Logistical Employment Of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) AUTHOR Major Michael J. Dooley, USA CSC 1989 SUBJECT AREA - Operations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: LOGISTICAL EMPLOYMENT OF LANDING CRAFT AIR CUSHION (LCAC) I. Purpose: To establish the validity of employing the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) in support of logistical requirements and to investigate support considerations of the employment concept. II. Problem: Although the LCAC is currently being used in support of exercise and contingency operations, doctrine and LCAC operational planning do not adequately address craft employment in logistical support roles. III. Data: A review of U.S. military involvement indicates that the LCAC was designated as an assault support craft early in the development process. Navy efforts in the 197O's focused on development of an assault support craft while army efforts focused on development of a logistical support craft. The LCAC design is optimized for handling Roll-On/Roll-Off (RORO) cargo. However, the primary requirement for AFOE discharge support will be for Lift-On/Lift-Off (LOLO), or containerized cargo. RORO requirements will be secondary. Unfortunately the LCAC is unable to discharge commercial RORO vessels using ramps. A solution to this problem is currently being studied by the David Taylor Research Center of Annapolis, Maryland. Until this problem is resolved the LCAC can discharge cargo from commercial RORO vessels using a Lift-On/Roll-Off (LORO) technique. LCAC can be used to support special missions to include medical evacuation, maintenance support, fuel transport and unit resupply. While army and Navy doctrine for shore discharge operations are virtually identical, assault Craft Unit. (ACU) are currently not manned, equipped or trained to support most logistical missions. ACU would require extensive changes to current authorizations regarding equipment, repair parts and personnel if LCAC were required to remain in the objective area to support an AFOE discharge. IV. Conclusions: The LCAC is best employed in the role for which it was designed. However, when used to supplement conventional lighterage the LCAC can provide rapid amphibious lighterage support. Logistical missions for which the craft is most suitable are medical evacuation, maintenance, bulk fuel support and emergency resupply. Containerized cargo can be transported under ideal conditions. V. Recommenditions: Logistical missions should be performed and evaluated during every exercise in which LCAC are used to develop planning factors and procedures. LCAC can and should be employed as a multi-role landing craft as solutions to problem areas are developed. Planners must maximize the use of these critical resources. Logistical Employment of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) Outline Michael Dooley, Maj, USA, CG#12 Thesis Statement: New capabilities provided by LCAC continue to challenge Navy and Marine Corps planners as they decide how to best utilize these new craft in a variety of situations. Both doctrine and LCAC operational planning must address craft employment in logistical support roles. A review of air cushion vehicle development, Army experience with air cushion vehicles, LCAC characteristics and existing doctrine will provide a foundation upon which to base sound decisions. I. Doctrinal Employment of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC). A. Assault Craft vs Logistics Platform. B. Combat Service Support Doctrine for LCAC. II. Development of U.S. Air Cushion Vehicles. A. Background for army and Navy Hovercraft Development. B. LCAC Development for Navy. C. LACV-3O Development for Army. D. JLOTS II Testing of LACV-3O. III. Vessel and Cargo Requirements. IV. LCAC Characteristics and Capabilities. A. Lift-On/Lift-Off (LOLO) Cargo Handling. B. Roll-On/Roll-Off (RORO) Cargo Handling. C. Lift-On/Roll-Off (LORO) Cargo Handling. D. Medical Evacuation Support Missions. E. Maintenance Support Missions. F. Fuel Support Missions. G. Unit Resupply Missions. V. Shore Support Site Doctrine. VI. Organization for Logistical Missions. A. Maintenance and Support Requirements. B. Personnel Authorizations. VII. Logistical Employment of LCAC. LOGISTICAL EMPLOYMENT OF LANDING CRAFT AIR CUSHION (LCAC) by Major Michael J. Dooley, USA Military professionals are continually challenged to maximize the benefits of changing technology and new equipment. The Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) has created such a doctrinal revolution within the Navy and Marine Corps. New capabilities provided by LCAC continue to challenge Navy and Marine Corps planners as they decide how to best utilize these new craft in a variety of situations. Both doctrine and LCAC operational planning must address craft employment in logistical support roles. A review of air cushion vehicle development, Army experience with air cushion vehicles, LCAC characteristics and existing doctrine will provide a foundation upon which to base sound decisions. Recent articles have focused attention on the use of LCAC to support assault Echelon (AE) assault and initial unloading period requirements. Relatively little has been written about the employment of LCAC in a logisitical support role during the general unloading period or Assault Follow-On Echelon (AFOE) discharge. Fundamental disagreements exist among doctrine writers, tacticians and logisticians as to whether the LCAC should be employed as an assault or logistical craft. Col Richard B. Rothwell summarized this issue in his august 1988 Marine Corps Gazette article "A Window on the Future of amphibious Warfare: Kernel Blitz 88-1" when he wrote: New items of equipment, such as the air cushion landing craft (LCAC). . . will play big roles in the new tactics, but the specifics of their employment are not clear. This is not for a lack of ideas. Papers have been written, speeches delivered, arguments jointed and rice bowls threatened. Will the LCAC be an assault craft or a logistics platform? (14:82) Doctrinal publications offer only limited guidance regarding the proper logistical employment of LCAC. Proposed joint doctrine publications emphasize that the LCAC is being procured for assault support operations and would only be available for use in resupply operations if amphibious shipping remains in the objective area. (16:8-8) Navy and Marine Corps doctrine indicates that LCAC will support AE logistical operations once scheduled waves are ashore. Furthermore, doctrine emphasizes that planners must understand the characteristics of the craft in order to properly plan the movement of cargo and vehicles ashore. Finally, it states that the LCAC can best support selected CSS missions: The LCAC has the potential to be used in all CSS functional area support, although some of these applications are clearly best accomplished by other methods. To sustain a Landing Force for longer periods, the ATF will usually move closer to the beach. When this takes place, the majority of CSS operations will have to be supported by displacement craft and helicopters. (22:6-3) This apparent restriction on the use of LCAC following closure of the ATF with the shoreline is contradicted by results of Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS) tests conducted using army air cushion lighterage. The amphibious capability and speed of the air cushion lighterage revealed significant advantages over conventional lighterage during the JLOTS tests. These advantages were not lost when the vessel being discharged was close to the beach. (6:86) A review of air cushion vehicle development and the JLOTS tests will provide some insight regarding differences between Army and Navy air cushion vehicle employment concepts. Hovercraft were first obtained by the Army and Navy from Bell Aerospace Textron (now Textron Marine Systems) in the 1960's. Bell's first production hovercraft consisted of three SK-5 Model 7255 hovercraft built under an Army contract. During this same period three British Hovercraft Corporation model SR.N5 hovercraft imported by Bell were provided to the Navy for evaluation. These early evaluations of hovercraft, which included service in Vietnam, provided the foundation for current involvement by the Army and Navy in the employment of air cushion landing craft. (9:95) The primary role of the LCAC was determined early during the craft development process. In 1971 Bell was awarded a contract to develop a 160-Ton, 5O-knot capable air cushion amphibious assault landing craft. The project was known as Amphibious Assault Landing Craft (AALC) JEFF(B). After successful testing a contract was awarded to Bell in 1981 to develop the LCAC as the production version of the (AALC) JEFF(B) concept. Production contracts were later awarded to Bell and Lockheed. This emphasis on assault support is in direct contrast to army efforts during the same timeframe to develop an air cushion vehicle for logistical support missions. (9:96) Tests were conducted by the army in the 1970's using Bell's commercial Voyager Model 7350 design to determine whether an air cushion vehicle would be suitable as a replacement for existing wheeled amphibian vehicles. A contract to produce the Lighter, Air Cushion Vehicle-30 Ton (LACV-30) was awarded to Bell in 1979. Twelve LACV-30 were fielded to each of two Army Tranportation Companies (Air Cushion Vehicle) during the period 1983-1986. LACV-30 are essentially stretched versions of the Voyager design. The LACV-3O is designed to carry up to 30 tons of cargo at speeds up to 50 knots. Lift-On/Lift-Off (LOLO) techniques are used for loading and discharge of the 51.5' x 32.5' open forward deck. Portable bow ramps are issued with the craft to provide a Lift-On/Roll-Off (LORO) capability. The craft lacks the drive-through RORO capability of the LCAC since the cabin and powertrain assemblies are located at the rear of the craft. (9:99) Six LACV-30 achieved a peak throughput rate of 187 containers discharged per ten hour shift during throughput tests in 1984/1985 at Ft Story, Virginia. These tests were conducted in conjunction with Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore II (JLOTS II) tests and were performed using the auxiliary crane ship SS KEYSTONE STATE (T-ACS 1) and supporting shore crane sites under ideal conditions. It should be noted that the vessel being discharged was anchored only .9 NM offshore. During this same test Navy causeway systems were able to achieve a peak rate of 114 containers during a ten hour shift. These tests demonstrated that air cushion vehicles can be effective even when operating over short distances. Subsequent evaluations have validated that each unit is capable of discharging an average of nearly 300 containers per day under ideal conditions, assuming an availability rate of 75% (eight of twelve craft operational). (6:23) Army LACV-30 and Navy LCAC were designed by the same manufacturer to meet similiar requirements regarding sea-keeping, endurance and speed. The craft have major differences in lift capacity, cabin placement, deck layout and powerplant arrangement. The LACV-30 design is optimized for handling LOLO cargo, such as containers, and provides for a RORO capability. The LCAC design is optimized for handling RORO cargo and provides a LOLO capability. Both craft are capable of transporting a wide variety of cargo from ship to shore in support of their doctrinal missions. Vessels in support of AF0E requirements are provided by the Military Sealift Command. Dedicated AFOE vessels are not available; therefore, the type of vessels to be discharged are a matter of conjecture. However, it can be stated that the majority of vessels are likely to consist of container ships and RORO ships in a variety of configurations. These will be supplemented by limited quantities of breakbulk vessels. (20:C-1) In general the main requirement for AFOE discharge support by LCAC will be for LOLO, or containerized cargo, followed by RORO cargo. LCAC is able to carry LOLO cargo, such as twenty-foot containers. (22:D-2) Deck loading of LOLO cargo and containers is the least desirable method of transportation due to support requirements. The preferred method is for cargo to be mobile loaded on trailers or trucks for quick discharge using the RORO ramps. However, most containers are not shipped on chassis and truck assets will be limited. LOLO cargo may be loaded into the LCAC using cranes from a self-sustaining vessel or an auxiliary crane ship. The LCAC must moor perpendicular to the ship, bow in to the ship, to prevent damage to craft propellor ducts. LCAC engines must be secured during LOLO cargo operations. This mooring procedure is possible only under Sea State 1, or ideal, conditions. (22:1-5) The perpendicular mooring position cannot be maintained with the engines secured in high seas or winds. Relative motion between the craft and vessel combine with load pendulation during LOLO operations to create hazardous conditions which can cause craft damage and crew injuries. Cargo must be carefully lowered to avoid injuries to crew members or contact with LCAC cabins and powertrain assemblies on either side of the cargo deck. LOLO operations in conditions exceeding Sea State 1 are generally not considered practical. Interviews with personnel from assault Craft Unit Four indicate that LOLO cargo operations are not a routine training mission. (2) (12) A solution to many of these problems is being addressed by the David Taylor Research Center in Annapolis, Maryland. The joint project is entitled High Sea Container Offload and Transfer System (High Sea COTS). The project involves the application of existing technology to solve load pendulation and relative motion problems related to LOLO discharge. One promising approach calls for air cushion vehicles to land on a large platform to reduce relative motion while friction devices are used to steady loads being lowered onto the craft. (13) LCAC carrying containerized cargo can be discharged on shore using either a Lightweight Amphibious Container Handler (LACH) or amphibian crane site with either `good' or `optimal' results, respectively. (20:J-1-5 through J-1-16) Cranes of sufficient capacity are used to support ELCAS and are scheduled to be in the objective area. LCAC discharge sites could be established using these existing cranes until ELCAS is operational. Alternately, additional cranes could be added to the AFOE for this purpose. Crane support at shore sites should be considered mandatory during most LOLO and container transport operations using LCAC. (22:6-3) Commercial RORO vessels are discharged offshore by lowering the vessel's ramp onto a RORO Discharge Facility (RRDF). The RRDF consists of six or seven causeway sections formed into a raft or platform. Causeway ferries and selected conventional landing craft are able to dock with the platform. Vehicles are then driven down the vessel ramp across the RRDF and onto the lighterage. Unfortunately the platform lacks an air cushion vehicle transfer capability. This issue was addressed by LACV-30 units in a 1983 letter which stated that the platform his not capable of mating with LACV-30 . . . or LCAC." The letter further indicates that "The omission of an air cushion vehicle (ACV) loading capability is serious since is appears that ACV technology is the wave of the future in both Army and Navy amphibious operations." (4:1) A modification to the RRDF to solve this problem is currently being studied for the army by the David Taylor Research Center. The goal is to produce a modification to the existing RRDF which will permit both Army LACV-30 and Navy LCAC to discharge commercial RORO vessels. (13) Until this problem is resolved the LCAC can discharge cargo from commercial RORO vessels using a Lift-On/Roll-Off (LORO) technique. A variation on the LORO method of discharging RORO ships would involve the use of an auxiliary crane ship and an LCAC-compatible amphibious ship such as a Landing Ship Dock (LSD) moored in parallel. Wheeled and tracked vehicles would be lifted from the RORO vessel onto the LSD by the crane ship. LCAC loading would then proceed normally in the well deck. This method would provide a method to augment existing RORO capability. Additionally, this method would be usable in much higher sea states than conventional RRDF operations. LCAC would discharge cargo on shore using normal RORO procedures and would not require shore crane support. (12) LCAC support of medical evacuation can greatly increase the ability of the landing force to provide rapid medical support. Empty containers or ambulances can provide expedient patient shelters to supplement existing cabin space. Use of dedicated craft would be required to support this mission since medical personnel would be required to supplement the standard LCAC crew. (22:6-4) Deadlined and salvage equipment, to include aircraft, can be rapidly transported to maintenance vessels for repair. This will normally require the use of a shore crane site facilitate loading of most deadlined equipment. Alternately, maintenance equipment and personnel can be transported to sites accessable to LCAC. This maintenance option is less efficient and therefore less desirable. (22:6-4) LCAC can also be employed to transport fuel from ship-to-shore. Either fuel bladders or conventional refueling assets such as semi-trailers could be transported by LCAC in the event that the AABFS system is unable to be used. As with maintenance teams, fuel could be transported to sites accessible to the craft. (22:6-4) Resupply missions to selected forces are another use of LCAC capabilities. Amphibious capability can enable the craft to deliver priority supplies over a wide variety of conditions. Isolated units located along the coastline or within a short distance of the shore, river or estuary are good candidates for this type of support. (22:6-4) Army and Navy doctrine for shore discharge operations are virtually identical. Shore discharge sites for air cushion vehicles are normally located as close to the water as practicable in terms of both distance and elevation. This minimizes transit times and time spent manuevering on shore. When sites must be located further inland they are normally less than one mile from the shoreline. Sites are separated from conventional beach discharge operations to minimize noise, blowing sand/spray and beach congestion. Multiple discharge sites are established to support large operations. LOLO discharge sites consist of a 140-ton or larger crane, and supporting personnel to efficiently discharge and handle cargo. RORO discharge sites consist of support personnel to discharge wheeled/light tracked vehicles. A comparison between Army and Navy air cushion vehicle units reveals major differences in organizational structures. LCAC are supported by sea detachments of the Assault Craft Unit (ACU). Sea detachments are deployed on and operate from amphibious vessels. (8:12) The major impact of this reliance on supporting vessels is that LCAC equipped ACU are not able to perform maintenance from unimproved forward bases. ACU personnel regard support of LCAC from shore bases as impractical under their current organizational structure. (2) (12) This is in sharp contrast to army units which are organized, equipped and trained to deploy to and maintain LACV-30 from field locations. Army LACV-30 units have supported a variety of exercises in both CONUS and Caribbean locations. A variety of deployment methods have boen evaluated including Military Sealift Command vessels, amphibious vessels and the internal barge storage decks on SEABEE and LASH vessels. Both units have established shore support bases using organic assets upon arrival in the exercise areas. Operations have been conducted in conjunction with both Army and joint task force. Personnel authorizations also differ greatly between Navy and Army units. Authorizations for personnel within the ACU are not sufficient for extended support missions. LCAC are normally manned by a single crew. A normal mission day is regarded as a single twelve-hour shift. Extended operations require a minimum of two crews. Crew authorizations are expected to increase to 1.3 crews per craft in the near future to provide additional capability. (12) Army units are authorized two crews for each LACV-30. The normal mission day consists of two, twelve-hour shifts. Ten hours per shift are planned in support of operations; two hours are provided for routine maintenance. In summary ACU are currently not manned, equipped or trained to support most logistical missions. ACU would require extensive changes to current authorizations regarding equipment, repair parts and personnel if LCAC were required to remain in the objective area to support an AFOE discharge. (2) (12) The LCAC is best employed in the role for which it was designed. It is most efficient when utilized in transporting wheeled and tracked vehicles embarked on amphibious shipping. However, when used to supplement conventional lighterage the LCAC can provide rapid amphibious lighterage support. Logistical missions for which the craft is most suitable are medical evacuation, maintenance, bulk fuel support and emergency resupply. Containerized cargo can be transported using LOLO techniques under ideal conditions. Logistical missions should be performed and evaluated during every exercise in which LCAC are used to develop planning factors and procedures. LCAC can and should be employed as a multi-role landing craft as solutions to the issues described are developed. Planners must maximize the use of these critical resources. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bailey, Thomas A., Maj, USMC. "Over-the-Horizon Assault by LCAC." Marine Corps Gazette, 70 (January 1986), 74-50. 2. Batten, Phillip G., LtCdr, USN, Executive Officer, Assault Craft Unit Four. Briefing and personal interview concerning Landing Craft Air Cushion. Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia, October 13, 1988. 3. Christensen, W.D., Jr., JOC, USN. "From Over the Horizon." Surface Warfare, (March/April 1984), 8-10. 4. Commander, 11th Transportation Bn memo to Commanding General, U.S. Transportation Corps, Ft Eustis, Virginia, Subj: LACV-30 RORO Capability, Dtd 29 July 83 (Unit Records, 11th Trans Bn, Ft Story, Virginia). 5. Darling, Marshall B., Col, USMC. "LCACS: Characteristics and Tactical Implications." Marine Corps Gazette, 71 (December 1987), 43. 6. Department of Defense, Joint Test Director, Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS) II. JLOTS II Operational Test Report-Throughput Phase, Norfolk, Virginia. March 1985. 7. Earl, Robert L., LtCol, USMC. "The Over-the-Horizon Alternatives." Marine Corps Gazette, 72 (October 1988), 37-38. 8. Heine, Kenneth A., LtJG, USN. ". . . and Beyond the Beach." Surface Warfare, (January/February 1988), 10-13. 9. Jane's Transport Press, Jane's Publishing Inc. Jane's High-Speed Marine Craft and Air Cushion Vehicles. New York. 1988. 10. Linn, Thomas C., Maj, USMC. "Over-the-Horizon Assault: The Future of the Corps." Marine Corps Gazette, 71 (December 1987), 44-47. 11. McCarty, Robert T., Maj, USMC, Amphibious Requirements Branch, Warfighting Center, MCCDC. Personal interview concerning the Assault Follow-On Echelon. (Quantico, Virginia, January 26, 1989. 12. Randolph, John,.LT, USN, Operations Officer, Assault Craft Unit Four. Telephone interview concerning Landing Craft Air Cushion. Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia, March 27, 1989. 13. Rausch, Art, Mechanical Engineer, David Taylor Research Center, Telephone interview concerning modification of the RORO Discharge Facility to accommodate air cushion vehicles. AnnapolIs, Maryland, March 27, 1989. 14. Rothwell, Richard B. Col, USMC. "A Window on the Future of Amphibious Warfare: Kernel Blitz 88-1." Marine Corps Gazette, 72 (August 1988), 82-88. 15. U.S. Army. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Army Water Transport Operations, FM 55-50. Washington, D.C., 1985. 16. U.S. Army. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Joint Strategic Sealift Offshore Discharge Operations (Coordinating Draft), FM 55-64. Washington, D.C., 1987. (Note: to be published under the new joint publications system). 17. U.S. Army. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Operator's Manual, Lighter Air Cushion Vehicle: 30-Ton (LACV-30). TM 55-2305-001-10. Washington, D.C., 1985. 18. U.S. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. Amphibious Embarkation. LFM O3. Quantico, 1987. 19. U.S. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. Amphibious Ships, Landing Craft and Vehicles. IP 3-4. Quantico, 1987. 20. U.S. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. Deployment of the Assault Follow-On Echelon (AFOE). OH 7-8. Quantico, 1985. 21. U.S. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. Doctrine for Amphibious Operations. LFM 01 (with change 4), Quantico, 1986. 22. U.S. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. Employment of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) in Amphibious Operations. OH 7-15. Quantico, 1985. 23. U.S. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) Operations. OH 7-6. Quantico, 1987.
