Naval Surface Warfare Center
Naval Surface Warfare CenterCarderock DivisionWest Bethesda, MD 20817-5700NSWCCD-20-TR–2004/07 August 2004Total Ship Systems DirectorateTechnical ReportLogistics Enabler for Distributed ForcesbyNSWCCD-20-TR–2004/07Geoff Hope & Colen KennellUnrestricted Distribution
Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEPublic reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining thedata needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing thisburden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently validOMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE3. DATES COVERED (From - To)18-Aug-2004Final1-Nov-2003 – 1-Feb-20044. TITLE AND SUBTITLE5a. CONTRACT NUMBERLogistics Enabler for Distributed ForcesN0002401 WX 205945b. GRANT NUMBER5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER6. AUTHOR(S)5d. PROJECT NUMBERGeoff Hope & Colen Kennell5e. TASK NUMBER5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER03-1-2820-0117. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) AND ADDRESS(ES)8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORTNUMBERNaval Surface Warfare CenterCarderock Division9500 Macarthur BoulevardWest Bethesda, MD 20817-5700NSWCCD-20-TR–2004/079. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)Chief of Naval ResearchBallston Centre Tower One800 North Quincy StreetArlington, VA 22217-566011. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORTNUMBER(S)12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTUnrestricted Distribution13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES14. ABSTRACTA Center for Innovation in Ship Design study was conducted to investigate an Advanced Logistics DeliverySystem. ALDS is an advanced sea-based concept capable of providing rapid logistic sustainment from aship at sea directly to dispersed military forces maneuvering ashore. The system consists of ashipboard mechanical launcher and an autonomous, unmanned glider designed to transport cargo. Thisstudy focused on the aerodynamic design of a flying wing ALDS glider utilizing inflatable wingtechnology. Predicted performance estimates were made for the mechanically launched vehicle. Extendedrange capabilities using booster rockets were also explored.15. SUBJECT TERMSSustainment logistics, seabased logistics, flying wing glider16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:17. LIMITATIONOF ABSTRACTa. REPORTb. ABSTRACTc. THIS PAGEUNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED18. NUMBEROF PAGES19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSONColen Kennell19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include areaU73code)301-227-5468Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
Advanced Logistics Delivery SystemContentsContents12Nomenclature . ivIntroduction . 1ALDS Glider Design . 42.1 Flying Wing . 42.2 Initial Sizing. 42.3 Stability and Trim . 52.3.12.3.22.3.32.3.42.42.5Control Surfaces . 13Performance . 142.5.12.5.22.62.7Longitudinal Static Stability. 6Trim . 9Airfoil Selection . 9Twist. 11Trajectory Analysis. 14Climb Analysis . 19Weight Analysis . 22Centerbody Configuration . 222.7.12.7.2Gas Bottles and Bladders . 24Avionics. 252.8 Structural Design . 252.9 Detectability . 273 Inflatable Wing Technology . 283.1 Internal Wing Structure . 293.2 Control Options . 303.3 Braided Spars . 313.4 Bending Strength and Inflation Requirements . 323.5 Application of Inflatable Wing Technology to ALDS. 334Trimaran Ship Design . 354.1 Mission Profile. 354.2 Ship Selection . 364.3 Typical Day Breakdown . 364.4 Payload . 374.5 Cargo Handling . 374.5.14.5.24.5.3“Container Depot” Option. 38“Vending Machine” Option . 38“Hallway” Option . 394.6 Glider Manufacturing/Assembly Process . 404.7 Linear Induction Motor Integration . 444.8 Ship Scaling . 454.9 Ship Layout . 464.10 Summary. 485Linear Induction Motor . 506System Analysis. 546.1 Reliability. 546.2 Effect of Weather . 546.3 Helicopter Drop Comparison. 555.4 Fixed Wing Drop Comparison. 556.5 Supplies On Demand. 556.6 Requirement of Specialized Ship. 557Alternate Delivery Systems . 57i
Advanced Logistics Delivery SystemContents7.1 Snowgoose . 577.2 Guided Parafoil Delivery System (GPADS) . 577.3 Semi Rigid Deployable Wing (SRDW) . 587.4 Extended Range Aerial Delivery System (ERADS) . 587.5 Comparison of Logistic Delivery Systems. 598Science and Technology Issues (Recommendations for Future Work) . 608.1 ALDS Glider . 608.2 Launch Ship . 618.3 Linear Induction Motor . 619Conclusions. 6310 Acknowledgements . 6411 Contacts . 6412 References . 65List of FiguresFigure 1 Centerbody Profile . 5Figure 2 Stability Definitions. 6Figure 3 Coefficient of Pitching Moment vs. Coefficient of Lift for Aircraft withLongitudinal Static Stability . 7Figure 4 Airfoil with Center of Gravity behind Aerodynamic Center. 7Figure 5 Airfoil with Center of Gravity ahead of Aerodynamic Center. 8Figure 6 NLF0215 Airfoil . 9Figure 7 ALDS Airfoil Selection. 11Figure 8 Panknin Twist Formula . 12Figure 9 Centerbody Control Surfaces. 13Figure 10 ALDS Free Body Diagram . 14Figure 11 Variation of Range with Climb Angle . 15Figure 12 Variation of Apogee Height with Climb Angle . 16Figure 13 Variation of Energy Loss with Climb Angle . 16Figure 14 Disposable Rocket Data . 17Figure 15 Flying Wing ALDS Performance . 18Figure 16 Centerbody Climb Analysis. 19Figure 17 Centerbody Required Angle of Attack. 20Figure 18 Percentage Drag Increase due to Control Deflection . 21Figure 19 ALDS Weight Breakdown . 22Figure 20 Centerbody Configuration . 23Figure 21 Cross Sectional Area . 24Figure 22 Cargo Bay Location . 24Figure 23 Centerbody Structural Design. 25Figure 24 Structural Simplications . 26Figure 25 Vertigo GLOV. 28Figure 26 Extended Range Aerial Delivery System . 29Figure 27 NASA Inflatable Wing Technology Demonstrator . 29Figure 28 Tubular Spar Inflatable Wing Structure. 29Figure 29 Multi Spar Inflatable Wing Structure . 30Figure 30 Control Using Bump Flattening . 30Figure 31 Trailing Edge Deflection. 31Figure 32 Braided Surface of an Airbeam. 31Figure 33 Section of Braided Spar . 32Figure 34 Required Inflation Pressure of Airbeam . 33Figure 35 Swept Wing UAV . 33ii
Advanced Logistics Delivery SystemContentsFigure 36 ALDS Launch Ship Mission . 35Figure 37 “Container Depot” Option. 38Figure 38 “Vending Machine” Option . 39Figure 39 “Hallway” Option . 40Figure 40 Plastic Injection Molding Schematic. 41Figure 41 HVEMS Schematic . 41Figure 42 Centerbody Assembly Volume Comparison . 42Figure 43 ALDS Onboard Assembly Process (Overhead View) . 43Figure 44 Linear Induction Motor Track Design . 44Figure 45 Conceptual Profile View of ALDS Launch Trimaran . 46Figure 46 ALDS Launch Trimaran 3D Model . 47Figure 47 ALDS Launch Trimaran Deck Layout . 48Figure 48 Initial ALDS Launcher Configuration. 51Figure 49 Track Shape and Centripetal Acceleration for Configuration 3. 53Figure 50 Snowgoose . 57Figure 51 Guided Parafoil Delivery System . 58Figure 52 Semi Rigid Deployable Wing . 58Figure 53 ERADS. 59Figure 54 Range-Payload Plot of Alternate Logistics Delivery Systems. 59List of TablesTable 1 ALDS Airfoil Selection . 10Table 2 ALDS Weight Breakdown. 22Table 3 Centerbody Weight Breakdown . 26Table 4 Structural Member Sizing. 27Table 5 Daily Cargo Requirements . 37Table 6 Ship Scaling Results . 45Table 7 Trimaran Compartment Divisions, Area and Volume Requirements . 47Table 8 Rough Order of Magnitude Weight and Volume of LIM Components. 51Table 9 ALDS Launcher Alternates. 52iii
Advanced Logistics Delivery CM0αα0xcgxacReσAeLIMCoefficient of lift (3D)Coefficient of lift (2D)Coefficient of drag (3D)Coefficient of drag (2D)Zero lift dragCoefficient of momentCoefficient of moment (about center of gravity)Mean moment coefficient of wing about center of gravityAirfoil moment coefficient about quarter chord pointAngle of attack (radians)Zero lift angle of attack (radians)Location of center of gravity from nose (feet)Location of aerodynamic center from nose (feet)Reynold’s numberStatic marginAspect ratioOswald’s efficiencyLinear induction motoriv
Advanced Logistics Delivery System1IntroductionIntroductionThe Advanced Logistics Delivery System (ALDS) is an advanced sea-based conceptcapable of providing rapid sustainment of goods and supply to dispersed military forcesmaneuvering ashore. The system consists of a shipboard mechanical launcher and anautonomous, unmanned glider designed to transport cargo such as food, ammunition, fueland water. The glider is accelerated to high speed by the launcher. During its steepascent, the kinetic energy provided to the glider by the launcher is converted intopotential energy until the glider reaches its maximum altitude. The vehicle then glides atrelatively slow speed to the delivery point. Onboard avionics control and guide the gliderthroughout its flight. This report provides an overview of the ALDS concept, adescription of an innovative flying wing design for the ALDS glider, an overview of thelaunch ship design and identifies capability gaps for the technology.Two variants of the ALDS concept have been previously studied1 at the Naval SurfaceWarfare Center, Carderock Division. The study focused on a catapult launched, fixedwing glider similar to recreational gliders and an air-dropped glider with inflatable wings.The study concluded that the catapult launched glider lacked sufficient range.Consequently, the preferred ALDS was determined to be an inflatable wing glidercapable of launch via helicopter, fixed wing aircraft, or rocket at sufficient altitude toprovide militarily useful range. Major limitations of such a concept are its dependenceon high value manned aircraft, the operational complexity of handling and launchingrelatively large rockets at sea, and a relatively low cargo delivery rate.A catapult based ALDS system has strong appeal for littoral operations. Modestadvances in launcher technology, such as linear induction motors (LIM) similar to thosecurrently under development for use as catapults on aircraft carriers, should allowdevelopment of ALDS launcher systems which are sufficiently compact for installation inshallow draft, intra-theater delivery ships displacing a few thousand tonnes. Furthermore,one of these systems should be capable of sustaining sufficiently high launch rates toprovide direct ship to maneuvering unit supply rates of about 15 short tons per hour. Thispiece of ships equipment should be more reliable than manned aircraft and require lessmanpower, maintenance and fuel.Notional design requirements were adopted during the earlier ALDS study for majorsystem parameters. A LIM launcher providing 30 g’s acceleration and a 500 kt launchspeed was selected to provide the necessary energy in a compact package suitable forinstallation in small ships. Such a system was expected to support a launch every twominutes. Cargo weight was set at 1,000 lbs with a minimum cargo volume of 30 ft3 tohouse the types of wet and dry cargos required in packages suitable for small maneuverunits. The launch rate and cargo rate equate to a sustained delivery rate of 15 short tonsper hour. Although not addressed explicitly, cost was to be kept sufficiently low as toallow the gliders to be considered expendable if tactically desirable. These requirementswere retained for the current study.1
Advanced Logistics Delivery SystemIntroductionThe current study re-examined the catapult launched ALDS concept by developing anadvanced flying wing glider incorporating inflatable wings and exploring the effects ofvariation in launch angle on the trajectory and range of the glider. The inflatable wingsare deployed at apogee to enhance aerodynamic efficiency during the relatively slowglide to the delivery site.The ALDS vehicle presented is a flying wing glider with two modes of operation. It iscomposed of a central launch body with inflatable wing pods attached. The centerbodyof the flying wing is sized to enclose the cargo, house necessary avionics, and mountinflatable wing pods on either side. The glider remains in this configuration duringlaunch and climb-out to minimize drag and energy loss. Centerbody shape and controlsystems provide necessary stability and control during the ascent phase. Following launchfrom a ship’s deck, the centerbody then climbs at an angle of about 30o until the aerofoilapproaches stall at the apogee. The compact centerbody provides the minimal liftrequired during ascent while producing minimum drag.At apogee, the wings inflate and the ALDS vehicle glides to its target. During the glidephase, the vehicle is effectively a high performance glider similar to recreational glidersdesigned and built by the German Horton brothers in the 1930’s. These sailplanes havedemonstrated very high aerodynamic gliding efficiency with lift to drag ratios over 40.However, if the wings were inflated during the high-speed launch/climb phase, theaerodynamic forces induced on launch would severely limit the height attainable due tothe resulting drag. Also, at launch speeds of 500 kts, the wing structure would berequired to withstand the associated large forces, making them heavier, thereby reducingpayload. The launch body is therefore a small flying wing encasing the payload andavionics, capable of generating lift in the climb with relatively low drag.Northrop N1-MHorten SailplaneNorthrop B-22
Advanced Logistics Delivery SystemIntroductionAmerican powered flying wing pioneer Jack Northrop concluded2 that the drag of aflying wing was 50% that of a conventional aircraft, and projected future improvement to40%. His belief in the merits of flying wings sustained development of the concept fromhis first successful aircraft the N1-M in 1940 through the modern B-2 bomber.Consequently, flying wings appeared to be an ideal choice for a glider where a high lift todrag ratio is required.The study also examined the design and operation of a suitable launch ship. A trimaranwas selected as most suitable for this application. Due to volume requirements, the ALDSglider requires onboard manufacture or assembly. Both options were examined and a nearterm assembly process identified. Cargo handling techniques were also assessed.3
Advanced Logistics Delivery System2ALDS Glider DesignALDS Glider Design2.1Flying WingThere is much controversy over whether flying wings are advantageous2. The lack ofsuch designs in production may suggest they are inferior over conventional tailed aircraft.The reality is that flying wings are only suitable for certain applications. A smallunmanned, un-powered glider is one such application.Flying wings generally have reduced drag, due to the lack of a tail and an integratedfuselage. However, a lower drag coefficient can only be attained through the correctdesign of the wing. It can be a complex procedure to stabilize and trim a flying wing,while at the same time maintaining a low-drag lift distribution. Due to the lack of a tail toaid in trim, the center of gravity limits are much smaller for a flying wing. Also, it isoften a challenge to locate passengers inside of the wing shape. However, with ALDS,there are no passengers to house, no engine to be fitted and the load variation (i.e. centerof gravity variation) is small. Therefore, a flying wing is ideal for such a low speed,simple design aiming to maximize range.The ALDS glider is to be assembled onboard the ship. Flying wings have less structurethan their tailed equivalents, resulting in reduced storage space requirements and easierassembly. Also, less structure results in lower manufacturing costs which is advantageousfor an expendable design.2.2Initial SizingThe most important performance characteristic in the ALDS glider design is the lift todrag ratio (L/D). This value is also equal to the glide slope, e.g. a lift to drag ratio of tenmeans the aircraft will glide ten miles for every mile descended. This characteristic isimportant due to the lack of an engine in the ALDS design. There are therefore only twoways to maximize range of such an aircraft: increase the apogee height or increase theglide slope.Standard sailplanes achieve a lift to drag ratio of around 25, while high performancesailplanes can achieve values of up to 40. There have been examples of sailplanes withlift to drag ratios in excess of 60. However, sailplanes generally only carry the payload ofthe pilot, whereas ALDS is expected to carry at least 1,000 lbs. This means the long,slender wings have to carry a greater load than on a conventional sailplane, i.e. a higherwing loading. Also, the bending moment at the root increases. Therefore a target lift todrag value of 30 was chosen. This is a realistic value and represents a balance betweenfeasibility and desired range.One of the main influences on the lift to drag value is aspect ratio, i.e. the ratio ofwingspan to the average chord. As aspect ratio increases, cross flow decreases and theflow over the wing becomes more two dimensional, reducing the induced drag. Highaspect ratio alone is not enough to ensure a high lift to drag ratio, correct flow must also4
Advanced Logistics Delivery SystemALDS Glider Designbe maintained over the wing. Using historical trends, an aspect ratio of 20 was chosen forthe ALDS glider design.Wing loading was assumed to be 6.1 lb/ft2. This value was selected from historicalsailplane trends, but also by investigating inflatable wing technology. From this a wingarea of 244 ft2 and a wingspan of 70 ft were calculated.Most textbooks suggest taper ratios, ratio of tip chord to root chord, of 0.25 to 0.3 aremore conductive to low induced drag. However, this is not the case for flying wings andsources suggest a high taper ratio for stability reasons. Therefore, a taper ratio of 0.75was chosen.Generally, sweep is limited for aircraft operating close to Mach 1, as it reduces thenormal component of velocity over the wing. Using sweep for low speed aircraft reducesthe lift. However, as will be examined later, sweep is required for flying wings tomaintain stability. Therefore an initial sweep value of 20o was chosen, based on historicaldesigns.The centerbody (Figure 1) was sized mainly around the cargo requirements. It is a verylow aspect ratio (1.13) flying wing with a 9.8 ft wingspan that houses the cargo and theavionics. Attached to the sides are the wing pods that inflate at apogee. The root chord of14.8 ft tapers to 8.7 ft at the tip. The cargo bay is sized to carry 1,000 lbs of mixed cargo(fuel, water, dry cargo) packed into a cargo bay occupying a total volume of 30 ft3.Root chord 14.8 ftTip chord 8.7 ftAspect Ratio 1.13Wing Area 85.6 ft2Figure 1 Centerbody Profile2.3Stability and TrimThe main concern with flying wings is that they are generally unstable due to the lack ofa tail. Much controversy surrounds the methods used to successfully design a flying wingand different sources will site pros and cons for each.For steady flight, the forces acting on an aircraft must be in balance. Therefore, theremust be no resultant turning moment about any center of gravity axis. When this isachieved, the aircraft is said to be trimmed. An aircraft is said to be statically stable if ittends to return to its initial flight conditions after being disturbed by a gust or a smallimpulsive control input. Normally, for steady level flight, the aircraft is required to beboth trimmed and stable.5
Advanced Logistics Delivery SystemALDS Glider DesignThere is considerable confusion between trim and stability, and this is evident in a largenumber of texts relating to flying wings. For example, a ball bala
wing glider similar to recreational gliders and an air-dropped glider with inflatable wings. The study concluded that the catapult launched glider lacked sufficient range. Consequently, the preferred ALDS was determined to be an inflatable wing glider capable of launch via helicopter,
redstone test center . white sands test center . yuma proving ground . naval air warfare center aircraft division patuxent river . naval air warfare center weapons division china lake . naval air warfare center weapons division point mugu . naval surface warfare center dahlgren division . naval undersea warfare center division keyport . naval .
aberdeen test center dugway proving ground . reagan test site . redstone test center . white sands test center . yuma proving ground . naval air warfare center aircraft division patuxent river . naval air warfare center weapons division china lake . naval air warfare center weapons division point mugu . naval surface warfare center dahlgren .
E3 & Spectrum Support Commands Acquisition Support and Test Facilities NAVAIR- Naval Air Systems Command Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst New Jersey, Patuxent River Maryland. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake & Point Mugu California NAVSEA-Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD)
May 22, 2019 · IW ANTX CSO A -- Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO): Fight the Naval Force Forward - Information Warfare Prototyping and Experimentation Campaign Solicitation Number: N66001-18-S-C001 Agency: Department of the Navy Office: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Location: Naval
Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic (Working Capital Fund) CAPT Wesley Sanders, CO. Pete Reddy, ED (Acting) SPAWAR Space Field . Activity. CAPT Rob Berner, CO. John Pope, ED (Acting) COMMANDER. RADM C.D. Becker. Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific (Working Capital Fund) CAPT Mel Yokoyama USN, CO. Bill Bonwit, ED. Nancy Gunderson. 2.0 .
NDP 1, Naval Warfare, describes the ways naval forces accomplish their missions and execute their roles with joint and multinational teams; Naval Logistics explains how the support for those operations is planned, acquired, and integrated into the operations of naval expedi-tionary fo
Warfare Center Naval Undersea. Naval Research Laboratory. Warfare Center, Keyport. Naval Research Laboratory Stennis Space Center Naval Research Laboratory Monterey. AT A GLANCE . Future Glider Technologies -ONR Xray flying wing glider -FutureGlider concept Role in Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance. RIMPAC June-July 2004.
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER Divisions NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE Divisions NAVAL ORDNANCE SAFETY & SECURITY ACTIVITY EXPLOSIVE DISPOSAL TECH DIVISION CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS ADM V E CLARK VADM P M BALISLE . FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, FCVT, vehicle technologies, advanced vehicles, .
