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.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
