![](/uploads/1/2/6/6/126665639/852839286.png)
Department of the navy office of the chief of naval operations 2000 navy pentagon washington, dc opnavinst 3120.42c n95 29 may 2012 opnav instruction 3120.42c from: chief of naval operations subj: safe engineering and operations program for landing.
Logistical Employment Of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC)AUTHOR Major Michael J. Dooley, USACSC 1989SUBJECT AREA - OperationsEXECUTIVE SUMMARYTITLE: LOGISTICAL EMPLOYMENT OF LANDING CRAFT AIR CUSHION (LCAC)I. Purpose: To establish the validity of employing the LandingCraft Air Cushion (LCAC) in support of logistical requirements andto investigate support considerations of the employment concept.II. Problem: Although the LCAC is currently being used in supportof exercise and contingency operations, doctrine and LCACoperational planning do not adequately address craft employment inlogistical support roles.III.
Data: A review of U.S. Military involvement indicates thatthe LCAC was designated as an assault support craft early in thedevelopment process. Navy efforts in the 197O's focused ondevelopment of an assault support craft while army efforts focusedon development of a logistical support craft.
The LCAC design isoptimized for handling Roll-On/Roll-Off (RORO) cargo. However,the primary requirement for AFOE discharge support will be forLift-On/Lift-Off (LOLO), or containerized cargo. ROROrequirements will be secondary. Unfortunately the LCAC isunable to discharge commercial RORO vessels using ramps. Asolution to this problem is currently being studied by the DavidTaylor Research Center of Annapolis, Maryland. Until this problemis resolved the LCAC can discharge cargo from commercial ROROvessels using a Lift-On/Roll-Off (LORO) technique.
LCACcan be used to support special missions to include medicalevacuation, maintenance support, fuel transport and unitresupply. While army and Navy doctrine for shore dischargeoperations are virtually identical, assault Craft Unit. (ACU) arecurrently not manned, equipped or trained to support mostlogistical missions. ACU would require extensive changes tocurrent authorizations regarding equipment, repair parts andpersonnel if LCAC were required to remain in the objective area tosupport an AFOE discharge.IV. Conclusions: The LCAC is best employed in the role for whichit was designed.
However, when used to supplement conventionallighterage the LCAC can provide rapid amphibious lighteragesupport. Logistical missions for which the craft is most suitableare medical evacuation, maintenance, bulk fuel support andemergency resupply.
Containerized cargo can be transported underideal conditions.V. Recommenditions: Logistical missions should be performed andevaluated during every exercise in which LCAC are used to developplanning factors and procedures. LCAC can and should be employedas a multi-role landing craft as solutions to problem areas aredeveloped. Planners must maximize the use of these criticalresources.Logistical Employment of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC)OutlineMichael Dooley, Maj, USA, CG#12Thesis Statement: New capabilities provided by LCAC continue tochallenge Navy and Marine Corps planners as they decide how tobest utilize these new craft in a variety of situations. Bothdoctrine and LCAC operational planning must address craftemployment in logistical support roles. A review of air cushionvehicle development, Army experience with air cushion vehicles,LCAC characteristics and existing doctrine will provide afoundation 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, USAMilitary professionals are continually challenged to maximizethe benefits of changing technology and new equipment.
TheLanding Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) has created such a doctrinalrevolution within the Navy and Marine Corps.New capabilities provided by LCAC continue to challenge Navyand Marine Corps planners as they decide how to best utilize thesenew craft in a variety of situations. Both doctrine and LCACoperational planning must address craft employment in logisticalsupport roles. A review of air cushion vehicle development, Armyexperience with air cushion vehicles, LCAC characteristics andexisting doctrine will provide a foundation upon which to basesound decisions.Recent articles have focused attention on the use of LCAC tosupport assault Echelon (AE) assault and initial unloading periodrequirements.
Relatively little has been written about theemployment of LCAC in a logisitical support role during thegeneral unloading period or Assault Follow-On Echelon (AFOE)discharge. Fundamental disagreements exist among doctrinewriters, tacticians and logisticians as to whether the LCAC shouldbe employed as an assault or logistical craft. Col Richard B.Rothwell summarized this issue in his august 1988 Marine CorpsGazette article 'A Window on the Future of amphibious Warfare:Kernel Blitz 88-1' when he wrote:New items of equipment, such as the aircushion landing craft (LCAC). Will playbig roles in the new tactics, but thespecifics of their employment are not clear.This is not for a lack of ideas. Papers havebeen written, speeches delivered, argumentsjointed and rice bowls threatened.
Will theLCAC be an assault craft or a logisticsplatform? (14:82)Doctrinal publications offer only limited guidance regardingthe proper logistical employment of LCAC. Proposed joint doctrinepublications emphasize that the LCAC is being procured for assaultsupport operations and would only be available for use in resupplyoperations if amphibious shipping remains in the objective area.(16:8-8) Navy and Marine Corps doctrine indicates that LCAC willsupport AE logistical operations once scheduled waves are ashore.Furthermore, doctrine emphasizes that planners must understand thecharacteristics of the craft in order to properly plan themovement of cargo and vehicles ashore. Finally, it states thatthe LCAC can best support selected CSS missions:The LCAC has the potential to be used inall CSS functional area support, althoughsome of these applications are clearlybest accomplished by other methods. Tosustain a Landing Force for longerperiods, the ATF will usually move closerto the beach. When this takes place, themajority of CSS operations will have tobe supported by displacement craft andhelicopters.
(22:6-3)This apparent restriction on the use of LCAC followingclosure of the ATF with the shoreline is contradicted by resultsof Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS) tests conducted usingarmy air cushion lighterage. The amphibious capability and speedof the air cushion lighterage revealed significant advantages overconventional lighterage during the JLOTS tests.
These advantageswere not lost when the vessel being discharged was close to thebeach. (6:86) A review of air cushion vehicle development and theJLOTS tests will provide some insight regarding differencesbetween Army and Navy air cushion vehicle employment concepts.Hovercraft were first obtained by the Army and Navy from BellAerospace Textron (now Textron Marine Systems) in the 1960's.Bell's first production hovercraft consisted of three SK-5 Model7255 hovercraft built under an Army contract. During this sameperiod three British Hovercraft Corporation model SR.N5 hovercraftimported by Bell were provided to the Navy for evaluation.
Theseearly evaluations of hovercraft, which included service inVietnam, provided the foundation for current involvement by theArmy and Navy in the employment of air cushion landing craft.(9:95)The primary role of the LCAC was determined early during thecraft development process. In 1971 Bell was awarded a contract todevelop a 160-Ton, 5O-knot capable air cushion amphibious assaultlanding craft. The project was known as Amphibious AssaultLanding Craft (AALC) JEFF(B). After successful testing a contractwas awarded to Bell in 1981 to develop the LCAC as the productionversion of the (AALC) JEFF(B) concept. Production contracts werelater awarded to Bell and Lockheed.
This emphasis on assaultsupport is in direct contrast to army efforts during the sametimeframe to develop an air cushion vehicle for logisticalsupport missions. (9:96)Tests were conducted by the army in the 1970's using Bell'scommercial Voyager Model 7350 design to determine whether an aircushion vehicle would be suitable as a replacement for existingwheeled 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 TranportationCompanies (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 speedsup to 50 knots. Lift-On/Lift-Off (LOLO) techniques are used forloading and discharge of the 51.5' x 32.5' open forward deck.Portable bow ramps are issued with the craft to provide aLift-On/Roll-Off (LORO) capability. The craft lacks thedrive-through RORO capability of the LCAC since the cabin andpowertrain assemblies are located at the rear of the craft.(9:99)Six LACV-30 achieved a peak throughput rate of 187 containersdischarged per ten hour shift during throughput tests in 1984/1985at Ft Story, Virginia.
These tests were conducted in conjunctionwith Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore II (JLOTS II) tests and wereperformed using the auxiliary crane ship SS KEYSTONE STATE (T-ACS1) and supporting shore crane sites under ideal conditions. Itshould be noted that the vessel being discharged was anchored only.9 NM offshore. During this same test Navy causeway systems wereable to achieve a peak rate of 114 containers during a ten hourshift. These tests demonstrated that air cushion vehicles can beeffective even when operating over short distances. Subsequentevaluations have validated that each unit is capable ofdischarging an average of nearly 300 containers per day underideal conditions, assuming an availability rate of 75% (eight oftwelve craft operational). (6:23)Army LACV-30 and Navy LCAC were designed by the samemanufacturer to meet similiar requirements regarding sea-keeping,endurance and speed.
The craft have major differences in liftcapacity, cabin placement, deck layout and powerplant arrangement.The LACV-30 design is optimized for handling LOLO cargo, such ascontainers, and provides for a RORO capability. The LCAC designis optimized for handling RORO cargo and provides a LOLOcapability.
Both craft are capable of transporting a wide varietyof cargo from ship to shore in support of their doctrinalmissions.Vessels in support of AF0E requirements are provided by theMilitary Sealift Command. Dedicated AFOE vessels are notavailable; therefore, the type of vessels to be discharged are amatter of conjecture. However, it can be stated that the majorityof vessels are likely to consist of container ships and RORO shipsin a variety of configurations. These will be supplemented bylimited quantities of breakbulk vessels. (20:C-1) In general themain requirement for AFOE discharge support by LCAC will be forLOLO, or containerized cargo, followed by RORO cargo.LCAC is able to carry LOLO cargo, such as twenty-footcontainers. (22:D-2) Deck loading of LOLO cargo and containers isthe least desirable method of transportation due to supportrequirements. The preferred method is for cargo to be mobileloaded on trailers or trucks for quick discharge using the ROROramps.
However, most containers are not shipped on chassis andtruck assets will be limited.LOLO cargo may be loaded into the LCAC using cranes from aself-sustaining vessel or an auxiliary crane ship. The LCAC mustmoor perpendicular to the ship, bow in to the ship, to preventdamage to craft propellor ducts. LCAC engines must be securedduring LOLO cargo operations. This mooring procedure is possibleonly under Sea State 1, or ideal, conditions.
(22:1-5) Theperpendicular mooring position cannot be maintained with theengines secured in high seas or winds. Relative motion betweenthe craft and vessel combine with load pendulation during LOLOoperations to create hazardous conditions which can cause craftdamage and crew injuries. Cargo must be carefully lowered toavoid injuries to crew members or contact with LCAC cabins andpowertrain assemblies on either side of the cargo deck. LOLOoperations in conditions exceeding Sea State 1 are generally notconsidered practical. Interviews with personnel from assaultCraft Unit Four indicate that LOLO cargo operations are not aroutine training mission.
![Manuals Manuals](/uploads/1/2/6/6/126665639/501282760.jpg)
(2) (12)A solution to many of these problems is being addressed bythe David Taylor Research Center in Annapolis, Maryland. Thejoint project is entitled High Sea Container Offload and TransferSystem (High Sea COTS). The project involves the application ofexisting technology to solve load pendulation and relative motionproblems related to LOLO discharge. One promising approach callsfor air cushion vehicles to land on a large platform to reducerelative motion while friction devices are used to steady loadsbeing lowered onto the craft.
(13)LCAC carrying containerized cargo can be discharged on shoreusing either a Lightweight Amphibious Container Handler (LACH) oramphibian crane site with either `good' or `optimal' results,respectively. (20:J-1-5 through J-1-16) Cranes of sufficientcapacity are used to support ELCAS and are scheduled to be in theobjective area. LCAC discharge sites could be established usingthese 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 duringmost LOLO and container transport operations using LCAC. (22:6-3)Commercial RORO vessels are discharged offshore by loweringthe vessel's ramp onto a RORO Discharge Facility (RRDF). The RRDFconsists of six or seven causeway sections formed into a raft orplatform. Causeway ferries and selected conventional landingcraft are able to dock with the platform.
Vehicles are thendriven down the vessel ramp across the RRDF and onto thelighterage. Unfortunately the platform lacks an air cushionvehicle transfer capability. This issue was addressed by LACV-30units in a 1983 letter which stated that the platform his notcapable of mating with LACV-30.
The letter furtherindicates that 'The omission of an air cushion vehicle (ACV)loading capability is serious since is appears that ACV technologyis the wave of the future in both Army and Navy amphibiousoperations.' (4:1)A modification to the RRDF to solve this problem is currentlybeing studied for the army by the David Taylor Research Center.The goal is to produce a modification to the existing RRDF whichwill permit both Army LACV-30 and Navy LCAC to dischargecommercial RORO vessels.
(13) Until this problem is resolved theLCAC can discharge cargo from commercial RORO vessels using aLift-On/Roll-Off (LORO) technique.A variation on the LORO method of discharging RORO shipswould involve the use of an auxiliary crane ship and anLCAC-compatible amphibious ship such as a Landing Ship Dock (LSD)moored in parallel. Wheeled and tracked vehicles would be liftedfrom the RORO vessel onto the LSD by the crane ship. LCAC loadingwould then proceed normally in the well deck. This method wouldprovide a method to augment existing RORO capability.Additionally, this method would be usable in much higher seastates than conventional RRDF operations. LCAC would dischargecargo on shore using normal RORO procedures and would not requireshore crane support. (12)LCAC support of medical evacuation can greatly increase theability of the landing force to provide rapid medical support.Empty containers or ambulances can provide expedient patientshelters to supplement existing cabin space. Use of dedicatedcraft would be required to support this mission since medicalpersonnel would be required to supplement the standard LCAC crew.(22:6-4)Deadlined and salvage equipment, to include aircraft, can berapidly transported to maintenance vessels for repair.
This willnormally require the use of a shore crane site facilitate loadingof most deadlined equipment. Alternately, maintenance equipmentand personnel can be transported to sites accessable to LCAC.This maintenance option is less efficient and therefore lessdesirable. (22:6-4)LCAC can also be employed to transport fuel fromship-to-shore. Either fuel bladders or conventional refuelingassets such as semi-trailers could be transported by LCAC in theevent that the AABFS system is unable to be used.
As withmaintenance teams, fuel could be transported to sites accessibleto the craft. (22:6-4)Resupply missions to selected forces are another use of LCACcapabilities. Amphibious capability can enable the craft todeliver priority supplies over a wide variety of conditions.Isolated units located along the coastline or within a shortdistance of the shore, river or estuary are good candidates forthis type of support. (22:6-4)Army and Navy doctrine for shore discharge operations arevirtually identical. Shore discharge sites for air cushionvehicles are normally located as close to the water as practicablein terms of both distance and elevation. This minimizes transittimes and time spent manuevering on shore. When sites must belocated further inland they are normally less than one mile fromthe shoreline.
Sites are separated from conventional beachdischarge operations to minimize noise, blowing sand/spray andbeach congestion. Multiple discharge sites are established tosupport large operations. LOLO discharge sites consist of a140-ton or larger crane, and supporting personnel to efficientlydischarge and handle cargo. RORO discharge sites consist ofsupport personnel to discharge wheeled/light tracked vehicles.A comparison between Army and Navy air cushion vehicle unitsreveals major differences in organizational structures.
LCAC aresupported by sea detachments of the Assault Craft Unit (ACU). Seadetachments are deployed on and operate from amphibious vessels.(8:12) The major impact of this reliance on supporting vessels isthat LCAC equipped ACU are not able to perform maintenance fromunimproved forward bases. ACU personnel regard support of LCACfrom shore bases as impractical under their current organizationalstructure. (2) (12)This is in sharp contrast to army units which are organized,equipped and trained to deploy to and maintain LACV-30 from fieldlocations. Army LACV-30 units have supported a variety ofexercises in both CONUS and Caribbean locations. A variety ofdeployment methods have boen evaluated including Military SealiftCommand vessels, amphibious vessels and the internal barge storagedecks on SEABEE and LASH vessels. Both units have establishedshore support bases using organic assets upon arrival in theexercise areas.
Operations have been conducted in conjunctionwith both Army and joint task force.Personnel authorizations also differ greatly between Navy andArmy units. Authorizations for personnel within the ACU are notsufficient for extended support missions. LCAC are normallymanned by a single crew.
A normal mission day is regarded as asingle twelve-hour shift. Extended operations require a minimumof two crews. Crew authorizations are expected to increase to 1.3crews per craft in the near future to provide additionalcapability.
(12)Army units are authorized two crews for each LACV-30. Thenormal mission day consists of two, twelve-hour shifts.
Ten hoursper shift are planned in support of operations; two hours areprovided for routine maintenance.In summary ACU are currently not manned, equipped or trainedto support most logistical missions. ACU would require extensivechanges to current authorizations regarding equipment, repairparts and personnel if LCAC were required to remain in theobjective area to support an AFOE discharge. (2) (12)The LCAC is best employed in the role for which it wasdesigned.
It is most efficient when utilized in transportingwheeled and tracked vehicles embarked on amphibious shipping.However, when used to supplement conventional lighterage theLCAC can provide rapid amphibious lighterage support.Logistical missions for which the craft is most suitable aremedical evacuation, maintenance, bulk fuel support and emergencyresupply. Containerized cargo can be transported using LOLOtechniques under ideal conditions.
Logistical missions should beperformed and evaluated during every exercise in which LCAC areused to develop planning factors and procedures. LCAC can andshould be employed as a multi-role landing craft as solutions tothe issues described are developed. Planners must maximize theuse of these critical resources.BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Bailey, Thomas A., Maj, USMC. 'Over-the-Horizon Assault byLCAC.' Marine Corps Gazette, 70 (January 1986), 74-50.2.
Batten, Phillip G., LtCdr, USN, Executive Officer, AssaultCraft Unit Four. Briefing and personal interview concerningLanding Craft Air Cushion. Little Creek Naval AmphibiousBase, 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, 11thTrans Bn, Ft Story, Virginia).5. Darling, Marshall B., Col, USMC. 'LCACS: Characteristics andTactical Implications.' Marine Corps Gazette, 71 (December1987), 43.6.
![Lcac Maintenance Manuals Lcac Maintenance Manuals](http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/images/sea/lcac/MD/lcac39_01.jpg)
Department of Defense, Joint Test Director, Joint LogisticsOver the Shore (JLOTS) II. JLOTS II Operational TestReport-Throughput Phase, Norfolk, Virginia. March 1985.7. Earl, Robert L., LtCol, USMC. 'The Over-the-HorizonAlternatives.' 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'sHigh-Speed Marine Craft and Air Cushion Vehicles. New York.1988.10. Linn, Thomas C., Maj, USMC. 'Over-the-Horizon Assault: TheFuture of the Corps.'
Marine Corps Gazette, 71 (December1987), 44-47.11. McCarty, Robert T., Maj, USMC, Amphibious Requirements Branch,Warfighting Center, MCCDC. Personal interview concerning theAssault Follow-On Echelon. (Quantico, Virginia, January 26,1989.12. Randolph, John.LT, USN, Operations Officer, Assault CraftUnit Four. Telephone interview concerning Landing Craft AirCushion.
Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia, March27, 1989.13. Rausch, Art, Mechanical Engineer, David Taylor ResearchCenter, Telephone interview concerning modification of theRORO Discharge Facility to accommodate air cushion vehicles.AnnapolIs, Maryland, March 27, 1989.14. Rothwell, Richard B. 'A Window on the Future ofAmphibious Warfare: Kernel Blitz 88-1.' Marine Corps Gazette,72 (August 1988), 82-88.15. Headquarters, Department of the Army.
Army WaterTransport Operations, FM 55-50. Washington, D.C., 1985.16. Headquarters, Department of the Army. JointStrategic Sealift Offshore Discharge Operations (CoordinatingDraft), FM 55-64. Washington, D.C., 1987.
(Note: to bepublished under the new joint publications system).17. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Operator'sManual, Lighter Air Cushion Vehicle: 30-Ton (LACV-30). Washington, D.C., 1985.18.
Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and EducationCommand. Amphibious Embarkation. Quantico, 1987.19. Marine Corps.
Marine Corps Development and EducationCommand. Amphibious Ships, Landing Craft and Vehicles. Quantico, 1987.20. Marine Corps.
Marine Corps Development and EducationCommand. Deployment of the Assault Follow-On Echelon (AFOE).OH 7-8. Quantico, 1985.21. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and EducationCommand. Doctrine for Amphibious Operations.
LFM 01 (withchange 4), Quantico, 1986.22. Marine Corps. Marine Corps Development and EducationCommand. Employment of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) inAmphibious Operations.
Quantico, 1985.23. Marine Corps.
Marine Corps Development and EducationCommand. Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) Operations. Quantico, 1987.
LCAC | |
---|---|
A US Navy LCAC maneuvers to enter the well deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge | |
Type | Landing craft |
Place of origin | United States |
Service history | |
In service | 1986–present |
Production history | |
Manufacturer | Textron Marine and Land Systems Avondale Gulfport Marine |
Unit cost | $27 million (1996) ~$41 million (2015)[1] |
No. built | 91 |
Specifications | |
Mass | 182 long tons (185 t) full load |
Length | 87 feet 11 inches (26.4 meters) |
Width | 47 feet (14.3 meters) |
Crew | 5 |
two 12.7 mm (.50 in) machine guns. Gun mounts will support: M2HB .50 in cal machine gun; Mk 19 Mod 3 40 mm grenade launcher; M60 machine gun. Tests conducted with GAU-13 30 mm gatling gun.[2] | |
Engine | 4 gas turbines |
Payload capacity | 60 tons (up to 75 tons in an overload condition)(54/68 metric tons) |
Operational range | 200 nmi at 40 kn (370 km at 75 km/h) with payload 300 nmi at 35 kn (550 km at 65 km/h) with payload |
Speed | 40+ knots (46+ mph; 74 km/h) with full load, 70+ knots maximum speed |
The Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) is a class of air-cushion vehicle (hovercraft) used as landing craft by the United States Navy's Assault Craft Units and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF). They transport weapons systems, equipment, cargo and personnel of the assault elements of the Marine Air/Ground Task Force both from ship to shore and across the beach.
- 1Design and development
Design and development[edit]
Concept design of the present day LCAC began in the early 1970s with the full-scale Amphibious Assault Landing Craft (AALC) test vehicle. During the advanced development stage, two prototypes were built. JEFF A was designed and built by Aerojet General in California, with four rotating ducted propellers. JEFF B was designed and built by Bell Aerospace in New Orleans, Louisiana. JEFF B had two ducted rear propellers similar to the proposed SK-10 which was derived from the previous Bell SK-5 / SR.N5 hovercraft tested in Vietnam. These two craft confirmed the technical feasibility and operational capability that ultimately led to the production of LCAC. JEFF B was selected as the design basis for today's LCAC.[3] The JEFF A was later modified for Arctic use and deployed in Prudhoe Bay to support offshore oil drilling.[4]
USMC LAV-25s and HMMWVs are offloaded from a USN LCAC craft at Samesan RTMB, Thailand.
The first 33 were included in the FY82-86 defense budgets, 15 in FY89, 12 each in FY90, FY91 and FY92, while seven were included in FY93. The first LCAC was delivered to the Navy in 1984 and Initial Operational Capability (IOC) was achieved in 1986. Approval for full production was granted in 1987. After an initial 15-craft competitive production contract was awarded to each of two companies, Textron Marine & Land Systems (TMLS) of New Orleans, La, and Avondale Gulfport Marine, TMLS was selected to build the remaining craft. A total of ninety-one LCAC have now been built. The final craft, LCAC 91, was delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2001.
On June 29, 1987, LCAC was granted approval for full production. Forty-eight air-cushion landing craft were authorized and appropriated through FY 89. Lockheed Shipbuilding Company was competitively selected as a second source. The FY 1990 budget request included $219.3 million for nine craft. The FY 1991 request included full funding for 12 LCACs and advance procurement in support of the FY 1992 program (which was intended to be nine craft). The remaining 24 were funded in FY92.[5]
The LCAC first deployed in 1987 aboard USS Germantown. LCACs are transported in and operate from all the U.S. Navy's amphibious-well deck ships including LHA, LHD, LSD and LPD. Ships capable of carrying the LCAC include the Wasp (3 LCACs), Tarawa (1), Anchorage (4), Austin (1), Whidbey Island (4–5), Harpers Ferry (2), and San Antonio (2) classes.
All of the planned 91 craft have been delivered to the Navy. Of these 91 LCACs, seventeen have been disassembled for Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) or otherwise terminated for cost reasons, two are held for R&D, and 36 are in use on each coast at Little Creek, Virginia and Camp Pendleton, California. Eight minesweeping kits were acquired in 1994–1995. A service-life extension program (SLEP) to extend service life from 20 to 30 years for the remaining 72 active LCACs was begun in 2000 and is scheduled to be completed by 2018.[6]
The craft operates with a crew of five. In addition to beach landing, LCAC provides personnel transport, evacuation support, lane breaching, mine countermeasure operations, and Marine and Special Warfare equipment delivery.[3] The four main engines are all used for lift and all used for main propulsion. The craft can continue to operate, at reduced capability, with two engines inoperable. They are interchangeable for redundancy. A transport model can seat 180 fully equipped troops.[7] Cargo capacity is 1,809 sq ft (168.1 m2). The LCAC is capable of carrying a 60-ton payload (up to 75 tons in an overload condition), including one M-1 Abrams tank, at speeds over 40 knots. Fuel capacity is 5000 gallons. The LCAC uses an average of 1000 gallons per hour. Maneuvering considerations include requiring 500 yards or more to stop and 2000 yards or more turning radius. The bow ramp is 28.8 ft (8.8 m) wide while the stern ramp is 15 ft (4.6 m) wide. Noise and dust levels are high with this craft. If disabled the craft is difficult to tow. In recent years spray suppression has been added to the craft's skirt to reduce interference with driver's vision.
An LCAC is delivering supplies to the citizens of Meulaboh, Indonesia after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
The LCAC is a dramatic innovation in modern amphibious warfare technology. It provides the capability to launch amphibious assaults from points over the horizon (OTH) from up to 50 nautical miles (93 km; 58 mi) offshore, thereby decreasing risk to ships and personnel and generating greater uncertainty in the enemy's mind as to the location and timing of an assault, thereby maximizing its prospects of success. The LCAC propulsion system makes it less susceptible to mines than other assault craft or vehicles. Due to its tremendous over-the-beach capability, the LCAC can access more than 80% of the world's coastlines. Previously, landing craft had a top speed of approximately eight knots (15 km/h; 9.2 mph) and could cross only 17% of the world's beach area. Assaults were made from a few miles off-shore. Its high speed complements a joint assault with helicopters, so personnel and equipment can be unloaded beyond the beach in secure landing areas. For 20 years, helicopters have provided the partial capability to launch OTH amphibious assaults. Now, with LCAC, landing craft complement helos in speed, tactical surprise and without exposing ships to enemy fire.[5]
US Navy sailors pilot an LCAC transporting U.S. Marines ashore.
The similarities between a Navy LCAC and an airplane are substantial. The craftmaster sits in a 'cockpit' or command module with a headset radio on. He talks to air traffic control which for LCAC's is well-deck control located near a ship's sterngate. The ride feels like a plane in high turbulence. The craftmaster steers with a yoke, his feet are on rudder controls. The LCAC is similar to a helicopter in that it has six dimensions of motion. Operating the LCAC demands unique perceptual and psychomotor skills. In addition, with a machine as expensive and inherently dangerous as the LCAC, sound judgment and decision-making also play an important role. Concerns over escalating training cost, projections for an increased number of LCAC vehicles and crew, and a high attrition rate in training highlighted the importance of developing a more accurate means of selecting candidates. Attrition of operators and engineers has dropped from an initial high of 40% in 1988 to approximately 10–15% today.[5]
Three LCACs conduct an amphibious assault exercise during Bright Star '09.
In Fiscal Year 2000 the Navy started an LCAC Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) to add 10 years of design life to each craft. The SLEP will be applied to 72 LCACs, extending their service life from 20 to 30 years, delaying the need to replace these versatile craft.[3][8]
Without a SLEP the first LCAC would face retirement in 2004, based on a 20-year lifespan. Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has been working with Textron Marine and Land Systems since April 1996 on LCAC SLEP research and development. The actual SLEP modifications are planned to be conducted in two phases.
Phase I. Over a period of several years electronics system recapitalization will take place at each Assault Craft Unit (ACU), where the craft are physically located. This will involve replacing current electronics components, which are increasingly becoming obsolete and unsupportable, with an open electronics architecture using easily upgraded, Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components. The new electronics suite will be more reliable and less costly to operate and maintain.
Phase II. Buoyancy box replacement will be conducted at the Textron Marine and Land Systems facility in New Orleans, LA, where Textron will use design changes, coatings, and changes in materials to increase the LCACs resistance to corrosion. Phase II will also include the electronics upgrade of Phase I, until the entire active fleet is outfitted with the new configuration. The new buoyancy box will incorporate improvements to damage stability and trim control of the LCACs.
NAVSEA transitioned from the research and development effort to the SLEP in 1999. Concurrently NAVSEA also considered additional SLEP options, including an enhanced engine to provide improved operation in excessively hot environments and an advanced skirt that is more reliable and cost effective.
The Navy continued the LCAC Service Life Extension Program in Fiscal Year 2001. This program combines major structural improvements with Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Navigation upgrades and adds 10 years to the service life, extending it to 30 years. In FY 2001, it was funded at $19.9 million and extended the service life of 1 craft. The SLEP is planned for a total of 72 craft.
The near-term focus will be on the 'C4N' [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Navigation] program, to replace the crafts' obsolete equipment. This will focus on replacement of LN-66 radars with modern, high-power P-80 radar systems. Additionally, the SLEP will include an open-architecture concept, relying on modern commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment, which will allow much easier incorporation of later technology changes, such as the precision navigation system and communications systems ¾ fully interoperable with in-service and near-term future Joint systems ¾ now planned. The C4N program is to complete by 2010.
Through 2016, the Navy will look to incorporate other important service-life enhancements: Engine upgrades (ETF-40B configuration) that will provide additional power and lift particularly in hot (43 °C, 110 °F, and higher) environments, reduced fuel consumption, reduced maintenance needs, and reduced lift footprint; Replacement of the buoyancy box to solve corrosion problems, incorporate hull improvements, and 'reset' the fatigue-limit 'clock'; Incorporation of a new (deep) skirt that will reduce drag, increase performance envelope over water and land, and reduce maintenance requirements.[5]
As of September 2012, there are 80 LCACs in the U.S. Navy inventory. Of these 80 LCACs, 39 LCACs have undergone the SLEP conversion, 7 more SLEP conversions are in progress and 4 are awaiting induction. The FY 2013 budget authorized 4 SLEP conversions per year through FY 2018. The last of the 72 SLEP conversions will be delivered to the Navy in FY 2020. A number of LCACs are under development and testing at the Naval Support Activity Panama City in Panama City, Florida. When the first SLEP LCAC reached its 30 years of design service in 2015, it was to gradually be retired. In 2019, at which point the inventory of LCACs had fallen to 50, the USN began receiving the new Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC), the LCAC-100.[8]
The USN inventory of LCACs will continue to fall, as the SLEP LCACs are retired, until 2023, when the inventory will reach a low of 40 SLEP LCACs and SSC LCAC-100s. The inventory will remain at 40 until 2026 when the production of SSC LCAC-100s will begin to outnumber the retirement of SLEP LCACs. Current projections foresee the inventory rising to 60 SSC LCAC-100s in 2031 and 72 SSC LCAC-100s on 2034.[8]
Ship-to-Shore Connector[edit]
The SSC LCAC-100 will have an increased payload of 73 short tons. It will have Pilot/Co-Pilot Dual Controls with a smaller crew (5) and a new Command, Control, Communications, Computers & Navigation (C4N) suite. It will also have engines offering 20% more power with new Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), a simpler and more efficient drive train with one gearbox per side, and a new Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system. It will be constructed out of aluminum alloy 5083 which offers a lighter, stronger and performance in extreme environments, plus better corrosion resistance. Other improvements include an immersion grade wet deck coating system and its gear shaft and fan blades will be constructed with extensive composites. It will be able to operate with a 74 short ton load at a sustained speed of 35 knots (40 mph) in NATO Sea State 3–4 (waves heights of 4.1 to 8.2 feet, averaging 6.2 feet).[9][10][11][12]
Japanese operations[edit]
A JMSDF LCAC at Naval Review
Six LCAC are in use by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. Approval for the sale was given by the United States Government on 8 April 1994. The craft were built by Textron Marine & Land Systems in New Orleans, Louisiana. Purchase of the first craft was included in the FY93 budget, second in FY95, third and fourth in FY99 and fifth and sixth in FY00.
Operators[edit]
- Japan
- Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (6 units)
- United States
- United States Navy (74 units).[5]
- Assault Craft Unit 4
- Naval Beach Unit 7 (Sasebo, Japan)
Specifications (LCAC 1)[edit]
A USN LCAC approaches USS Wasp.
US Marines loading onto an LCAC within the well deck of USS Wasp, 2004
- Builder: Textron Marine and Land Systems/Avondale Gulfport Marine
- Date Deployed: 1982
- Propulsion:
- Legacy: 4 Lycoming/AlliedSignal TF-40B gas turbines (2 for propulsion / 2 for lift); 16,000 hp sustained; 2-shrouded reversible pitch airscrews; 4-double-entry fans, centrifugal or mixed flow (lift)
- Service Life Extension Program (SLEP): 4 Vericor Power Systems ETF-40B gas turbines with Full Authority Digital Engine Control
- Length: 87 feet 11 inches (26.4 meters)
- Beam: 47 feet (14.3 meters)
- Displacement: 87.2 long tons (88.6 metric tons) light; 170–182 long tons (173–185 metric tons) full load
- Speed: 40+ knots (46+ mph; 74+ km/h) with full load, 70+ knots maximum speed
- Range: 200 nmi at 40 knots (370 km at 75 km/h) with payload
300 nmi at 35 knots (550 km at 65 km/h) with payload - Crew: Five
- Load: 60 long tons/75 long tons overload (54/68 metric tons)
- Military lift: 180 troops or one MBT
- Armament: Two 12.7 mm machine guns. Gun mounts can support the M2HB .50 cal machine gun, Mk 19 Mod 3 40 mm grenade launcher, or the M60 machine gun. Tests conducted with GAU-13 30 mm gatling gun.[2]
- Radar: Navigation: Marconi LN-66; I-band
- Source: LCAC U.S. Navy Fact File[3]
See also[edit]
- Tsaplya-class LCAC – Three in service with ROKN
References[edit]
- ^Schmitz, LCDR K.L. 'LCAC vs LCU: Are LCAC Worth the Expenditure?'. United States Marine Corps, Command and Staff College. Retrieved 19 July 2015.
- ^ abThe Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet.
- ^ abcdLCAC U.S. Navy Fact FileArchived 2007-12-21 at the Wayback Machine
- ^'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on 2016-02-05. Retrieved 2016-01-30.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ abcdeLanding Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC), GlobalSecurity.orgArchived 2013-08-04 at the Wayback Machine
- ^'U.S. Navy Program Guide 2015'(PDF). Washington, DC: Department of the Navy. 2015. pp. 82–83. Archived from the original(PDF) on 16 April 2016. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
- ^[1]
- ^ abcSurface Connector Outlook, N954 Expeditionary Preposition/Connector Branch, September 2012, CAPT Sean Geaney USNArchived 2013-07-19 at the Wayback Machine
- ^Expeditionary Preposition/Connector Branch, N954 Surface Connector Outlook, CAPT Sean Geaney USN, September 2012Archived 2013-07-19 at the Wayback Machine
- ^Ship to Shore Connector Industry DayArchived 2009-05-19 at the Wayback Machine
- ^SHIP-TO-SHORE CONNECTOR(SSC) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEWArchived 2009-08-16 at the Wayback Machine
- ^SHF SATCOM Terminal Ship-Motion Study, Technical Report 1578, March 1993, M. McDonald, page 11.Archived 2013-02-16 at the Wayback Machine
- General
- Saunders, Stephen (RN). Jane's Fighting Ships, 2003–2004. ISBN0-7106-2546-4.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to LCAC. |
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion&oldid=933278517'
![](/uploads/1/2/6/6/126665639/852839286.png)