boeing pelican

Offline JJC

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2009, 03:36:07 am »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8553
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2009, 05:55:51 am »
there is dimesions for the pelican here

And here big old thread on Pelican here. Please use search before new post.

"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2009, 02:04:43 pm »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 04:06:52 am by Stargazer2006 »

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1156
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2010, 06:03:20 am »
Artist rendering of a McDonnell-Douglas WIG in USAF colors (note SAC shield) firing a cruise missile from its retractable launch tubes. Probably a good way to upset the Navy.

This WIG looks like it can also fly at altitude, like a Bartini VVA-14. (Original painting by Mike Machat for McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Courtesy Mike Machat)

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2010, 11:36:15 pm »
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches, or cruise missiles arsenal planes? For the limited knowledge I have, I can see these platforms as extremely flexible, so is it because that there are flaws in these concepts that I'm unaware of or is it just because of military branches' traditions that do not want other branches to invade their turf?

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2010, 06:45:31 am »
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches, or cruise missiles arsenal planes? For the limited knowledge I have, I can see these platforms as extremely flexible, so is it because that there are flaws in these concepts that I'm unaware of or is it just because of military branches' traditions that do not want other branches to invade their turf?
Nothing "ignorant" about the question Donnage :)

Of the "listed" tasks the ONLY one that the USAF would be interested in would be the Cruise-Missile Arsenal plane, similar to the one pictured in the post above yours. Of course the "problem" with that idea is the Air Force doesn't have a lot of experiance with sea-based duties and frankly from a purely service orientated view it would make more sense to have something like a 747 based airborne arsenal aircraft rather than a WIG based on simiply due to how much easier that would be to intergrate into the current infrastructure.
The 'rest' of those jobs are Navy duties and would be of much more interest to them than the USAF. Mostly it is because (as you note) branches of the military don't like to have 'over-lap' in duties, partially because of traditional seperations of duties but mostly having to do with funding. If, say, the Air Force got a whole bunch of WIG transports that were capable of going from the East Coast of the United States to a beach landing on the Coast of Africa then there would be a LOT of political pressure on the Navy to have their Marine transport and support infrastructure and equipment cut back or eliminated. There might even be suggestions that the Marines be put under the Air Force control! (The horror! The Marines would of course commit mass suicide at the mere thought of such an event  :P )

That's actually one reason why the Pelican transport recieved such a cool welcome and so little support for a larger test program. It wasn't being pitched a capability for the Navy, but as a "Super-Heavy" Air Force transport that could not ONLY land troops and equipment on the beach but could fly out-of-ground-effect to do the same at some in-land point! The Air Force didn't/doesn't want to directly interface with operations like beach landings since that is far out of our expertise range, at the same time the Navy and Marines didn't want to have funding for their landing operations and equipment budget going to the Air Force to support a heavy duty transport they may or may not be able to use as readily as what they were already using. About the ONLY branch that didn't have an 'issue' with the basic idea of the Pelican was the Army which pretty much wanted the Air Force to buy them so they could make plans on being able to move a full company of M-1A-2 heavy tanks anywhere in the world on short notice.

Randy

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2010, 04:02:58 pm »
Quote
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches,

...Because the Air Farce wouldn't be the branch to develop and implement an aircraft for such a purpose. The Navy and Marine Corps would be the most likely branch to consider using such a vehicle, with the Aaaarmy coming in second and most likely using whatever the Navy put into service. That being said, the closest thing the US armed services came to implementing anything WIG was the Sea Spectre, a remarkable cross-breeding between an F-117 and a large PT Boat whose stealthy nature of mission wound up being its reason for failure, as the Navy had extreme difficulties getting any of its flag officers to assume command voluntarily; for some whackjob reason, they felt using such stealth technology combined with stand-off-and-shoot(*) in high seas combat was "cowardly" and "dishonorable". Personally, I'd have given my remaining good leg for the honor of commanding such a vessel. And my left nut for the privilege to actually use its might in combat against our enemies.

(*) If being able to strike from a distance without detection was a sin, try telling that to battlecruisers with 16" guns, painted in camouflage.

Offline Mike OTDP

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2010, 06:22:09 pm »
Well, the Navy has the original stealth platform - submarines.

And we had a WIG test program planned in the early '90s.  Ran short of money...

Offline V8Interceptor

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2010, 09:37:05 am »
Quote
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches,

...Because the Air Farce wouldn't be the branch to develop and implement an aircraft for such a purpose. The Navy and Marine Corps would be the most likely branch to consider using such a vehicle, with the Aaaarmy coming in second and most likely using whatever the Navy put into service. That being said, the closest thing the US armed services came to implementing anything WIG was the Sea Spectre, a remarkable cross-breeding between an F-117 and a large PT Boat whose stealthy nature of mission wound up being its reason for failure, as the Navy had extreme difficulties getting any of its flag officers to assume command voluntarily; for some whackjob reason, they felt using such stealth technology combined with stand-off-and-shoot(*) in high seas combat was "cowardly" and "dishonorable". Personally, I'd have given my remaining good leg for the honor of commanding such a vessel. And my left nut for the privilege to actually use its might in combat against our enemies.

(*) If being able to strike from a distance without detection was a sin, try telling that to battlecruisers with 16" guns, painted in camouflage.
I'm confused? Are you referring to the Navy's MKIII Sea Spectre Patrol Boat? IINM, these had a fairly long service life(mid 70's to late 90's) but were not particularly stealthy so I don't understand the F-117 reference?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 09:38:36 am by V8Interceptor »

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: U.S. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) studies
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2010, 09:53:55 am »
Quote
Sorry for ignorant question but why does the USAF have not implemented transport WIG as a mean to storm beaches,

...Because the Air Farce wouldn't be the branch to develop and implement an aircraft for such a purpose. The Navy and Marine Corps would be the most likely branch to consider using such a vehicle, with the Aaaarmy coming in second and most likely using whatever the Navy put into service. That being said, the closest thing the US armed services came to implementing anything WIG was the Sea Spectre, a remarkable cross-breeding between an F-117 and a large PT Boat whose stealthy nature of mission wound up being its reason for failure, as the Navy had extreme difficulties getting any of its flag officers to assume command voluntarily; for some whackjob reason, they felt using such stealth technology combined with stand-off-and-shoot(*) in high seas combat was "cowardly" and "dishonorable". Personally, I'd have given my remaining good leg for the honor of commanding such a vessel. And my left nut for the privilege to actually use its might in combat against our enemies.

(*) If being able to strike from a distance without detection was a sin, try telling that to battlecruisers with 16" guns, painted in camouflage.
I'm confused? Are you referring to the Navy's MKIII Sea Spectre Patrol Boat? IINM, these had a fairly long service life(mid 70's to late 90's) but were not particularly stealthy so I don't understand the F-117 reference?
I think he was meaning the "Sea Shadow" no the spectre...

Randy