LETTER TO STANSFIELD TURNER FROM THOMAS J. KANE, JR.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 12, 2009
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: October 23, 1980
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
GRUMMAN A P OO S PA 93
BETHPAGE, NEW YORK 11714
October 23, 1980
Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505
We have noted with interest your recent U.S. Naval
Proceedings article on the future makeup of the United States surface
fleet.
Enclosed are a brochure and two recent papers given by
Grumman in advocacy of one possible future course of action based
upon emerging technology.
It is basically a ship/surface-launched missile/aircraft
system for which the ship is certainly feasible, missiles are.
existent with new types in R&D and the aircraft/conformal surveil-
lance radar well underway in ground-based R&D. The next step is to
build a technology research aircraft of the type illustrated, and,
in parallel, flight test the conformal radar.
Should you wish to discuss the matter further, we would
be most happy to do so. My telephone number is [phone].
THOMAS J. KANE, JR.
vice president
Executive Regletc~
ne, Jr.
ce/President -
Business Development
TJ K/a p
Eli
I Al r 'A
u -uv*
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
M0
?
AIAA-80-1811
Surface Combatant Fleet
Offensive/Defensive Enhancement
by High Performance
Turbofan VTOL Aircraft
R. W. Kress, Grumman
Aerospace Corp., Bethpage, N.Y.
V
4VX
AIAA AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS MEETING
August 4-6, 1980/Anaheim, California
For permission to copy or republish, contact the Americar. Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics-1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10019
J .,Xv"
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
SURFACE COMA ATANT FLEET OFFENSIVE /DEFENSIVE EN NCEMENT
BY HIGH PERFORMANCE TURBOFAN VTOL AIRCRAFT
Robert W. Kress*
Director of Advanced Concepts
Grumman Aerospace Corporation
Bethpage, New York 11714
Abstract
A new concept of naval air operations, involving
surface combatants equipped with long range air/
surface missiles, and ten small, high-altitude, high-
speed and long-range surveillance /missileer aircraft
for targeting and attack, is described. Results of
an affordability analysis of this concept are briefly
presented. Grumman's Design 698 aircraft, con-
ceived for this role, is described, and its basic com-
patibility with various ship classes is presented.
The current status of the development program
directed toward a Technology Demonstrator of the
Design 698 concept is described.
The content of this paper is addressed in Figure
1. It is important at the outset to stress that this
paper does not concern itself with the role of VSTOL
aircraft mixed in with the normal complement of
carrier-borne aircraft, nor does it address a VSTOL
ship concept which is either a replacement or supple-
ment to existing carrier forces. What the paper does
address is a new conceptual surface combatant class,
which combines a ship with long-range missiles and
high-performance turbofan aircraft. This ship has
systems and mission roles which are distinct and
additive to the carrier battle groups. In effect, this
paper deals entirely with a conceptual change in the
method of operations and capability of the naval sur-
face forces other than the carriers.
? WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ROLE OF V/STOL AIRCRAFT ON CVs
? WILL NOT ADDRESS A V/STOL CARRIER CV REPLACEMENT OR
SUPPLEMENT
? WILL ADDRESS A NEW CONCEPTUAL SURFACE COMBATANT CLASS
WITH
- LONG RANGE MISSILES AND
- HIGH PERFORMANCE TURBOFAN AIRCRAFT
? SYSTEMS AND MISSION ROLES DISTINCT AND ADDITIVE TO CV
BATTLE GROUPS.
The Concept
Figure 2 is an artist's rendition of the concept
of a new class of surface combatant ship having
aircraft and long-range missilery in a particular
combination, such that there is a very substantiAl
offensive and defensive capability enhancement of
the ship class. The artist's concept shows an air=
craft, Grumman's Design 698, which is envisioned
to exist in two basic versions for this particular
application; the first version being a surveillance/
missileer aircraft, and the second being a hammer
rcraf' att. The complement of these aircraft envi-
sione -for the ship in the artist's rendition is ten
aircraft; eight of the surveillance/missileer type and
two jammers. The ship itself is in the 10,000 ton
* Associate Fellow, AIAA
Copyright ? American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc., 1980. All rights reserved.
class, carrying a load-out of approximately 12U verti-
cally launched, long range, surface-to-surface,
surface-to-air, and surface-to-subsurface missilery.
The ship is equipped with a rather large central
hangar and a 250 ft. foredeck which can be used for
vertical takeoff or short takeoff operations for pay-
load enhancement. The afterdeck is approximately
150 ft.. long and can be used for vertical takeoff and
landing operations. It may also be equipped with a
low energy barricade arrestment system for re-
trieving aircraft in a one-engine-failed situation.
This avoids penalties associated with provision of
excessive aircraft core engine power for vertical
landings in the engine out case.
Figure 2 Design 698 VTOL Aircraft/DGV Ship Concept
The basic surveillance or jammer aircraft are
designed such that, as VTO's, they have a very
respectable level of performance, which will be
shown later. In other words, these aircraft are fully
capable with a vertical takeoff on a hot day. A good
indicator of this is the 29% fuel fraction under those
circumstances. A short STO run of 170 ft. with a
mild ski jump, which is close to the natural bow
contour of this size surface combatant ship, results
_p y.lgad en-
in the capability of roughly a 1,292.1.b.
hancement on a hot day, with 10 kts. wind over
deck. This allows the aircraft to be fitted out with
a pair of Harpoon air-to-surface weapons, or a
pair of long range air-to-airweapons, or up to
six AMRAAM-class weapons for closer in air-to-air
applications, or four advanced lightweight torpdos
for long range ASW "Pouncer" operations.
Grumman has been working very closely with
Litton-Ingalls in the design and integration of this
ship class with the Design 698 aircraft. The Design
698 aircraft described is basically an aircraft in the
20,000 lb. takeoff gross weight category having a
crew of two. The avionics systems envisioned for
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
this aircraft employ the most modern surveillance
radar, jammer, and control and display technology
expected to be available at the time of aircraft.fleet
introduction. All systems are under development.
Figure 3 is a brief illustration of the Soviet
naval force trends which form the underlying basis
for the thought process leading to consideration of
this new concept of operations. We have seen the
emergence of Kiev-class VSTOL carriers equipped
with the Forger supersonic fighter-attack aircraft.
We have seen increasing numbers of Soviet surface
combatants which appear to be in an almost continu-
ous mode of shadowing U.S. fleet elements. We are
faced now with the emerging threat of the Backfire
naval land-based aircraft with long range air-to-
surface missiles. Throughout the design of these
Soviet fleet elements runs a central thread which is
an emphasis on long-range missilery from all sorts of
platforms; surface, subsurface, and air. In the
future, but beginning to be dimly perceived, are
such ships as 30,000 ton class nuclear battle cruisers
and 80,000 ton carriers. Faced with this threat, one
must take a hard look at one's own status, which is
basically shown in Figure 4.
? EMERGENCE OF KIEV V/STOL CARRIERS
- FORGER SUPERSONIC FIGHTER/ATTACK
? INCREASING NUMBERS OF SURFACE COMBATANTS
? BACKFIRE NAVAL LAND-BASED AIRCRAFT
? INCREASING SUB FLEET
? EMPHASIS ON LONG RANGE MISSILES FROM ALL PLATFORMS
- ASMs, SURFACE & SUBSURFACE LAUNCHED SSMs
? LARGE NEW COMBATANTS
- 30,000 TON NUCLEAR BATTLE CRUISER
- 80,000 TON CARRIER?
? DIMINISHING NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
? DIMINISHING NUMBER OF SURFACE COMBATANTS
- ORIENTED MORE TOWARDS DEFENSIVE RATHER
THAN OFFENSIVE ROLES: i.e. ASW, AAW
RATHER THAN ASUW, SKW
? INCREASED DEMANDS/NEEDS
- FOR MORE GLOBAL PRESENCE, i.e. INDIAN OCEAN, SOUTH
ATLANTIC
- FOR BROADER WARTIME MISSIONS
ESCORT: CONVOYS, AMPHIB, AND UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT
GROUPS
" POWER PROJECTION
DEFENSE OF OIL ROUTES: TANKER PROTECTION
? BECOMING MORE VULNERABLE, AS SOVIET SEA & LAND BASED
NAVAL CAPABILITIES IMPROVE, TO
- COORDINATED PREEMPTIVE MISSILE STRIKES BY
" SUBMARINES
" SURFACE SHIPS
* AIRCRAFT, BOTH SEA BASED AND LONG RANGE BACKFIRES
- COORDINATED SUBMARINE & AIR ATTACKS AGAINST
" CONVOYS
" OIL TANKERS
Figure 4 U.S. Naval Force Trends
Using 1968 as the year of reference, we see that
the number of our aircraft carriers has diminished
from 23 in 1968 to 13 in 1980. A historical note shows
that at the conclusion of World War II the United
States had 105 aircraft carriers in commission. Sim-
ilarly, we are faced with a diminishing number of
surface combatants from 314 in 1968 to 212 in 1980.
Furthermore, the roles of these surface combatants
has, in recent history, been oriented more towards
defensive rather than offensive operations.
Meanwhile, the U.S. naval fleet, in the face of
diminishing carrier and surface combatant assets, is
presented with increased needs and demands for
global presence, and a broader spectrum of wartime
missions throughout the world. Coupled with this
is the fact that they are becoming more vulnerable
to Soviet sea and land based threats, and most im-
portantly, they are faced with the possibility of a
preemptory, concentrated, coordinated Soviet missile
strike.
Figure 5 briefly summarizes some fundamental
limitations of the United States fleet under its cur-
rent makeup. First of all, the carrier provides the
only major fleet offensive capability and there are a
limited number, at best, at sea at any given time.
For its defense against major enemy missile attacks,
it is dependent upon the Aegis cruiser and its radar
and defensive missile systems. The Aegis cruiser
with no over-the-horizon detection capability due
to the line-of-sight limitations of its ship-based ra-
dar is dependent upon carrier air assets in the
form of the E2C for over-the-horizon information.
Therefore, with the present fleet composition, the
concept of an autonomous non-carrier surface action
or escort group may simply not be feasible, due to
the lack of effective air coverage. Such an autono-
mous non-carrier surface action group might or
might not involve the use of Aegis cruisers, but in
any case, to be survivable, a group would have to
have adequate air coverage.
? CV PROVIDES ONLY MAJOR FLEET OFFENSIVE CAPABILITY;
LIMITED NUMBER AT SEA
? AUTONOMOUS NON-CV SURFACE ACTION ~ND ESCORT GROUPS
MAY NOT BE SURVIVABLE DUE TO LACK OF EFFECTIVE
AIR COVERAGE.
Figure 5 U.S. Fleet Limitations
Turning now to Figure 6, we will begin to elab-
orate on the key ingredients of the concept presented
in this paper. The first, ingredient, of course, is to
develop a subsonic, high-speed, high-altitude, long-
range turbofan VTOL aircraft for the surface com-
batants. We will return to this topic later in the
paper, which is really the central issue. As was
mentioned earlier, the basic concept consists of the
marriage of a ship, long-range missilery and a turbo-
fan high-performance aircraft to form an autonomous
ship capability. The only ingredient of that combina-
tion which remains to be set into motion from a devel-
opment point of view is the aircraft.
VTOL AIRCRAFT FOR SURFACE COMBATANTS
? PRIMARY VERSIONS:
- AEW/MISSILEER
- EWJAMMER
- DISTRIBUTED vs. POINT SENSOR CONCEPT-'
- ALLOWSSHIPEMCON
? OTHER VERSIONS:
- ASW "POUNCER"
- OV-X OVERLAND TARGETING
? COMBINE WITH SHIP-BASED VERTICAL LAUNCH MISSILES TO ALLOW
AUTONOMOUS NON-CV SURFACE ACTION AND ESCORT GROUPS
? MISSILEER CAPABILITY COMPOUNDS THREAT TO ENEMY
? EXPLORE A SHIP CLASS MATCHED TO THE AIRCRAFT: "DGV"
- DD 963 HULL
- 10 AIRCRAFT
- 250 FT. FOREDECK FOR STOL LAUNCH OVERLOADS
- 150 FT. AFTERDECK FOR SINGLE ENGINE OUT BARRICADE
ARRESTMENTS
- 120 VERTICAL LAUNCH TUBES
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP65T00644R000200560004-8
The concept of the aircraft involves two prima-
ry versions: an EW version, designed to operate
with full capability with a vertical takeoff on a hot
day, and with a short 170 ft. takeoff from the fore-
deck of the vessel, can be loaded with a full comple-
ment of either air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles;
the other primary version of the aircraft is envi-
sioned to be an electronic warfare or jammer version
which is very effective in coping with air threats.
In effect then, what has happened in comparison,
for instance, to a ship-based radar system is that
the point sensor in the form of the ship's radar has
been supplemented by the distributed sensors car-
ried by the aircraft. This has one very valuable fall-
out, that is, it allows the ship to run quiet or on
EMCOM, which makes the detection of the ship,
from an enemy point of view, very much more dif-
ficult.
There are other versions of the aircraft which
are envisioned. In our scenario work done under
contract to the Navy, a variant of the airplane called
an ASW "Pouncer" was found to be very useful. For
instance, a maritime patrol aircraft might have
several submarine contacts existent at one time. If
the patrol aircraft chose to prosecute one of these
contacts, it would of course lose the other contacts.
Under these circumstances, it would be highly de-
sirable to call in a fast aircraft to prosecute the
attack so that the patrol aircraft could hold all of its
contacts while the attack was underway. Of course,
this role as envisioned is in no way competitive with
the LAMPS helicopter, which is a closer-in device
with a much more substantial payload in the form of
onboard ASW equipment.
Another version of the aircraft envisioned as
being highly desirable is one carrying a system of
sensors which would be useful for overland tageting.
Such sensors would take the form of battlefield
radar for detecting small moving targets, plus signal
CARRIER-BASED SURVEILLANCE
AIRCRAFT (WHEN AVAILABLE)
'--SEARCH
RADAR
? SHIPS RADAR/FC RADIATING
? SAMs = SM-2 MR
STANDARD ARM
? LIMITED LAMPS
CAPABILITY
SOVIET GUIDED
MISSILE CRUISER
SOVIET
/ LAND-BASED
BEAR D AIRCRAFT
GUIDANCE LINK
DETECTION ENVC`'?,.
VISTO~ RADAR aselu SOVIET LAND-BASED
AIRrRAFT
? SHIP ON EMCON
? VISTOL LAUNCH
/&W-1 4.1_ ,F /
monitoring equipment~or determining emitter loca-
tions. This version of the airplane would be used in
combination with ship-based missilery, wherein mis-
siles would be fired at long range and their guidance
updates performed by the aircraft.
All of the roles of the combined aircraft/ship/
missile system can be performed by ship-launched I
weaponry guided via the aircraft over the horizon.
However, the existence of a missileer capability in
the aircraft provides an additional element, which
greatly compounds the threat to the enemy in that
offensive weapons against his surface units or air
units can now come from many directions simulta-
neously. Futhermore, in the case of attacks against
enemy units, be they surface ships or aircraft,
there are certain occasions when one cannot afford
the transit time of the ship-launched weapon to a
particular target.
The ship which is currently envisioned and
matched to the aircraft, we have dubbed DGV,
standing for Destroyer, Guided Missile, Vertical
Takeoff Aircraft. Our investigations to date have
been conducted with the help of Litton-Ingalls Ship-
building and have been based upon utilization of
variants of the DD-963 Spruance-class destroyer
hull and machinery. At this time we envision a
hangar capable of comfortably berthing 10 of the
20,000 lb. class Design 698 aircraft. With the
250 ft. foredeck for STOL missileer overloads and
a 150 ft. afterdeck for single-engine-out barricade
arrestments, and having 120 vertical launch tubes,
the basic configuration details of this ship have
been fairly thoroughly investigated. The ship
turns out to be in the 10,000 ton class, and more
will be said about it at a later point in the paper.
Figure 7 is a pictorial comparison of today's
surface combatant operational concept vs. tomorrow's
concept of operations just described. With today's
SOVIET GUIDED
MISSILE CRUISER
SLAT = SURFACE LAUNCHED
AIR TARGET MISSILES
ANTI-SHIP: TASM
ANTI-AIR: LRSAM
LAND ATTACK: TLAN
btAM U, CAUUtM,
_011fo.k BACKFIRE, ETC
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
?
operations one would have, for instance, an Aegis
guided missile cruiser of the CG-47 class, using its
point source radar for detection of enemy surface and
air units. It would be equipped with anti-radiation
missiles and surface-to-air missilery. It would have
an ASW capability in the form of the LAMPS helicop-
ter, and it would work in concert with carrier-based
surveillance aircraft when available. This system,
of course, is line-of-sight limited. Without carrier
assets, the line-of-sight limitations make offensive
operations against enemy surface and low-altitude
air units at long ranges impractical, and place
greater demands on the ship's defensive systems
against low-flying cruise missiles. With the new con-
cept of operations, using the vertical takeoff aircraft,
the ship can run in EMCON and launch missiles, the
guidance of which is performed at long ranges by
the VTOL aircraft against either surface or air tar-
gets. The kinds of roles and missions envisioned
for this DGV class of ship with its missiles and air-
craft are illustrated in Figure 8.
? ASW
? AAW
? ASUW
F
BLOCKADE/BLOCKADE
BUSTER
CV SUPPORT
UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT
GROUP
Figure 8 Missions/Roles for DGV Battle/Escort Groups
For instance, it could operate in support of a
major carrier battle group, either as an integral ele-
ment of the carrier group for vanguard, flank guard,
or rear guard operations, or it could split off with
other cruisers and destroyers as an autonomous ele-
ment for sea control, power projection, or blockade
roles. This sort of support of a carrier group would
have many fundamental advantages in that the power
of the group would be divisible to meet situational re-
quirements, and the overall surveillance capability of
the group would be substantially enhanced. The
other mode of operation of the DGV envisioned is
with frigates as an escort for convoys, amphibious,
task groups, underway replenishment groups, or in
the tanker lanes. In work which will be displayed
later, we currently envision that the Navy could af-
ford something on the order of 30 of these DGV's for
the roles envisioned in Figure 8.
Figure 9 presents the overall operational con-
cept of the system, the elements of which have just
been described. What emerges is an offensive and
defensive capability for operations of ship groups not
under a carrier air umbrella. These groups would
have a defensive capability vs. the Backfire in the form
of long-range detection of the aircraft and attack of
those aircraft, either via long-range, ship-launched,
air-guided missiles or air-launched missiles from the
missileers. This capability not only covers the air-
craft but also extends to cruise missiles which are
easily detected by the airborne radar, and can be at-
tacked by ship-based air-guided missilery, air-
0
launched missiles from the missileers or ship-based,
ship-controlled missiles. It is important to note that
the capability to detect and attack a cruise missile from
one platform, as the missileer version can, does not
exist in the fleet air units today.
? AUTONOMOUS OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE OPS OF SHIP GROUPS NOT
UNDER CV UMBRELLA
? DEFENSIVE VS. BACKFIRE THREAT
- AEW/MISSILEER VERSION FOR LONG-RANGE DETECTION AND
ATTACK OF BACKFIRES AND CRUISE MISSILES WITH SLAT & AIR-
TO-AIR MISSILES
- JAMMER VERSION TO SCREEN SHIPS
- LONG-RANGE CRUISE MISSILE DETECTION AND ATTACK
CAPABILITY
? DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE VS. ENEMY SURFACE/SUB-UNITS AND
LAND TARGETS
- AEW/MISSILEER VERSION FOR DETECTION, IDENTIFICATION AND
ATTACK. SLAT TOMAHAWK TO 500 N MI
- AUTONOMOUS CARRIAGE OF HARPOONS FOR HIGH ELECTRONIC
CONFUSION ENVIRONMENT - OR QUICK SUB REACTION
? ASW: COMPLEMENTARY TO LAMPS III, "POUNCER"
- LONG RANGE
- HIGH SPEED
- NEEDS ADVANCED LIGHTWEIGHT ASW SYSTEMS
? ENHANCED IN MOST ROLES BY MPA INTERACTION
- LOWER MPA REQUIREMENTS AND VULNERABILITY IN SEA LANE
DEFENSE ROLES.
Figure 9 Subsonic Turbofan V/STOL Operation Concept
The function of the jammer version of the air-
craft is to provide a defensive screen for the sur-
face ships to force the Backfire aircraft in closer
to the ships, where they can be handled more easily
by the aircraft and ship-launched weaponry.
In the area of mounting offensive operations
against enemy surface or submarine units, the sur-
veillance /missileer version is used for the detection
and identification of those units, and either sur-
face-launched, air targeted Tomahawks or air-
launched Harpoon missiles can be used. The air-
launched missiles are most valuable in high-ECM en-
vironments and for quick reaction strikes at extreme
ranges where the fly-out time of the Tomahawk is
excessive.
Control of the operations can be vested either
in the ship or in the aircraft, depending upon the
demands of the particular occasion. In general, the
ship commander would prefer to have situation re-
porting from the aircraft, which involves a trans-
mission of data and fairly complicated message traf-
fic. However, under certain circumstances, there is
an advantage to having the control of the situation
vested in the aircraft where the aircraft commander
can either call for surfaced-launched weaponry, or
use his own weaponry to mount an attack. This sort
of .situation could develop when the airplane command-
er ran into a situation demanding immediate action
with enormous advantage to his forces without the
time lags inherent in the message traffic and the
returned-command orders. Basically, in a situation
where the aircraft commander is in control, the only
command required to be sent back to the ship would
be a fire signal to launch a missile on a particular
heading and have guidance taken over by the air-
craft.
I have already described the operation of the
ASW Pouncer aircraft, which is really a system com-
plementary to the LAMPS III system which is pres-
ently coming into service. The Pouncer, of course,
capitalizes on its long range and high speed to pros-
ecute submarine contacts coming from either air units
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
or surface units. In order to increase the effective-
ness of such an aircraft, advanced, lighter-weight
ASW systems would be highly desirable. In the case
of the interaction of the various aircraft types with
maritime patrol aircraft, our scenarios have tended
to indicate that the maritime patrol aircraft capability
requirements are dramatically reduced by the exis-
tence of the VTOL aircraft in support of the maritime
patrol aircraft. The vulnerability of the maritime
patrol aircraft in sealane defense roles is also greatly
reduced by the presence of the VTOL.
Turning now to Figure 10A, we see typical
Atlantic operations of a number of naval groups. In
the North Atlantic there is a carrier battle group
having a very substantial and effective defense zone
against Backfire aircraft threats, by virtue of the
long range detection capability of the E-2 and the
combat air patrol and Phoenix missile capability of the
F-14 fighters. Other parts of Figure 10A show an
underway replenishment group, an amphibious group,
a surface-action group, and a convoy group, all of
which have protection against Backfire aircraft
only in the form of the inner defense zones provided
by the surface-to-air missiles guided to their target
by ship-borne radars.
Looking now at Figure 10B, we have shown the
vulnerability zones of the underway replenishment
group, the amphibious group, the surface-action
group, and the convoy group to Backfire antiship
:missiles (ASMS). These missile launch zones are sub-
stantially beyond the capability of the point defense
surface-to-air missile systems of the groups, and
saturation attacks would doubtless have a devastating
effect.
? CV BATTLE GROUP EFFECTIVE
ONLY IN IMMEDIATE AREA
? OTHER GROUPS LIMITED TO A SAM DEFENSE ONLY
PORTLAND
- BOSTON
NORFOLK
?
NEWFOUNDLAND
?
Finally, referring to Figure 10C, one sees the
effect of adding to each of these four vulnerable
groups a single DGV ship with its air complement.
It is seen that the, addition of this ship provides
effective defense against a Backfire threat over a
perimeter which, while not as large as that of the
carrier battle group, is still sufficient to be effective.
Figure 11 addresses the major steps in imple-
mentation of the concept of operations just described.
Step 1 would be to demonstrate that such a turbofan
VTOL aircraft can in fact be built and effectively
operated in the types of missions described. This
has been the major objective of Grumman for some
time, and is in fact the major point of this paper.
The second step is to'demonstrate the aircraft con-
formal surveillance radar which forms such a ey
element of the surveillance/missileer aircr.aftsystem.
Fortunately, this development and the ensuing dem-
onstration are well under way at Grumman under
vigorous Navy funding. Demonstration of the DGV
ship concept would be a natural follow-up to the
availability of the turbofan VTOL aircraft demon-
strator. Sea trials of both the ship roll stabiliza-
tion required for aircraft operations for the DGV
and the guidance and control concepts inherent in
matching the aircraft motion to the ship motion in
heavy seas, from a vertical motion point of view,
would be a fallout of this exercise.
Looking beyond the period of demonstration of
the viability of the aircraft and ship concept and
their matching, one would then address the acquisi-
tion programs required to put the system into naval
operation. In the ship area, current naval thinking
calls for acquisition of approximately 50 DDGX's, or
250 NMi \
.CARRIER BAT'
150 NMI
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW_-
EFFECTIVENESS ZONES AGAINST BACKFIRES
LEGEND
0 SAM DEFENSE ZONE
AZORES
i i
CONVOY
GROUP
SURFACE
ACTION
GROUP
REPLENISHMENT
GROUP
AMPHIB
GROUP
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
100 200 , 30o loo I.o
350 NMI
?
SCALE STATUTE MILES
,, - +
?
250 NMi
CLYDE
CARRIER BATTL
x
E GROUP
/
.150 NMi- \
=
50?
EDIUM
UND AY
N
M
EWFOUNDLAND I\` LOW
REENISHMENT
GROUP
EFFECTIVENESS ZONES AGAINST BACKFIRES
PORTLAND
-BOSTON
LEGEND
O SAM DEFENSE ZONE
AZORES
40?
ROTA
NORFOL
K
0 BERM
UDA
AMPHIB, /
GROUP /
30-
ca V
Y
GR
P
SURFACE
P
UERTO RICO
ACTION \
20?
GROUP
* 0 100 200 3
00 400 500 600 700 800
G
o
4
6?
?
DGV OFFENSI
VE/DEFENSIVE ZO
0
NES
20? SCAL
E STATUTE MILES
. 7
AROUND NON
-CV GROUPS
,
I/
CLYDE
f CARRIER BATTLE
GROUP
'LOW
Y
MEN M,
,;IGH
y~
, ,
?
/
_
HIGH
60
EDIUMi
?
UNDERWAY
NEWFOUNDLAND
.
"'~"
~
\ \ `OW
I
'
--REPLENISHMENT
*
~ n
,-?~
`
EFFECTIVENESS ZONES AGAINST
GROUP
--
LAND-BASED ASM CARRIERS
PORTLAND
BOSTON
LEGEND
? SAM
DEFENSE ZONE
AZORES
40?
I
u
LOW
ROTA
K
M
MEDIU
~
HIG
? BERMU
DA ~
MEDIUM
H
AMPHIB J
.
HIGH
GROUP
.
CONVOY
~~`../
GROUP J
LOW
IUM
MEDIUM
`
--
SURFAC
E
PUERTO RICO
ACTION
20?
GROUP
"- ,
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
Guided Missile Destroyers. Imple0ation of the
concept described herein could be accomplished by
acquisition of 18 DDGX's and 28 of the DGV's, as
opposed to 50 of the DDGX's. In the aircraft area,
acquisition of 410 of the VTOL aircraft is envisioned.
What may appear somewhat surprising is that acqui-
sition of an additional 190 LAMPS III helos would be
required for ASW coverage of the additional autono-
mous fleet groups created by addition of the DGV's.
Lastly, acquisition of additional vertically launched
missiles would be required to fill out the expanded
capability inherent in the DGV ship concept.
? DEMONSTRATE TURBOFAN VTOL AIRCRAFT CONCEPTUALLY
? DEMONSTRATE AIRCRAFT CONFORMAL SURVEILLANCE RADAR
? DEMONSTRATE THE DGV & CONDUCT AIRCRAFT SEA TRIALS.
ACQUISITION
? ACQUIRE 18 DDGX'S & 28 OGVs vs. 50 DOGXs
? ACQUIRE 410 VTOL AIRCRAFT
? ACQUIRE 190 ADDITIONAL LAMPS III HELDS FOR ASW COVERAGE
OF THE ADDITIONAL AUTONOMOUS FLEET GROUPS CREATED BY
ADDITION OF THE DGVs
Figure 13 tabulaahe desired performance and
desired characteristics of a high performance aircraft
for the surface combatant aviation roles envisioned.
In the top half of Figure 13, five roles are defined.
For each of these roles, the desired performance in
general terms is called out; speed, altitude, long
range and remote station loiter. Certainly, if the role
envisioned for the aircraft involves a lot of hovering
or very heavy load carrying capability for short
ranges, the obvious choice would be a helicopter, but
for the roles that we envision as being critical to the
surface combatant, aside from ASW, which is the re-
sponsibility of LAMPS, the performance illustrated in
the matrix is appropriate. In addition to the perfor-
mance characteristics noted, other desired character-
istics are that the airplane should be small for small-
ship basing, and that they should be numerous in
order to provide better ocean surveillance coverage.
In addition, it would be highly desirable if a sub-
stantial non-Navy acquisition base potential existed,
perhaps for the other services or for foreign Navies.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this con-
cept is briefly addressed in Figure 12, which is the
affordability of the concept. Basically, what has
been done at Grumman is to define a baseline Navy
from a variety of sources of information, then to
construct an alternative Navy along the lines of the
information previously presented, and then to cost
both out using various commonly recognized cost
models. The total cost of the ships, aircraft, and
weaponry for both the baseline and alternative sur-
face combatant Navy concepts has been established
in a rather extensive cost study at Grumman. The
outcome of the study was that by introduction of
the DGV, one could create 28 -autonomous surface
action and escort groups, each of which was cen-
tered about a DGV. The naval ship acquisition pro-
gram would be almost the same in the baseline vs.
the alternative case, with the alternative case in-
volving acquisition of only four less surface combat-
ants. What was found was that including the ships,
aircraft, and missiles, one could acquire this new
naval concept for the same fundamental cost as the
baseline case. Figure 12 only contains the outcome
of the study; presentation of the details of the study
are beyond the scope of this paper.
? 28 AUTONOMOUS SURFACE ACTION AND ESCORT GROUPS CREATED
CENTERED AROUND OGVs
? EQUAL COST OPTION INCLUDES:
- SHIPS
- AIRCRAFT
- MISSILES.
Figure 12 Affordability of the Concept
The Aircraft
Having presented the overall concept of the
integration of the aircraft with the ship and the
surface-launched, air-targeted missiles, it is now
appropriate to present more information on the kind
of aircraft envisioned for the roles involved.
? SURVEILLANCE
(OVER WATER)
REMOTE
HIGH HIGH LONG STATION
SPEED ALTITUDE RANGE LOITER
? TARGETING: AAW & ASUW X X X
? AUTONOMOUS MISSI LEER; X X X
AAW & ASUW
? JAMMER
? SURVEILLANCE & TAR- X X X
GETING (LAND TARGETS)
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
? SMALL: SMALL SHIP
BASING
? NUMEROUS
- COVERAGE
- ACQUISITION BASE
? LARGE NON-USN ACQUI-
SITION BASE POTENTIAL
- OTHER SERVICES
- FOREIGN
Figure 13 Potential Surface Combatant Subsonic High Altitude/Speed
Aircraft and Desired Characteristics
Figure 14 illustrates Grumman's Design 698 air-
craft concept. Basically, the aircraft is a twin tilt-
nacelle airplane, which is controlled through transi-
tion and hover primarily by means of horizontal and
vertical vanes located in the turbofan slipstream.
The airplane is of otherwise conventional arrangement
with one exception. Airplane designers as a whole
have gotten used to nose wheel type tricycle landing
gear arrangements. For this airplane we have re-
verted to a dual forward landing gear configuration.
This turned out to be overwhelmingly preferable for
turnover stability on small decks wherein rolling
motions of the ship could be expected. For a given
landing gear tread, a much higher turnover stability
could be achieved. Furthermore, since the airplane
in its STOL mode does not require rotation for take-
off with the fixed nacelle incidence, the tail wheel
could be counted upon for the steering function.
Further elaboration on the key features of our
Design 698 is presented in Figure 15. Of course, the
keynote of the design is simplicity. The simplicity is
obtained primarily through the fact that all VTOL
equipment is located within the engine nacelles,
(that is, provisions for thrust, modulation of thrust,
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
J
and control of the aircraft). If0e capability of
hovering in the event of a. single engine failure is
required, a backup cross shaft can readily be pro-
vided which is straight shaft between two right-
angle gear boxes in the turbofans. This shaft is
housed in the cross-box structure which links the
two engine packages together into what we have
called a "dumbbell" assembly. For military applica-
tions, one could consider operations without the
cross shaft in the event of an engine failure, for
reasons which will be discussed shortly. The air-
craft has excellent visibility due to the shape of the
nose, which is not in any way compromised by the
presence of VTOL-related equipment. In fact, the
entire airframe is completely free of VTOL provisions.
BACKUP CROSS-SHAFT
FOR ENGINE-OUT
STRAKES FOR POSITIVE IN NACELLE; CONTROL
GROUND EFFECT & VANES
SURVEILLANCE
RADAR
The major element of the aircraft, from a sys-
tems point of view, is the conformal surveillance
radar which is housed in the leading and trailing
edges of the wings and in the o fuselage strakes
which -are provided to give positive ground ef-
fect. These six arrays provide 360 degree surveil-
lance coverage about the aircraft, an~1c have an ex-
cellent detection capability against the spectrum of
air and surface targets, as well as being flush as-
semblies of a very low weight. For missile guidance,
a small pencil beam-X=-baud guidance_sadad is pro-
vided, which works in consonance with-the confor-
mal arrays for guioe of weaponry against both air
and surface targets.
Figure 16 provides more detailed information on
control of the aircraft in the hover mode. Addressing
first pitch control, we see that there are a pair of
vanes in the turbofan exhaust located below the cen-
ter of gravity. Pitch control of the aircraft is pro-
vided by symmetrical deflection of these vanes. Sim-
ilarly, differential deflection of these vanes produces
yaw control of the aircraft. For roll control, we have
provided both vertical vanes in the fan blast and
variable inlet guide vanes. Approximately 50% of the
roll control comes from each source. The major ben-
efit of this kind of a system is that the thrust modula-
tion of the engine for roll control is reduced from
roughly plus or minus 20% of maximum thrust to plus
or minus 10% of maximum thrust by use of the vertical
vanes. This results in a significant reduction in the
fan diameter requirements and weight of the power-
plant package.
? PITCH CONTROL BY SYMMETRICAL HORIZ. VANE DEFLECTION
? YAW CONTROL BY DIFFERENTIAL HORIZ. VANE DEFLECTION
? ROLL CONTROL BY DIFFERENTIAL THRUST & VERTICAL VANE
DEFLECTION
? HEIGHT CONTROL BY COLLECTIVE THRUST.
Figure 16 Vertical Flight Control
A second function of the variable inlet guide
vanes is to stabilize the aircraft in roll in the event
of an engine failure, for a configuration not employ-
ing a cross-shaft. Such might be used for military
applications. For even extremely sudden or cata-
strophic fan failures, it is possible to very rapidly
kill the thrust on the other side of the aircraft by
shutting the variable inlet guide vanes completely;
literally stuffing a cork in the live engine. This
gives .the crew adequate time for ejection. The sub-
ject of whether or not removal of the cross shaft is
advisable for military applications has arisen fairly
recently in order to reduce the cost and complexity
of the aircraft. It may turn out to be a very logical
thing to do, considering the fact that the overall
probability of failure during a hover period of one of
the two turbofans may be more operationally accept-
able than the reduction in reliability introduced by
the cross shaft assembly itself.
Perhaps the most important feature of the De-
sign 698 aircraft is that it utilizes a conventional
high bypass turbofan engine (bypass of approxi-
mately 6: 1) used in virtually all modern commercial
transports and also in the S-3 and A-10 military air-
craft. The engines in this class are characterized
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
by their excellent cruise efficiency and their high
static thrust. The TF34 engine is shown in Figure
17. Two of the A-10 TF34-100's are currently being
used to power the full scale model of Design 698 in
the 40 ft. x 80 ft. full scale tunnel test and the
outdoor static testing to follow. As will be seen
later, our ultimate intent is to build a technology
demonstrator of Design 698 in exactly the same size
as the wind tunnel model, using a pair of A-10 TF34
engines modified to accept inlet guide vanes and a
digital fuel control. Basically, these are the only
modifications required. Utilization of a slightly
modified TF34 engine for the technology demonstrator
is the key to being able to offer this program at low
cost.
TF 34 ENGINES ARE USABLE FOR A TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATOR AIRCRAFT
Figure 17 Design 698 Uses a Conventional Hi-Bypass Turbofan Engine
Adapted to V/STOL
It should be noted that a vigorous program of
variable-inlet-guide-vane technology demonstration
for the TF34 engine is currently under way at NASA
Lewis using a full scale TF34 engine.
The projected performance of the surveillance
version of Design 698 is presented in Figure 18.
This figure involves a very substantial upgrade of
the TF34 engine. However, there is little disagree-
ment about whether or not the technology levels are
achievable in the time frame in which such an aircraft
would become operational. The upgrade of the en-
gine was defined working in cooperation with
General Electric. In the case of this aircraft, we
used the same sort of short-lift ratings typical of
the Pegasus engine in definition of the allowable
takeoff gross weight. The aircraft had a crew of
two, with an overall mission load of 3,220 lb. and a
fuel allowable of 6,814 lb. for a tropical day takeoff.
This results in a fuel fraction of 29.2%, which is
very respectable and provides excellent mission per-
formance, considering the rather good specific fuel
consumption characteristic of the high-bypass
turbofan. The maximum Mach number is 0.8, the
cruise Mach number is 0.59, and the aircraft has
a time on station at 100 nautical miles of 3.65
hours. Ceiling of the aircraft is 50,000 ft. It should
be noted that while we frequently hear cries of
anguish about the "VTOL penalty", such penalty
takes the form of oversized engines, which is not
all bad. Figure 18 indicates that the sea level rate
of climb of this aircraft is nearly 15, 000 ft. per
minute, which is better than the Harrier, although,
of course, at the higher Mach numbers the high-
bypass-ratio fan begins to fade compared to the
lower-bypass class of the AV-8.
Figure 19 summarizes other applications of this
20,000 lb. class, subsonic turbofan VSTOL envisioned
by Grumman. Basically, we see a large acquisition
base potential for veros of the aircraft which we
have designated the OV-X, or the battlefield surveil-
lance aircraft. We forecast interest developing in
both the Army and Marine Corps. Foreign navies are
developing and building VSTOL carriers, and we
envision a rather large market in these navies for this
class of aircraft. Eventually, we feel that the
benefits of a commercial or executive VTOL transport
in the nine-passenger class, which is the class of this
aircraft (Cessna Citation, etc.), will be enthusiasti-
cally received. We think that the availability of an
aircraft that can takeoff and land in confined areas
like a helicopter, and still have a range of 1,200
nautical miles with comfort and low vibration levels,
will prove to be of great interest to this market. Oil
rig transport is a big factor in helicopter operations
today, and we feel that this airplane, with its high
block speed and comfort, will eventually come to
replace a substantial part of the helo fleet currently
in operation for these tasks. Another emergent
role which may seem somewhat surprising is the
search and rescue role. Recent discussions with
experts in this field indicate that the prime require-
ment for a combat search and rescue aircraft may
very well be to go along with raids against hostile
territory, such as in Viet Nam, and to be prepared
to rescue downed aviators through air pickups.
These become straightforward with the VTOL air-
craft, as opposed to letting the aviator go down into
the ocean beyond the range of helicopters, which
was a big problem in Viet Nam. The possibility of
land pickups of downed aviators also becomes much
more plausible with this class of airplane. In the
search and rescue regard, Air Force interest may
well evolve.
DES 698
TOGW (TROPIC DAY, VTO SHORT LIFT)"
23,269
MISSION-LOAD/FRACTION
3220/0.138
FUEL/FRACTION
6814/0.292
M
0
80
MAX
MCR
.
0.59
RAD (TOS = 0), N MI
TOS AT 100 N MI, HR
3.65
CEILING, FT
50,000
R/C @ SL, FPM
14,850
? LARGE ACQUISITION BASE POTENTIAL
? OV(X) BATTLEFIELD ACTIVE/PASSIVE WEAPONS CONTROL SYSTEM
- ARMY (OV-1 REPLACEMENT)
- USMC(OV-10 REPLACEMENT)
? SEARCH AND RESCUE
? FOREIGN NAVIES
? COMMERCIAL/EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT (STRONG NASA INTEREST)
? OIL RIG TRANSPORT
One of the first considerations in shipboard
operations of a new class of airplane is the amount
of landing area required for operations aboard ship.
Figure 20 compares Design 698 with the plan
area of a Sikorsky LAMPS Mark-III helo. It can be
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
seen at once from this Figure that the required
operating deck area is much smaller for the turbo-
fan design, and additionally, it is probably much
safer because of the absence of the possibility of
the rotor tips striking hangar or deck structure.
Furthermore, the high disk loading turbofan air-
craft is inherently less gust-susceptible than a
helicopter during hovering operations.
The next immediate question of interest is the .
size of the aircraft, not only for operations, but for
Figure 20 Landing Pad Compatibility
?
hangaring. Figure 21 shows the comparison of our
Design 698 with several of the helicopters existent
today, or planned for operations in the future.
Design 698 is compared with the SH-3 Sea King,
today's Kaman SH-2 LAMPS, and the newly designed
and acquired Sikorsky LAMPS Mark-III helos. The
size comparison is quite striking.
Hangar compatibility is of great importance,
since modification of ships is often a painful and
expensive proposition. Figure 22 shows the relative
hangaring of the Design 698 on the Perry FFG-7
class Frigate. It can be seen that the airplane
hangars very nicely.
Figure 23 shows the same sort of diagram, but
for the Spruance class DD-963 Destroyer. Here
again two aircraft can be hangared in this ship,
which was originally designed to accommodate two
LAMPs helos. One minor hitch here is that the
outer airplane locks the inner airplane into the
hangar due to the increased folded span of 698 vs.
the helo.
Moving upward in air capability for ships, in
Figure 24 we see the hangaring capability of De- _
sign 698 on a ship which was designed by NavSea,
but was never constructed - the DDH. This was a
Spruance-class destroyer modification involving a
five-aircraft hangar, which would give the ship a
basic round-the-clock surveillance capability without
substantially degrading the basic ASW mission of the
ship.,
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
a 41
Figure 22 Comparison of Design 698 with LAMPS MK III Helo
on FFG-7
Figure 24 Design 698 on DDH
Turning now to Figure 25, we have depicted a
ship which we have dubbed the DGV, Guided
Missile Aviation Destroyer. This ship has been
arrived at as a reasonable design by the joint efforts
of Litton/Ingalls and Grumman. The ship would
displace about 12,000 tons full load and is 569 ft.
long. It is a high-speed surface combatant carrying
120 missiles in vertical launch tubes. The com-
plement of aircraft for this ship would nominally be
eight surveillancelmissileers and two jammers, for a
maximum of ten aircraft aboard.
Figure 26 illustrates the planning for sea-based
aircraft among friendly nations projected to the year
1987. The total number of aircraft spots on these
vessels is projected to be 584, while approximately
300 are existent today. We feel that a substantial
number of these ship spots could be occupied by
aircraft of this type.
12,000 TONS (NOMINAL)
532 FEET (162.2M) WATERLINE
569 FEET (173.6M) OVERALL
68 FEET (28.6M)
94 FEET (28.6M)
34.2 FEET (10.4M)
128 VERTICAL LAUNCH TUBES
THREE 20 MM VULCAN PHALANX
EIGHT VTOL SURVEILLANCE/MISSILEER
TWO VTOL ADVANCED TACTICAL JAMMER
FOUR GAS TURBINES, TWO SHAFTS,
80,000 SHP
29+ KNOTS
BEAM
WIDTH AT FLIGHT DECK
DRAFT
MISSILE LAUNCHERS
GUNS
AIRCRAFT
LENGTH
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 COUNTRY
LIGHT
CARRIERS
(16.25 ACFT)
CRUISERS
(2.9 ACFT)
FRIGATES/
DESTROYERS
(1.3 ACFT)
TOTAL
ACFT
ARGENTINA
1
2
8
36
AUSTRALIA
1
3
23
BRAZIL
1
7
27
CANADA
14
20
FRANCE
3
1
15
141
GERMANY
12
24
ITALY
1
3
18
61
JAPAN
9
17
NETHERLANDS
20
38
SPAN
1
3
25
UNITED KINGDOM
3
2
70
138
OTHER*
3
29
34
TOTAL ACFT
255
42
287
584
"TOTAL OF SEVEN SMALL COUNTRIES
Design 698 Aircraft Development Program
Figure 27 summarizes the testing of our Design
698 in the 3 categories of wind tunnel, radio-control
models, and simulation against a background showing
one of our more interesting and dramatic tests of the
configuration. This was a whirling arm transition
facility where the aircraft could be taken from hov-
ering flight through transition to wing-borne flight
and back down again on the end of a 50 ft. ultra-
lightweight whirling arm. It was found that transi-
tioning of the aircraft with the crudest type of pitch,
RPM, and engine nacelle tilt controls, aided only by
a pitch-rate gyro, could be accomplished very easily
as a manual task.
It is important to note that most of the tests
performed on Design 698 (Navy and .NASA contribu-
tions to the full-scale model are the most notable ex-
ception) were conducted under Grumman Independent
Research and Development funding. The original-im-
getus for this work was the Navy's Type A VSTOL
program, which was terminated in the latter part of
1978. Fortunately, the technical work for this pro-
gram was almost entirely applicable to Grumman's fol-
low-on initiative, which was the idea of small aircraft
for surface combatants, which for Grumman was noth-
ing but a return to our earlier Nutcracker concept.
Started some five years earlier, the Nutcracker had
the same intent, but with a much less desirable air-
craft and shipboard equipment configuration. At any
rate, the Type A program gave us a large data base
to work with, and fortunately the basic aircraft con-
figuration has remained stable for a number of years
so that we could really. concentrate our research on
the fundamentals of the configuration.
The end objective, of course, of the testing
illustrated in Figure 27 is to provide the basis for
construction of a manned flight demonstrator. Fur-
ther illustration of the technology demonstrator ap-
proach for the turbofan class of aircraft is shown in
Figure 28. Many VTOL concepts have been previous-
ly demonstrated, and yet this turbofan concept, po-
tentially one of the most useful, has not been demon-
strated. This comment will be further explained in
the next figure. As an aside, many of the demon-
strations of VTOL concepts occurred in the 1950's
before technology was ready to give us production
aircraft with a high level of mission capability, that
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
?
is, engine thrust-to-weight ratios had not advanced
sufficiently, nor had composite structures and ultra
lightweight avionic systems with a high level of capa-
bility. Today, of course, the availability of these
technologies changes the picture entirely. What
happened in the '50's was that the Korean War showed
how useful helicopters could be. At the same time,
their drawbacks in terms of speed, range and comfort
were immediately obvious. It was quite natural to
seek a marriage of the virtues of conventional air-
craft with vertical lift and the search started with
great vigor and little success, simply because tech-
nology was not ready to provide the marriage of the
best facets of both worlds.
011 Q
10
g o
TYPE TEST
HOURS
o WIND TUNNEL
- FULL SCALE
322
- TRANSONIC
24
- LOW SPEED
3092
- CONTROL VANE
870
- GROUND EFFECTS
283
o RADIO CONTROL
12
o TRANSITION MODEL (SHOWN)
7
o MANNED SIMULATIONS
125
TOTAL
4735
o MANY VTOL CONCEPTS DEMONSTRATED PREVIOUSLY - YET THIS,
POTENTIALLY ONE OF THE MOST USEFUL, HAS NOT BEEN
o GRUMMAN, IN COOPERATION WITH USN AND NASA, HAS A FULL PRO-
GRAM OF WIND TUNNEL TESTS UNDERWAY ON PATENTED DESIGN 698
AIRCRAFT; CONFIGURATION PASSED NAVAIR MINI-EVALUATION
- SMALL SCALE TESTS
- FULL SCALE TESTS IN NASA 40 FT. X 80 FT. TUNNEL JUNE 1980
o FOLLOWING TUNNEL TESTING, GRUMMAN WILL BE READY TO BUILD
A TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR AIRCRAFT
- LOW COST PROGRAM THROUGH USE OF [EXISTING TF 34 ENGINES;]
2 AIRCRAFT
We at Grumman are convinced that the time is
right for a technology demonstrator in this class
which could ultimately lead to a very useful produc-
tion aircraft with both the capability to carry fuel
for a very substantial mission capability, plus a
very good mission load while operating in the verti-
cal takeoff mode. Towards the end objective of
demonstrating this technology, Grumman, in coop-
eration with NASA and the U.S. Navy, has recently
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
10
completed a full-scale wind tunnel test of a demon-
strator configuration based upon the use of
Mitsubishi-2 airframes. This full-scale tunnel test
will be followed by outdoor tests of the aircraft in
ground proximity to determine its characteristics
in terms of stability, control, suckdown, and reinges-
tion. The full scale tests are accompanied by a full
program of small scale tests of an aircraft having
exactly the same configuration as the full scale tun-
nel model. Following the completion of this broad
test program, Grumman will be in a position to pro-
pose to build a technology demonstrator of this air-
frame. We can offer a low-cost program through the
use of existing TF34 engines, which is most attrac-
tive in these austere R&D times.
Figure 29 illustrates my earlier comment on the
fact that a turbofan aircraft of this class has never
before been demonstrated. Figure 29 is the classical
plot of thrust achieved per horsepower invested as a
function of the disk loading of the propulsive device.
There are two ideal curves shown, the ideal fan and
the ideal prop. Against this backdrop are spotted
some, but not all, of the demonstrator concepts
which have been tried in the past. It can be immedi-
ately seen from this chart that the low disk loading
area has been thoroughly covered, and some very
significant work has been done in the higher disk
loading area, but the cloud in the center, which
contains all of the engines in the high-bypass com-
mercial or military category, has never been exposed
to a VTOL technology demonstrator investigation. In
other words, there is a very broad demonstrator
gap just where the most efficient cruise engines from
a commercial and military point of view lie. These
also have excellent static thrust characteristics. It
is our proposition to fill this gap with a Design 698
technology demonstrator.
THRUST, LB
HP
? ABC HELD
O XH2/CCR
O? X-100
- X-WING
~
? CL-84
I
? XV-15 \
? XZ-4DA,
? XC-142 \
IDEAL FAN
?? X-18\
X-19A IDEAL PROP
Figures 30, 31 an32 show three pictures of
the -Design 698 full-scale wind tunnel model mounted
on the outdoor test stand, where initial engine runs
were conducted, and within the tunnel set up for
transition testing. The data resulting from this
test program are in the analysis and reporting cycle
for dissemination to the industry at large. Seven-
hundred and forty independent measurements are
available spanning the range of forces, moments,
pressures, temperatures, acoustics, vibration, and
so forth.
In addition to measurement of overall aircraft
forces and moments, there is a separate balance sys-
tem for measuring the forces on the engine dumbbell
assembly alone. A further set of balances is in the
vane assemblies for measuring the vane lift, drag,
and hinge moment.
The approach to building a flight technology
demonstrator of the Design 698 aircraft is illustrated
in Figure 33. The nose module of a Mitsubishi-2
transport would be modified for a pair of side-by-side
ejection seats. A new center module would be added
for balance. The dumbbell assembly would be an en-
tirely new fabrication, specifically for the demon-
strator aircraft. The Mitsubishi-2 aft section and
wing assemblies could be used with minor modification.
A new vertical and horizontal tail assembly would
have to be provided, as would a retractable forward
main gear set and a retractable tailwheel assembly.
The question frequently arises in technology demon-
strators, "Why not use a fixed landing gear?" It
was felt in the case of this aircraft, for which high
speed performance is really its strongest suit, it
would be foolish to build an aircraft which would be
limited by a fixed landing gear.
? MANNED DEMONSTRATOR HAS BEEN BUILT
O HAS NOT PROGRESSED TO MANNED DEMONSTRATOR YET
AREA OF SUBSONIC
COMM'L & MILITARY AIRCRAFT
i
0 400. 800 1200 1600 2000
DISC LOADING LB/FT2
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05T00644R000200560004-8
 Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05TOO644ROO0200560004-8
Figure 30 Full Scale Model on Outdoor Test Stand - Nacelles in
Cruise Position
In, summary, Grumman believes strongly, not
only in our basic aircraft design concept, but in the
value of a flying technology demonstrator program
predicated upon what we feel are solid future naval
and military applications, as well as civil uses of this
20,000 lb. class of VTOL.
MODULE
MU-2M NOSE
(MOD FOR
/ NEW TAIL
MU-2M WING
(REMOVE ENGINES,
ADD "GULL" DIHEDRAL)
Approved For Release 2009/08/12 : CIA-RDP05TOO644ROO0200560004-8