Sea monsters. WEEK Review

128
Sea monsters. WEEK Review


The wounded "Spitfire" was heavily pulled over the English Channel to the West, and it seemed that the damaged car and its pilot had no chance to reach the shores of Britain. When he completely lost altitude and was already flying, almost clinging to the plane of the wings for the crests of the waves, the pilot suddenly felt that the flight had stabilized. As if a soft invisible hand lifted the plane ...

This is exactly how fiction encounters of people with a screen effect are described in fiction. That is, with an increase in the lifting force of the wing and a change in the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft when flying near the shielding surface (water, earth, etc.), the incoming air flow forms an “air cushion”, which creates lifting force not only due to a decrease in pressure above the upper plane of the wing (as in ordinary aircraft), but due to the increased pressure under the lower plane, which can be created only at extremely low altitudes (less than the wing aerodynamic chord). The pressure surge must reach the surface, be reflected and have time to reach the wing. Hence an important conclusion: the larger the plane of the wing, the lower the flight speed and the lower the altitude, the stronger the screen effect. Now briefly leave the aerodynamics and turn to stories.

By the 60 years of the twentieth century, military technology reached such a level that two developed countries could destroy each other in a matter of hours. In such conditions, not so much the technical characteristics of “faster, higher, stronger”, but the cost weapons. In the development of marine systems, the Soviet Union, as usual, went its own way, and as a result there appeared a whole separate type of technology called "EKV", and here the USSR achieved, frankly, impressive successes.

The most lifting and cheapest form of transport is water (sea, river). Aviation transport is not comparable with water transport for energy costs. According to these criteria, the best transport aircraft looks like a flying embarrassment against the background of an old wooden longboat. At the longboat, the weight of the transported cargo can be 5 times its weight, and a very good aircraft (with fuel) weighs two to three times more than the transported cargo. Worse than air transport is only space rocket, where a payload weight of 1% of the starting weight can be considered an excellent result.

And so, the WIG, as it seemed then, harmoniously combined in itself the carrying capacity, the economy of sea-going ships and the enormous speeds of aircraft. I do not like to work with hypothetical things, just as I do not like the attraction of facts "by the ears." Therefore, let us turn to the actually existing structures and try to find out the strengths and weaknesses of WIG.

"Caspian Monster"



The giant ekranoplan KM-1, the brainchild of the Rostislav Alekseev design bureau. Empty mass - 240 tons., Maximum take-off weight - 544 tons (!). The only aircraft that broke this record is the An-225 Dream. Cruising speed - up to 500 km / h. Awesome!
But is it all so simple? Due to what were these magnificent characteristics achieved? Let's look at the photo: the first thing that catches your eye is 10 (ten!) VD-7 jet engines, each with 130 kN. Is it a lot or a little?
Here, for example, the same age as the Caspian Monster, the passenger Tu-154B. The Tupolev is equipped with three NK-8 turbofan engines with 100 kN thrust in takeoff mode. The maximum take-off weight of the Tu-154B is 100 tons. As a result, a simple proportion:
KM - maximum take-off weight 544 tons, total thrust 10 engines - 1300 kN.
Tu-154B - maximum take-off weight 100 tons, total thrust 3-x engines - 300 kN.
And where is the economy, like a sea vessel, about which we talked so much today? And she is not! And the answer is very simple: she has nowhere to take. Tu-154 flies at a height in the rarefied layers of the atmosphere, and the CM is forced to break through the dense air near the water itself. Tupolev has clean lines, a sleek and streamlined fuselage, narrow swept wings - compare this with the monstrous appearance of the CM, which only 8 engines mounted on the wings are worth! Monstrous air resistance eliminates all the advantages of the screen effect.
Another imperceptible reason for which the effectiveness of WIG is suffering is low speed. As we have already found out, WIG and aircraft engines consume approximately the same amount of fuel per unit of time in cruising mode. But the plane, due to greater speed, passes a much greater distance during this time!
Yes, 10 KM engines are supposedly needed only in take-off mode; when entering cruise mode, some of the engines are turned off. But then the question is: how long does this “takeoff mode” last? The answer will be the events of 1980 of the year - an attempt to reduce the cravings resulting in a catastrophe and the death of the "Caspian monster".

"Lun"



Ekranoplan-rocket carrier "Lun", the pride of the Soviet military-industrial complex, the talk of the town. The mass of empty - 243 tons. Maximum take-off - 388 tons. Speed ​​- 500 km / h. Impressive.
"Lun" was built in duplicate and there is much more information on it than on its predecessor. So let's dwell on it in more detail.
Again, look at the beautiful photos. At this time, the ground effect vehicle is equipped with 8 jet engines NK-87 with 130 kN. Maybe these are some special efficient engines with minimal fuel consumption?
Not. NK-87 - modification of the turbojet NK-86 turbojet engine for the wide-body IL-86 airliner. The specific fuel consumption for the NK-86 is 0,74 kg / kgf / h in takeoff mode. A similar indicator for NK-87 is 0,53 kg / kgf • hour.
Here it is, saving, you will say happily. Unfortunately no. IL-86 uses the 4 engine, while Lun uses the 8. Moreover, the maximum take-off weight of the IL-86 is 215 tons, which is only one and a half times less than that of the WIG.

IL - a passenger plane on the 350 seats, and the "Lun" or "Caspian monster" - still cargo vehicles. Well, let's compare the “Lun” with the famous transport plane, I’m not afraid to say, the best aircraft in the world of its class is the An-124 “Ruslan”. With a maximum take-off mass of 400 tons to 150 tons, it may be attributable to USEFUL LOAD. An ekranoplan, alas, cannot boast with such an indicator - the Lunya payload is no more than 100 tons.
The flight range of the "Ruslan" with a load of 150 t - 3000 km, and with 40 tons of An-124 will fly to 11 000 km! What does the Lun offer us? 2 000 km, and the load is not specified in any source. Possibly empty.

And now let's list the obvious shortcomings of WIG:
First, the speed. The cruise speed of WIG - 400 ... 500 km / h, which is more than two times less than that of conventional jets.
On the other hand, 500 km / h - this is significantly higher than that of sea vessels. But, again, this is not all simple. A regular cargo ship or tanker makes 20 nodes with a load on average. Every hour, day and night, in a storm and fog, without refills and breaks. Profitability is not even worth comparing - ship diesel is much more economical than a jet engine for specific fuel consumption, and taking into account the difference in the cost of diesel and high-quality aviation kerosene ...
And again about the cost-effectiveness - the design of an airplane is twice as heavy as an airplane of the same size. Yes, when built instead of aviation technology, shipborne technologies are sometimes used, but this difference from the hardy covers the cost of 8 power plants and the enormous dimensions of the ship-aircraft. I'm not talking about the cost of maintenance: 8 engines - this is not a joke.

Secondly, a very important quality versatility. As we remember, the ground-effect vehicle is able to fly only over an almost perfectly smooth surface. Yes, it can with an effort fly over a low barrier (not higher than a couple of hundred meters) ... but, anyway, the areas of its use are limited to sea areas, large lakes and, possibly, tundra and desert. The very first forest line or power line will be the last for an ekranoplan. Unlike ekranoplans, for planes, the relief under the wing does not matter: where it is necessary, we will fly there.
Moreover, ekranoplans have very poor maneuverability. Experimental ekranoplan of Beriev Design Bureau - 14М1П (max. Take-off weight of 50 tons) every time you change course you had to stop, turn off engines and turn the tug in the right direction. Although according to calculations, he had to do it himself.

Thirdly, for the WIG is really no use. If urgent delivery of people and goods is required, it is more profitable to use an airplane. If you need to deliver a large shipment of cargo across the ocean - any customer will choose a ship, because better to wait a couple of weeks, but save millions.
Actually, “Lun” existed in 2 –x variants: the missile carrier with the 6 PKR “Mosquito” and “Rescuer”. I will not even speak about the missile carrier - it represented a danger only for its own crew (the height of a flight of a few meters does not give pilots the right to make a mistake). Moreover, the Tu-22M was much more powerful carrier "Mosquitoes" ...
"Rescuer" - sounds great. Night, shipwreck - and suddenly an ekranoplan jumps out of the darkness, picks up the victims, an EMERCOM mobile hospital is deployed on board ... and that's all saved! However, this has nothing to do with reality: in an hour, the place of the shipwreck will consist of people in inflatable vests scattered within a radius of several kilometers. As planned to carry out their search with a ground-effect vehicle, flying at a speed of 500 km / h a few meters from the water, remains a mystery. In any case, a small range of flight allowed the "Rescuer" to work only in coastal areas. And, tell me please, what is the difference between an ekranoplan and a conventional seaplane, the same amphibious Be-200? Seaworthy? But it is a myth, the storm is equally detrimental to the use of both means.
To use an ekranoplan for landing? Only Mistral is suitable for landing on overseas territories - there is a completely inadequate range and payload for EKP. To land with an ekranoplan landing in Georgia? But it is a very long way, much closer by airplanes through Madagascar.
Given all the above, it becomes clear the rapid extinction of the interest of the Soviet leadership to the topic of ekranoplanes, for 30 for years the entire 3 of such "monster" was released. Steep hybrid of the ship and the aircraft actually turned out to be a bad airplane and a bad ship.

Dear readers, you can draw your own conclusions from these facts and interpret my article in your own way. One thing is certain - buyers have already voted with a wallet - no army in the world is interested in monster-winged ekranoplanes, however, like commercial structures. All ekranoplan use is now limited to light flying rides for the amusement of the public.











128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vostok-47
    +5
    25 February 2012 09: 24
    Really monsters, but they also have their advantages.
    1. recitatorus
      +14
      26 February 2012 16: 06
      The article is idiocy !!!
      The first computers were the size of a house !!! And if such bookkeepers were concerned with his fate, she would undoubtedly be sad! ..
      Enumerating the advantages of airplanes, the author somehow forgot one small, but significant, nuance that completely destroys all the advantages - airfields! Building them alone is already not cheap, and their need narrows the spectrum of airplanes to a minimum. something flew in, first build a strip! And in Russia, with its endless expanses, especially in the north, this is impossible, there will not be enough money! The same device and the tundra, and rivers, and lakes, everything is an airfield !!! And if you bring his mind, then the cost of transportation will become more than attractive! ..
      But, I feel, we’ll go along the beaten track again: we will wait until the ekranoplanes come to mind in the west, and then we begin to catch up, overtake, make up and such crap ... And again, as in the case of Sikorsky, with Zvarykin, with Popov, we will tell terrible tales that the first ekranoplan, kids, invented a Russian man by the name of Alekseev !!! But he didn’t do it at a good time, Brezhnev’s stagnation, then perestroika, filthy 90s, zero stagnation again, reboot, overload, crisis, elections, re-elections, in short, a lot of things, I don’t want to live, I would live ...
      1. Yurkin
        +1
        27 February 2012 00: 06
        But what about seaplanes ?? Seed on the facts from the article, the seaplane will have better profitability, less accident rate, and seaworthiness is the same.
        1. +2
          27 February 2012 00: 39
          Seaplanes cannot be splashed down, much less take off from the sea surface with a ballast of more than 2. No matter where it is written. This explains the presence of a large number of engines in ekranoplanes and the shutdown of some of them in cruise flight mode. In addition, the wingspan and overall strength are less than that of the object under discussion. the proportions of the ekranoplan are more marine than the seaplane.
          1. +2
            27 February 2012 18: 21
            Quote: desava
            Seaplanes cannot be splashed down, much less take off from the sea surface with a ballast of more than 2.


            Your rating is correct. The maximum wave height for large seaplanes (take-off weight of more than 15 tons) is 1,8 - 2,0 m.

            Secondly, usually in rescue operations the most effective helicopter. As always with the verbosity, only the facts:
            On November 27 last year, the Swanland bulk carrier with a crew of 8 Russians sank in the Irish Sea. 7 point storm, 15 wind m / s. The SeaKing helicopter managed to raise sailors from the 2 water. By the way, Prince Vilyam flew the helicopter, a famous story
            1. 0
              28 February 2012 06: 28
              As for the helicopter, I agree, it can operate in difficult storm conditions. Its range and fuel supply are too limited and, as a result, cannot save a significant number of people. On the other hand, nothing is known about the capabilities of the ekranoplan in difficult conditions (I believe it should have inflatable motor boats of the "Zodiac" type on board). As already mentioned in this direction, it is still necessary to conduct research. The large dimensions of the ekranoplan will only be beneficial.
              1. +2
                1 March 2012 18: 28
                Its range, fuel supply is too limited.

                And here it is not true. Nobody canceled refueling in the air.
                1. A_B
                  A_B
                  0
                  1 March 2012 19: 49
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  And here it is not true. Nobody canceled refueling in the air

                  why ? from another ekranoplan (15 meters) flight altitude.
                2. +1
                  2 March 2012 06: 30
                  Yeah, refueling in the air in stormy weather ...
                3. Karish
                  0
                  5 January 2013 12: 16
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  And here it is not true. Nobody canceled refueling in the air.

                  Well, yes, the tanker what height should go down? Given the fact that the ekranoplane can not rise above 100 meters (in exceptional cases), and with its maneuverability, only a suicide will leave it to fuel.
                4. 0
                  10 January 2024 11: 59
                  I'd like to take a look at refueling a helicopter in stormy conditions.
              2. +1
                1 March 2012 18: 54
                I specifically brought a picture of February 27 2012 23: 37
                Take-off at 5 points, landing to 6, with more confident movement on the surface, when overloaded saved - drift to the support approach.
                Thanks to the scheme with a small area of ​​the waterline (in the picture), helicopters operate from the side in a storm.
                1. Karish
                  0
                  5 January 2013 12: 17
                  Quote: Andriuha077
                  I specifically brought a picture of February 27 2012 23: 37
                  Take-off at 5 points, landing to 6, with more confident movement on the surface, when overloaded saved - drift to the support approach.

                  Keeping such a monster only for rescue operations is ridiculous. There are cheaper and more tried methods.
                  1. 0
                    5 January 2013 12: 41
                    There are more

                    Example?
                    1. Karish
                      0
                      5 January 2013 14: 54
                      Quote: Andriuha077
                      Example?

                      Helicopters, if urgent. Ships, boats, but you never know what.
                      1. 0
                        5 January 2013 16: 55
                        In general terms, can you imagine the speed of a ship, the range of a helicopter?
          2. Yurkin
            0
            27 February 2012 21: 15
            OK. But I think it is unlikely that the MO will refuse from ekranoplanes if they are really effective. In the light of those large-scale purchases, there would be a place for them. Judging by the comments a) the article is a little one-sidedly written b) many have great pride in ekranoplans, as no other country has such a thing.
            1. Karish
              0
              5 January 2013 12: 20
              Quote: Yurkin
              many have great pride in ekranoplans, since no other country has such a thing.

              Maybe not - because they are not needed? request
              And pride - because it’s big. In the USSR they always loved BIG - very few people thought about efficiency.
              So far, no one has expressed their application except for rescue operations.
      2. Darn
        0
        27 February 2012 15: 29
        I also didn’t like the article, it seems to me that the article doesn’t make quite correct comparisons; on Yandex, a news flashed a month ago that the construction of ekranoplanes will begin at the Avangard plant in Petrozavodsk, although there weren’t any said, so not all is lost.
      3. YARY
        +1
        5 January 2013 11: 51
        ARTICLE ORDERED!
        Treacherous and wrecking!
        WRITTEN BY A SERIES OF CONCEPTUALS AS AN EXPERT
        !
  2. +10
    25 February 2012 09: 26
    only 30 such "monsters" have been released in 3 years

    Why is there no third photo ?? Which the A-90 "Eaglet" Project 904. Not like a monster.
    1. +4
      25 February 2012 15: 36
      and there was only one monster - KM (in our opinion - the Model Ship) and "friends" from across the ocean Caspian Monster - either they had Halloween when they saw it, or something else they smoked wassat

      sorry I didn’t find the photo, there on the horizontally plumage the inscription KM request
      1. 0
        27 February 2012 23: 37
        The final work of Alekseev with the participation of Aframeev - the theme of Rise-2-SME
        with a total take-off weight of approx. 750 tons, flight speed 400-500 km / h and range from the base 3000-4000 km. They are able to take off and land on water when agitated to 5 points inclusive (i.e. for waves with a height of up to 3,5-4,0 m), which will allow them to operate in the open sea up to 95% of the time in a year (according to the conditions of the sea). Dual-mode means that these ekranoplanes (unlike single-mode ekranoplanes of the 1st generation, whose cruising range is not more than 50 km) can move for a long time on the water surface and even reach the port of refuge from any point of their presence on the water at low speed at a speed of approx. 15-20 nodes in the event that for some reason it will not be possible to fly (due to sea waves, failure of any systems, icing, etc.).
        1. Karish
          0
          5 January 2013 12: 24
          Quote: Andriuha077
          with a total take-off weight of approx. 750 tons, with a flight speed of 400-500 km / h and a range of 3000-4000 km from the base. They are able to take off and land on water with waves up to 5 points inclusive (i.e., with waves up to 3,5-4,0 m high), which will allow them to operate in the open sea up to 95% of the time in a year

          And what should they do in the open sea 95% of the operating time? What tasks?
          Quote: Andriuha077
          can move for a long time on the water surface and even reach the port of refuge from any point of their presence on the water at low speed at a speed of approx. 15-20 knots if for some reason it will not be possible to fly (due to sea waves, failure of any systems, icing, etc.).

          Again, the question, Azachem? Get an expensive boat with wings? What will he do with his 750 tons? What to transport?
    2. 0
      27 February 2012 20: 17
      This Eaglet easily carried an armored personnel carrier.
      Impressive?
      http://

      1. Karish
        0
        5 January 2013 12: 26
        Quote: Igarr
        This Eaglet easily carried an armored personnel carrier.
        Impressive?

        No.
        Armored personnel carriers can be transported in cheaper ways. Or does armored personnel carrier relate to weapons that radically change the course of hostilities?
  3. Sergh
    0
    25 February 2012 09: 43
    Yes, the handsome men have no words, I won’t judge in the appointment, I don’t know, but from the outside it looks impressive and impressive!
    1. vadimus
      +1
      25 February 2012 11: 14
      He looks very angry. However, the performance characteristics are not sour ...
    2. +2
      25 February 2012 15: 03
      and in the assignments, these machines occupy a niche that is located between planes and ships and is beyond the power of hydroaviation, seaworthiness is comparable to ships of small displacement, speed and carrying capacity (it can also be a payload - you can missiles, radar, torpedoes, etc.), transport -A landing craft - because the flight to move above the surface of the earth, uses a low-altitude flight profile, and speed - which is not available for helicopters and convectors (for example Osprey), and even despite all this - the USSR was a leader, a pioneer in this field, we had working models , while other countries have just begun to learn something about it, and now they think it is worth it or not it is worth reviving, meanwhile Alekseev is recognized as a brilliant designer, (he is the father of ekranoplanes and hydrofoils like Rocket, Comet) and in all developed countries, including Japan and the United States are actively developing models in the likeness of Alekseev’s machines, which are considered promising by the means of transport, and here from the leaders out of the blue, due to reflection, it is necessary, it is not necessary, unless we can sell it to third countries - the circus !!!! Undoubtedly, this industry should develop!
      1. Karish
        0
        5 January 2013 12: 31
        Quote: Dart Weyder
        and in all developed countries, including Japan and the United States, samples are being actively developed in the likeness of Alekseev’s cars, which are considered a promising mode of transport,

        If possible with links (photos are desirable) I somehow did not dig up about the development of a promising mode of transport (ekranoplanes) in all developed countries of the world.
        At one time, America advertised the SDI, doing nothing managed to drive the USSR into squandering huge sums of money. Do not you think that this is another dead end branch. Want to squander the headstock and eventually get a gold sledgehammer.
  4. Igor
    +9
    25 February 2012 09: 47
    You look at these photos and it becomes sad, this ekranoplan, like a whale that has washed ashore and is now slowly dying.
    1. +2
      25 February 2012 14: 49
      yes, it would be nice to put them in order
  5. freedom
    +1
    25 February 2012 10: 36
    Any aircraft will have its own air defense missile, any sea (river) vessel will have its own torpedo or anti-ship missile system, what will we look for for a "monster" (subject to stealth)? They were created primarily for the delivery of troops to any point, for the application of tactical missile strikes. I first learned about the problems with maneuverability from this article. And what is expensive, that's for sure.
    1. Karish
      0
      5 January 2013 12: 32
      Quote: freedom
      They were created primarily for the delivery of troops to anywhere, the application of tactical missile attacks.

      All this is done by other means - more efficient and cheaper.
  6. Ion coaelung
    0
    25 February 2012 10: 38
    A very unusual solution speed and efficiency! But waves, high waves were the only obstacle to the development of this monster. But for calm, this is a brilliant solution!
    1. Igor
      +1
      25 February 2012 10: 47
      Quote: Ion Coaelung
      high waves were the only obstacle to the development of this monster.


      Are warships sent to war or a campaign in a storm?
      1. Ion coaelung
        +3
        25 February 2012 11: 29
        In the case of ekranoplans, 1-1,5 meters is already very dangerous to plan. But for warships such waves are not a hindrance.
        1. Igor
          +1
          25 February 2012 13: 27
          Here they write that the flight altitude on the screen: 4-14 m., And seaworthiness: 3 points

          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/КМ_(экраноплан)
          1. +5
            25 February 2012 13: 37
            Agree But the year of development: 60th! In the seventies "Lun", seaworthiness of 5 points.
          2. 0
            1 March 2012 19: 00
            They don’t write that the Beriev’s 2500 machine was intended to launch a heavy rocket into space from a height of 10ty meters.
            Exit to the equator, heading east, set, let's go.
    2. +5
      27 February 2012 18: 41
      There were no waves a hindrance for ekranoplanes.
      The author writes - in meters from the water.
      I forgot to add - how many meters.
      And to 15 meters, normal height?
      Find some of these "killer waves" in Namibia? In winter in the North Atlantic?

      Article - two and a half. There are the right messages. And the conclusion is wrong.
      The ekranoplanes as described in the article were exceptional combat vehicles. And not in the form of - amphibious assault. Namely, as percussion, missile-carrying machines.
      In the same application, they now occupy an unexplored and undeveloped niche. I see at least one other aspect of the application - anti-submarine vehicles. Flew to the point, splashed down, assessed the situation. Or aimed at the target. In short - fired by torpedoes - drove further. And let the submarine track such a goal - on the trail on the surface of the water from the working screws. As in the article about air defense for submarines.
      And for civilian use - as emergency tasks.
      For the conditions of the Far North - great cars.

      The author, apparently, really does not like ekranoplans.
      Or Russia's priority in this matter.
      1. +2
        1 March 2012 18: 38
        And to 15 meters, normal height?
        The screen effect is strictly dependent on the speed and altitude.
        At an altitude of 15 meters, to save the screen effect, you will have to significantly reduce speed. Or you will have to switch to normal low-altitude flight mode. And how then will the screen be different from an airplane? The fact that it flies slower and less economical? Excellent prospects, undeveloped niche wink

        anti-submarine vehicles. He flew to the point, splashed down, assessed the situation. Or aimed at the target.

        Such means, alas, have long been: Il-38, P-3 Orion, Nimrod, Tu-142 finally. Unlike the screen, they are faster, more economical and generally more efficient.

        In short - shot with torpedoes - let's go further
        Stupid. I laughed. To do this, you first need to find a submarine, and for this, put up not one barrier from sonar buoys over a vast area and check with a magnetometer thousands of square kilometers. Only a base patrol aircraft is capable of this.
      2. 0
        1 March 2012 18: 58
        Bravo, that's right.
      3. Karish
        +1
        5 January 2013 12: 39
        Quote: Igarr
        Namely, as percussion, missile-carrying machines.
        In the same application, they now occupy an unexplored and undeveloped niche.

        Nobody needs a niche. Than they are better than Boats - missile carriers or aircraft of missile carriers. What is the advantage?
        Quote: Igarr
        I see at least one other aspect of the application - anti-submarine vehicles. Flew to the point, splashed down, assessed the situation.

        To do this, do not splash down. Aircraft scatters buoys much more efficiently and cheaper. Or how ? He got splashed, stopped the crew scattered equipment, took off, after a kilometer the same splashed down - stopped - looked around laughing
        Quote: Igarr
        In short - fired by torpedoes - drove further. And let the submarine track such a goal - on the trail on the surface of the water from the working screws. As in the article about air defense for submarines.

        Baby talk stop
        Quote: Igarr
        The author, apparently, really does not like ekranoplans.

        All your (above) methods of their application cause just laughter.
    3. Karish
      +1
      5 January 2013 12: 33
      Quote: Ion Coaelung
      A very unusual solution speed and efficiency! But waves, high waves were the only obstacle to the development of this monster. But for calm, this is a brilliant solution!

      It remains only to learn how to control the weather or to predict the beginning of hostilities to calm. Or, at worst, say - we are not fighting in the storm. wassat
  7. +3
    25 February 2012 10: 57
    “If you are so smart, why don't you go in formation?” ... I mean, if ekranoplanes are so unprofitable and voracious, why is America working on its Pelican?
    Who cares, you can google Alekseev's numerous unrealized projects. At our level, you can give birth to a "monster" and abruptly.
    1. Jaguar
      +2
      25 February 2012 18: 41
      The Pelican is just a concept, far from the drawing.
  8. Anatoly
    +1
    25 February 2012 11: 19
    I hope I have enough mind (Russian Defense Ministry) to revive them.
    1. 0
      25 February 2012 11: 38
      http://vpk.name/news/60934_minoboronyi_okonchatelno_otkazalos_ot_ekranoplanov.ht
      ml

      http://pikabu.ru/story/kaspiyskikh_monstrov_budut_utilizirovat_sudba_yekranoplan
      araketonosetsa_lun_427436? a = 1

      unlikely to take on a revival!
    2. 0
      25 February 2012 11: 46
      http://army-news.ru/2011/11/minoborony-okonchatelno-otkazalos-ot-ekranoplanov/

      unlikely, on the contrary, they were going to recycle!
  9. Volkhov
    0
    25 February 2012 11: 55
    Alekseev's ekranoplanes appeared as a development of hydrofoils - it was a step forward. The narrow specialization on the ground effect is really inconvenient, but its use by the Condor aircraft made it possible to increase the range and patrol time, that is, this is just one of the flight modes. The normal development is more likely to include in the designs of new aircraft the possibility of using this mode for overload start, waiting over the sea, border patrols, mine clearance, flight with a lack of engine thrust ...
  10. +8
    25 February 2012 12: 52
    In general, I liked the article. But the general "one-sidedness" of the judgment is inappropriate. I wanted to say that the author initially set out to point out the disadvantages of this type of vehicle. I will not argue that many of the above facts are true. I will take, with your permission, the opposite position.

    So firstly. Ekranoplanostroeniya and design, and R&D were not at all priority in the country. Enthusiasts were engaged (even the building of the Alekseyev Design Bureau speaks about this). Accordingly, there were few resources for the development of these devices and capabilities. With the development of computer technology, many problems (including manageability) are now being solved.
    The following: economic feasibility and the related universality (although rather functionality). Cargo aircraft of the corresponding class require airfields with a prepared concrete strip, which is not necessary for the ekranoplan, the main thing is the presence of the coast. For many hard-to-reach and remote areas, this is a definite advantage.
    The third. Use as an amphibious assault. Still, high-speed capabilities in comparison with the BDK and UDC have a positive aspect in this direction.
    And lastly, it can be used as a lifesaving device. This is perhaps the most controversial question I have with the author. It has too many advantages over existing rescue means (airplanes, seaplanes, helicopters and ships). The fact that the crew of a drowned ship will be scattered over a large water area is a special case, albeit a common one. In this scenario, all means will be ineffective (helicopter - short range, carrying capacity; rescue ship - low speed of arrival at the accident site, aircraft in general will not be able to help anything except search, coordination and release of life rafts). But the ekranoplan has the necessary payload, speed and the ability to splash down at the accident site (there is also a nuance here - the dependence on the degree of excitement, that is, the force of bad weather). One of the issues of Popular Mechanics described the An-225 Mriya - ekranoplan rescue complex. A very entertaining article.
    1. +3
      25 February 2012 14: 45
      Quote: desava
      The following: economic feasibility and the related universality (although rather functionality). Cargo aircraft of the corresponding class require airfields with a prepared concrete strip, which is not necessary for the ekranoplan, the main thing is the presence of the coast. For many hard-to-reach and remote areas, this is a definite advantage.


      Exactly!
      Actually, as far as I know, the "Alekseevites" offered at one time projects of ekranoplanes to such countries as Japan or Indonesia. That is, island, with a long coastline, but with a lack of land for the construction of airports.
      True, potential customers for some reason did not express particular enthusiasm and did not rush to purchase such machines ...
      1. Sergh
        0
        25 February 2012 14: 55
        Roman 75, bro, I’d change my profile picture, not summer anymore.
        1. +1
          25 February 2012 18: 49
          Quote: Sergh
          I’d change my profile picture, not summer anymore.


          I didn’t enter.
          What side is summer to my profile picture?
          1. schta
            +2
            27 February 2012 14: 39
            Like "the sun", although someone associates with what. Basically, there are not many connoisseurs of ancient Slavic symbols here, but everyone knows aloizycha ...
            ... this is so, by the way
    2. +4
      25 February 2012 15: 03
      Ekranoplanostroeniya and design, and R&D were not at all priority in the country. Enthusiasts were engaged (even the building of the Alekseyev Design Bureau speaks about this).

      For more than 30 years of work, it was already possible to enter mass production for a long time. But the idea itself was not viable, so the country's leadership turned its back on Alekseev after KM tests.
      Those. desava, you confuse the cause with the effect.

      With the development of computer technology, many problems (including manageability) are now being solved.
      And the controllability of the ekranoplan did not depend on electronics. The problem was fundamental natural laws. Do you know how the plane turns?

      Cargo aircraft of the appropriate class require aerodromes with a prepared concrete strip
      Humanitarian aid IL-76 landing in places of natural disasters miserably refute your theory, desava

      what the ekranoplan does not need, the main thing is the presence of the coast.
      Yes? How will you unload it? Into the impenetrable jungle? Or on the rocks of Kunashir Island? Or to the forest-tundra, where is the nearest village 500 km away? Somewhere on the forum, information has already passed that no more than 15% of the coast of all seas and oceans are suitable for such "landing"

      Use as an amphibious assault. Still, high-speed capabilities in comparison with the BDK and UDC have a positive aspect in this direction.
      Not true. Such operations are not planned spontaneously. There is always time to deploy forces in any, even the most remote corner of the World Ocean. Moreover, the ekranoplan, unlike the UDC, will not be able to get there.

      In this scenario, all means will be ineffective
      Wow, that’s right!
      By the way, how then will the ekranoplan differ from the Be-200 or Albatross? They have a higher speed, and a search from them is more effective, and they can be splashed ...
      1. +3
        25 February 2012 16: 07
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But the idea itself was not viable, so the country's leadership turned its back on Alekseev after KM tests.


        And who in the 60s was so far-sighted in our leadership? Priorities were in the field of aviation and rocket science - the main efforts were directed there. Such experimental developments were paid much less attention. I repeat:

        Quote: desava
        Enthusiasts were engaged (even the building of the Alekseyev Design Bureau speaks about this). Accordingly, there were few resources for the development of these devices and capabilities.


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And the controllability of the ekranoplan did not depend on electronics. The problem was fundamental natural laws.

        I will give an example of B-2. A pilot without this same electronics cannot be lifted into the air, not just to pilot. When controlling the ekranoplan, it was necessary for the pilot to be in constant voltage and take into account a huge number of factors (wind, excitement, pressure, and many other parameters about which I do not know anything) and act immediately. Modern control systems can perform computational operations instantly and generate executive signals to the appropriate drive. I hope we have clarified this aspect.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Humanitarian aid IL-76 landing in places of natural disasters miserably refute your theory, desava

        I would like a couple of examples. This is still a special case when the strip is able to take such a plane without getting bogged down in the ground, breaking the landing gear. More than sure that in this case, the load of the aircraft was cut off by half the maximum.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And how do you unload it? Straight into the impenetrable jungle? Or on the rocks of Kunashir island?

        With the help of watercraft, if there is no way to get closer to the shore. And with the help of a cargo plane or ship, can you solve the problem better?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Or to the forest-tundra, where the nearest village is 500 km?

        Agree, inappropriate statement. It was about coastal areas.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Such operations are not planned spontaneously.

        Not always. And to ensure the suddenness of the landing means at a speed of 400-500 km / h is easier than 20-30 nodal BDK.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Moreover, the ekranoplan, unlike the UDC, cannot get there

        What for? This is not his profile.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        By the way, how then will the ekranoplan differ from the Be-200 or Albatross?

        The hull of seaplanes (that is, the glider, to be more correct) is less durable and the possibilities of landing on waves are more limited than those of ekranoplanes. Carrying capacity also matters in this case.
        1. +3
          25 February 2012 17: 29
          Priorities were in the field of aviation and rocket science - the main efforts were directed there. Such experimental developments were paid much less attention.
          Neprada desava, this is largely a stereotype. Mil and Kamov were able to unwind and prove the need for their development to the Soviet leadership.

          Let me give you an example of B-2. A pilot without this same electronics cannot be lifted into the air, not just to pilot.
          And here B-2, desava, the truth is much simpler.
          Do you know how the plane turns in the horizontal plane? Not with the rudder on the keel, it just helps. The plane turns like this: rolls to one side and sets a turn. On the "bottom" wing, lift drops. on the raised wing. on the contrary, it increases - the torque turns the plane in the desired direction. By the way, this is related to the fundamental parameter that determines the maneuverability of the aircraft - the load on the wing. The lower the load on each meter of the wing, the easier it is for the wing to "turn" the aircraft.

          As you can see, everything is very simple. But the ekranoplan has a problem with this - how to lower the wing if there is water in a couple of meters under the console? With a slight roll, the turning moment will be so small. that the radius of the ekranoplan bend was several hundred meters (and when fully loaded and more than a kilometer). And this is unacceptable. It is impossible to fix this flaw.

          I would like a couple of examples. This is still a special case when the strip is able to take such a plane without getting bogged down in the ground, breaking the landing gear.
          All seismically dangerous areas of recent years - Turkey, Haiti. In Haiti, with 7 points from the runway, little is left at all.

          With the help of watercraft, if there is no way to get closer to the shore
          Yeah. Those. the aircraft needs a runway, and the ekranoplan needs a set of watercraft, a pier and coastal infrastructure.
          Although at the beginning you stated that "what is not necessary for an ekranoplan, the main thing is the presence of a coast. For many hard-to-reach and remote areas, this is an undoubted advantage."

          Agree, inappropriate statement. It was about coastal areas
          But what about the Russian North, desava? Yamal, Gydan Peninsula, Taimyr:

          The hull of seaplanes (that is, the glider, to be more correct) is less durable and the possibilities of landing on waves are more limited than those of ekranoplanes. Carrying capacity also matters in this case.

          To save 50 people, no special lifting capacity is required.
          Seaworthiness is the same.
          The speed of the Be-200 is 2 times greater, and the flight range is 1,5.
          1. 0
            25 February 2012 18: 37
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Mil and Kamov were able to unwind and prove the need for their development to the Soviet leadership.


            Undoubtedly! Especially when you consider that abroad in this direction, development has been very active. The qualities that this aircraft possesses (hovering in the air, landing on small platforms, maneuverability) were too tempting to ignore this view. The comparison is incorrect.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And here is B-2, desava


            A good example, where the aircraft can not fly without a complex control system.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Do you know how a plane rotates in a horizontal plane?


            Thank you for being "enlightened". Just answer, why can't the role of the keel be increased on an ekranoplane in comparison with an airplane? And use ailerons to maintain the permissible roll? That is, to turn not due to the lift of the wing, but due to the change in the thrust vector?

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            ekranoplan - a set of boats, a berth and coastal infrastructure.


            Well, and what do you think you need a set of boats, a pier and coastal infrastructure? On an unequipped coast and cargo must be delivered in small quantities. I’m not talking about the commercial transportation of oil, grain and other goods transported by ships. And the fact that the planes are transported can be delivered by fairly simple means (light ferries, boats), a specialized berth is not needed. Infrastructure ... Port administration building, fuel and lubricants depot, fueling facilities (most likely remote to the sea at a distance that allows you to get as close to shore as possible) ... what else? Nothing - here you have the infrastructure!

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But what about the Russian North, desava?


            The coast even allows you to go on an unequipped shore if you do not immediately get on the chassis.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Seaworthiness is the same.


            I repeat - different. At least in the strength of the wingspan. About the strength mentioned.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The speed of the Be-200 is 2 times greater, and the flight range is 1,5.


            I still can't understand you ... In your opinion, if for 30 years they could not show the evidence of the ekranoplan advantages and the management refused them, then there is no point in working in this direction? Technology is developing! Here we solve the issue with manageability (I agree it was a "stumbling block").
            1. 0
              25 February 2012 18: 57
              Quote: desava
              increase the role of the keel compared to aircraft


              I made a reservation, I wanted to write the role of the keel in comparison with the wing.
            2. +2
              25 February 2012 22: 08
              The qualities that this aircraft possesses (hovering in the air, landing on small platforms, maneuverability) were too tempting
              And what exclusive qualities did an ekranoplane possess, in comparison with an airplane?
              Rostislav Alekseev had no answer to this question. Therefore, Miles produced thousands of his really useful cars, and Alekseev for 30 years collected only his monster on 3. Unrecognized genius, mlyn lol

              Just answer, why on the ekranoplane can not increase the role of the keel in comparison with the plane?
              Because when turning, the air flow will inevitably fall off the wing from the inside and no ridges will hold it.

              On an unequipped coast and cargo must be delivered in small quantities.
              What does not suit a seaplane? Or a helicopter (for some bulky goods this is the only solution)

              <Seaworthiness> I repeat - different. At least by the wingspan. I mentioned strength.
              Can you name the numbers?

              In your opinion, if over the 30 years they have not been able to show the obviousness of the ekranoplan’s advantages and the management has abandoned them, then there is no point in working in this direction?
              Please hand the cards. If at least a paper calculation shows that it’s profitable - the flag is in your hands, build a large-scale model for testing, and then to the full height, if everything works out smile The main thing is to explain why and what benefits it will give, in comparison with conventional vehicles.
              And perhaps this is a dead end path of development, as has already been done more than once in history. And there is great suspicion that this is indeed so - 30 years of work, 3 gigantic apparatus, not counting countless models, and no advantages. Compared to conventional means, some disadvantages.
              Alekseev, along with useful machines ("Rocket"), was obsessed with the idea of ​​an ekranoplan, well, that's his right. But thoughtlessly praising his "creations" is not worth it, they had no success.
              One more time:
              - cheap to carry a large load - there is a ship.
              - urgently deliver an important cargo or drop off an landing - there is a plane
              - landing on unequipped shore - hovercraft
              - deliver bulky cargo or land on the "patch" - there is a helicopter
              Well, as you can see, all the niches are occupied. It’s pointless to carry people and goods twice as slowly at the same price (which is exactly what screen proponents offer)
              1. Darn
                0
                27 February 2012 15: 55
                And to deliver to the Arctic or Antarctic cargoes on ekranoplanes it may be better and cheaper than to drive an icebreaker and a dry cargo ship.
          2. +1
            27 February 2012 20: 32
            The turning radius and steering wheel for turns are still different things.
            If the rudder on the plane has nothing to do with it, it is surprising then that they turn, and not just some barrels twist. And when the wings fly vertically, what happens to them? I mean +/- 90 in roll.
      2. VAF
        VAF
        +3
        25 February 2012 17: 23
        Disingenuous, dear, the country's leadership turned its back on Alekseev not after the tests of the CM, but after DF Ustinov's "departure"!
    3. VAF
      VAF
      +6
      25 February 2012 17: 19
      I didn't like the article in principle. I wanted to completely "walk" through it, but the respected DESAVA formulated "THIRD" so briefly and clearly that skeptics who hopefully know or have heard about tragedies at sea with ships and submarines as well as airplanes, especially in the Northern latitudes, where hours are counted, all doubts should completely disappear.
      All the best examples of technology created in the USSR occurred during the period when the Ministry of Defense was led by DF Ustinov, an engineer himself and versed in many high-tech issues (and not "Stooltkin & K, which is so loved and protected by your only savior of the Fatherland!).
      And if you carefully study the performance characteristics of ekranoplanes, then the question of using them only in "calm", the same will disappear!
      The crash of the prototype of the "Caspian monster" was officially the fault of the pilot, but the de facto-departmental split-who will be the commander, the pilot or the sailor, this is not an airplane yet, but not a ship-the result, as they say on the face-tried and got!
      The author can be seen on the top "walked" and did not want to, or maybe did not know about the existence of such design bureaus as Bortini and Beriev and did not see or hear about their activities and created creations!
      The whole world still has nothing of the kind !!!
      Well, the Tu-22M does not have such weapons as the Moskit anti-ship missile system!
      And "for the landing on the coast, only Mistral" is generally ... well, exactly 0,8 "! Glory to Tandem" forgot to write ?!
      This is for "expanding horizons": (photo attached)
      Project 12322 "Bison" is the largest amphibious air force in the world. It is designed to transport military equipment along with landing units and land on an unequipped shore with fire cover. The ship can also transport mines and set minefields.
      And the author does not know that concrete planes are necessary for landing planes, and they are known to be located. Well, almost on every meter of our planet ?! That is nonsense, but you like it!
      The photos are good, especially since they are very long-standing and for those who have not seen it, and especially live, it is very informative!
      It is a pity that all of you cannot feel its true dimensions, this is ... "oil painting"!
      1. +1
        25 February 2012 18: 28
        Quote: veteran.air force
        about the existence of such design bureaus as Bortini and Berieva and did not see or hear about their activities and created creations!


        By the way, yes!
        After all, there were ekranoplanes (ekranoletoty?) De Bartini schemes capable of flying at high altitudes.
        What are the difficulties with handling?
        1. +2
          25 February 2012 19: 52
          VVA-14 (This is not an ekranoplan, it is the Vertical Take-Off Amphibian, tobish plane) KB Bartini


          1. 0
            25 February 2012 20: 32
            Quote: Dart Weyder
            VVA-14 (This is not an ekranoplan, it is the Vertical Take-Off Amphibian, tobish plane) KB Bartini


            No, I’m not talking about the BBA, but about the general scheme of his cars. After all, he offered models that could break away from the screen.
    4. +1
      27 February 2012 18: 47
      Mr. desava, Mr. Roman-75 ...
      fully support ..
      Unsubscribed above, albeit later ..
      not enough strength .. read to the end.
      Gluttonous, no one argues.
      But .... technology does not stand still.
  11. +4
    25 February 2012 15: 59
    sorry, but ekranoplanes were actually built for military use, and now show me at least one economical copy of military equipment? "Mercedes" is more comfortable and faster than any armored personnel carrier and eats less fuel, but for some reason they are not used to deliver soldiers to the battlefield ... So efficiency is an accepted argument. Again, ships need ports for loading and unloading, and aircraft need airfields, did the author add the cost of this infrastructure to the cost of his calculations? And during hostilities, ports and airfields are target number 1 for an adversary, if you do not take the start of a nuclear war, then a strike on mines and, again, ports and airfields of only the strategic triad will be delivered. And everything has already been said about ekranoplanes, unequipped coast, etc. About the weather, even modern ships (not submarines) are practically helpless when the sea is more than 5 points, even with mine missile launchers ...
    1. 0
      25 February 2012 17: 31
      sorry, but the ekranoplanes were actually built for military use, and now show me at least one economical instance of military equipment?
      Sorry, but even the military is not interested in this car. At the same cost, an ordinary plane is two times faster and flies several times further.
      1. +1
        25 February 2012 18: 51
        Like many other types of equipment, this direction was primarily of interest to the military. There is no clear application concept. There was not, and now there is no niche in the marine doctrine for such objects. As already mentioned here, this is neither a ship nor a plane yet. Here you have compared with the plane:
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        At the same cost, an ordinary plane is two times faster and flies several times further.

        And why then do not want to compare the plane with the ship? Because it is obvious that various objects.
        1. Jaguar
          -1
          25 February 2012 19: 00
          What airplanes, what ekranoplanes aircraft
          1. +3
            25 February 2012 19: 04
            The helicopter is also LA. Only it is much slower, much less load-carrying in comparison with the airplane. And what follows from this ?! That's right - different classes of aircraft, each with its own disadvantages and its own advantages.
            1. +2
              26 February 2012 00: 33
              The advantages of helicopters are well known:
              - vertical take-off and landing
              - hanging in the air
              - the ability to transport bulky goods on an external sling

              And what are the advantages of ekranoplanes? To carry goods twice as slow at the same price as the plane (namely, this is what screen proponents offer)?
              Or carry goods 100 times more expensive than a ship?
              What exactly is the "genius" of the ekranoplan?
              1. slan
                0
                26 February 2012 00: 46
                High lifting capacity at high speed. Significantly less visible than an aircraft. And once again, do not compare with Ruslan. "Ruslan" is practically the limit (it is not necessary only to bring "Mriya", it is already beyond the limit) in terms of carrying capacity for aircraft, and KM is only a pilot project. In the future, the ekranoplan could carry powerful air defense and anti-ship missiles at the same time and guaranteed to destroy an aircraft carrier. Or give you a conversion application? Yes, this is difficult.
                1. +3
                  26 February 2012 01: 44
                  High payload at high speed.
                  The first shot is past. Example: An-22 "Antey" lifts 60 tons of payload, ekranoplan "Orlyonok" - 28 tons. The cruising speed of the Anthea is 600 km / h, the Orlyonok is 400 km / h. Where is the heavy lifting capacity here?

                  And once again, do not compare with Ruslan. Ruslan is practically the limit
                  Let's compare with IL-76 or En-22. I'm not against.

                  Significantly lower visibility than aircraft
                  What is meant by the word "visibility"? For which means of detection?
                  1. slan
                    -2
                    26 February 2012 05: 23
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The first shot is past. Example: An-22 "Antey" lifts 60 tons of payload, ekranoplan "Orlyonok" - 28 tons. The cruising speed of the Anthea is 600 km / h, the Orlyonok is 400 km / h. Where is the heavy lifting capacity here?

                    Less pathos, sweet teen. Maybe even the A-380 compare with this?

                    Have you tried to read the article under discussion?
                    The giant ekranoplan KM-1, the brainchild of KB Rostislav Alekseev. Empty weight - 240 tons., Maximum take-off weight - 544 tons

                    So it is written in the 6 paragraph. Well, compare with AN-22 if you so want.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    For what means of detection?

                    In addition to hydroacoustics ..
                    1. +2
                      26 February 2012 16: 32
                      The giant ekranoplan KM-1, the brainchild of KB Rostislav Alekseev. Empty weight - 240 tons., Maximum take-off weight - 544 tons

                      So it is written in the 6 paragraph. Well, compare with AN-22 if you so want.


                      No, you're wrong. It is necessary to compare cars of the same weight category. For example, in many ways the experimental "Mriya" with the same experimental CM.

                      It is very interesting to compare An-22 and "Eaglet". Same propulsion systems, same dimensions. And the fact that the "Eaglet" lifts 2 times less load, well. these are the "wonderful" properties of ekranoplanes make themselves felt)))
                      1. slan
                        0
                        26 February 2012 19: 43
                        Why is this all of a sudden?)) Do you feel like it? Maybe one color needs to be compared?
                        And from what "one weight category" do they have? Maybe, after all, the first or even the third experimental plane with helicopter engines should be compared with the "Eaglet"? Yes, at least take some kind of IL-4 in the museum, attach engines from the same An-22 to it and then compare it with the Lun.
                        Maybe the article is worth reading?
                        KM has a huge potential for improvement, at least the same aircraft engines operating on ekranoplanes at sub-optimal modes. "Mriya" is not.
                  2. Gromila78
                    0
                    26 February 2012 13: 13
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Significantly lower visibility than aircraft
                    What is meant by the word "visibility"? For which means of detection?

                    When the battle between "Lightning" and "Lune" was simulated, the ekranoplan approached the range of a shot and left unnoticed. The water plume blurs the radar image.
                    1. +2
                      26 February 2012 16: 49
                      First, it is necessary to determine what means of detection can withstand the transport "Eaglet" or the strike "Moon".
                      Undoubtedly, the radar is currently the main means of detection. This implies:

                      - The radio horizon of ship radars of the countries of the 3 world is no more than 20 nautical miles for a surface target. But to use ekranoplans against countries of the 3 world is more expensive, there are more effective and cheaper means for this.

                      - The radio horizon of aircraft carrier groups is several hundred miles, thanks to AWACS aircraft and using ekranoplanes against such targets is suicide. Hawkeye radars see small targets at a glance.

                      Talking about the "water plume blurring the picture" is meaningless without specific numbers. Most likely this is news from the category of OBS - one woman said. On all the video of the flight of the screens, it is clearly visible that the water plume is formed behind the stern of the ekranoplan and does not affect its detection
                      1. slan
                        +1
                        26 February 2012 20: 05
                        It is not the "trail that blurs the picture" but the radar signature of ekranoplanes as well as ships is much lower than that of aircraft for the simple reason that they need to be detected at the border of two environments, and this border is dynamic. Plus an elementary low horizon. In the same way, it is more difficult to visually notice a ship against the background of waves than an airplane in a clear sky.
                        And do you really think that AOG is capable of detecting any objects in a short time within a radius of hundreds of miles? When you grow up and do something real in life, you may understand the difference between passport technical data and reality.
      2. +4
        25 February 2012 20: 02
        and even with the union it was considered that it would be more economical to transport ekranoplanes on certain routes than airplanes, and if you’re so smart, explain the inappropriateness of ekranoplanes to your beloved west and the Chinese, who are panting with might and main over the creation of such machines
        1. Tram boom
          +1
          26 February 2012 00: 24
          Quote: Dart Weyder
          Yes, and even with the union, it was considered that when it is economically more profitable to transport ekranoplanes on certain routes than by air

          Weak to name these routes?


          Quote: Dart Weyder
          then explain the inappropriateness of the ekranoplanes to your beloved west and the Chinese, who are panting with might and main over the creation of such machines

          What are the keonstructions? Real designs, not catamarans for water parks and not the ideas of patients in Chinese mental hospitals
      3. 0
        26 February 2012 11: 20
        ekranoplan has one significant plus - stealth.
  12. Marat-sp
    +1
    25 February 2012 16: 15
    Great photos. Thanks to the author
  13. Evil Tatar
    +1
    25 February 2012 16: 44
    To become I level the efforts of the recognized ingenious Russian designer Alekseev.
    What is the truth in the article? Nothing ...
    or .. with a finger, and here we rate ...
    Nothing to evaluate - the article is gamut.
    A worthy assessment of this type of transport has long been appreciated by worthy people of the USSR and Russia. And this assessment is very positive ...
    -1000000 aftaru - to the heiress / zatsu.
    1. VAF
      VAF
      +1
      25 February 2012 17: 20
      Respect and respect! Right on target or as we say 000/000!
      1. 0
        26 February 2012 11: 25
        watch the movie http://rutube.ru/tracks/17662.html
  14. slan
    +2
    25 February 2012 21: 16
    The author forgot about the main thing - ekranoplanes are these first, experienced ones and it is very incorrect to compare them with the best production aircraft.
    If an aircraft engine were installed on the barge, it would also not show miracles of economic efficiency. Presumably, the requirements for ekranoplan engines are still different from aviation ones. The strength and weight characteristics of the hulls, as well as the aerodynamic qualities, also tend to change significantly. Wouldn't it be more correct to compare “Lunya” not with “Ruslan” but with some “Ilya Muromets”, well, or at least with DB?
  15. fedora
    +3
    25 February 2012 22: 43
    I happened to work in one of the commissions studying the possibility of using an ekranoplan in the interests of the Navy in the mid-80s. The conclusions of all members are unanimously negative. In an article by Oleg Koptsov, these conclusions are presented, basically, correctly. Abroad, in the United States and in two or three countries, small-sized ekranoplanes are being developed, but even there they encountered the problems described in the article, I can only add the need for prohibitively powerful, very expensive combat and special-technical support for the actions of ekranoplanes.
    Well, the best rescuers are a couple of helicopters, one heavy, capable of refueling in the air, another light one with trained crews. It is both cheap and effective, and the ability to work in any weather.
  16. camradfox
    +7
    25 February 2012 22: 43
    Unfortunately, the article does not pull analytics well. There are a lot of erroneous conclusions made, a number of factors are omitted.
    And nothing that this "plane" is steel? Is it okay that this mass of engines is needed only at the start? Nothing that with their full use, the device could rise hundreds of meters from the screen?
    The ekranoplan is initially cheaper than any aircraft both in terms of manufacturing cost, cost of operation, and therefore economic efficiency.
    It is pointless to argue about the effectiveness of the moon, since it is actually present. This is the same missile boat, or at worst the destroyer uro is only faster and more maneuverable at times. What do they have that he does not have?
    Can you imagine such a handsome man about three times the tonnage drifting at the turn? Able to get away from any storm, or to attack quickly?
    You reject the first experimental ships it is not clear on what grounds. Bad lifeguard? Did someone design a specialized one? What is difficult to add search boats and even light amphibious helicopters or bathyscaphes to the carrier?
    Bad as a cargo ship? And did someone set such a task? Lighter transporters turns out to be a military secret?
    Of course lun is a bad cargo ship and almost no lifeguard, but this is flawed logic. You do not reproach the missile boat with the fact that it is no truck, and it is impossible to save people on it from an emergency submarine.
    As specialized vessels, the harrier and the eaglet are gigantic and still underestimated leaps in armed equipment, this is a new separate class, with its own evaluation criteria. And for their time and technical base, the courts are excellent, fully consistent with their goals and objectives.
    1. slan
      -1
      25 February 2012 23: 06
      Yes, colossal funds are needed to develop any fundamentally new constructive scheme. And now there are no goals and objectives justifying them.
      You can recall the first helicopters. Then, too, it was possible to make a comparative analysis with modern airplanes and airships and close the topic.
    2. Tram boom
      0
      26 February 2012 00: 21
      Quote: camradfox
      Is there anything that with their full use, the device could rise hundreds of meters from the screen?

      And how does it differ then from an ordinary airplane? Slower and lower flies, and eats more fuel ... rationalization afiget

      Quote: camradfox
      The ekranoplan is initially cheaper than any aircraft both in terms of manufacturing cost, cost of operation, and therefore economic efficiency.

      Yeah. 10 engines is so economical.

      Quote: camradfox
      This is the same missile boat, or at worst the destroyer uro is only faster and more maneuverable at times. What do they have that he does not have?

      Profitability, autonomy, seaworthiness and weapons


      Quote: camradfox
      Can you imagine such a handsome man about three times the tonnage drifting at the turn? Able to get away from any storm, or to attack quickly?

      Aircraft will find and sink it in half an hour in case of any conflict. A large cupboard falls louder

      Quote: camradfox
      Bad lifeguard? Did someone design a specialized one?

      Count up, designed. Helicopters with PS indices

      Quote: camradfox
      As specialized vessels, the harrier and the eaglet are gigantic and still underestimated leaps in armed equipment, this is a new separate class, with its own evaluation criteria. And for their time and technical base, the courts are excellent, fully consistent with their goals and objectives.

      Tell me clearly. What are the advantages of ekranoplanes, and do not unwind the snot
      1. slan
        +2
        26 February 2012 00: 32
        Quote: Tram boor
        Aircraft will find and sink it in half an hour in case of any conflict

        And what do you think they won’t find in half an hour?
        Kindergarten and only.
      2. camradfox
        +1
        26 February 2012 16: 19
        Quote: Tram boor
        And how does it differ then from an ordinary airplane? Slower and lower flies, and eats more fuel ... rationalization afiget

        Actually, this was an answer to the fact that he was allegedly incapable of this.
        Quote: Tram boor
        Yeah. 10 engines is so economical.

        10 engines at full power only at the start, then either the part turned off or worked at par
        Quote: Tram boor
        Profitability, autonomy, seaworthiness and weapons

        In terms of efficiency, yes, but in terms of speed? According to the factor, the speed and cost-effectiveness of analogue ekranoplans cannot be seen on the horizon. In terms of autonomy, there are no problems at all, absolutely, only caboose stocks prevent drift at the turn. The moon has autonomy of 5 days. Seaworthiness is less, but this does not mean that the issue is not solved in principle, there may not have been such a task, because the ekranoplan can leave the storm zone, unlike any other vessel. In armament. Can you cram a lot on a rocket boat with a displacement of 300 tons? We need more, nothing prevents to build a larger ekranoplan.
        Quote: Tram boor
        Aircraft will find and sink it in half an hour in case of any conflict. A large cupboard falls louder

        This is generally nonsense, then let's not build ships at all, because the link from the aircraft carrier will "blow them into dust" anyway, count the savings :)
        Quote: Tram boor
        Count up, designed. Helicopters with PS indices
        Count me in the know :) But how much will he take with him, how far will he fly, how quickly will he fly what is his "seaworthiness", and how economical and cheap he is :) Nothing prevents you from building a carrier for the same amphibious helicopter and combining the advantages of both ...
        Quote: Tram boor
        Tell me clearly. What are the advantages of ekranoplanes, and do not unwind the snot

        We clearly read the pros and cons of http://igor113.livejournal.com/52174.html at the end of the post and there on the points in the recall of the officer who served on the ekranoplane)
  17. ICT
    0
    25 February 2012 23: 33
    the middle (neither the plane nor the ship) of which did not turn golden
  18. camradfox
    +3
    26 February 2012 00: 13
    Here is a good photo report on the "plane")
    http://igor113.livejournal.com/52174.html
    http://igor113.livejournal.com/52174.html
    See how much welding :) They should have been built in Feodosia at the shipbuilding mark the factory. Even looney has autonomy of 5 days, cabins for the crew. Alekseev is a genius!
  19. +2
    26 February 2012 12: 37
    SWEET_SIXTEEN, in many matters you still convinced me that you were right. WIG has a very narrow range of applications:
    - transportation of goods during the development of inaccessible coastal territories (north) would be most likely suitable for island countries;
    - as a life-saving tool alone or in combination with a carrier.
    Despite the lengthy unproductive research in this area, I consider it premature to close this program. At this stage of development, it really comes out "raw".
  20. Eugene
    +2
    26 February 2012 13: 45
    Alekseev wrote that in his opinion ekranoplans can be of unlimited size. If you leave the pathetics, then options were proposed with a take-off mass of EMNIP up to 2500-4500 tons. And this is already serious.

    Regarding the management, it is rightly said here that it is complex and not implemented as on an airplane. The complexity of the thing is relative - the same Lame goblin F-117 was controlled by a computer and flew despite such aerodynamics. Also, Americans want to completely abandon the vertical tail on a promising fighter (already the 6th generation) using engines with UVT. So as an option.

    And so I can not agree that the ekranoplans are currently somewhat damp. Therefore, further research in this area is worth continuing.
    1. camradfox
      +1
      26 February 2012 16: 26
      Regarding control, the task from the point of view of complexity is much simpler than the same "blizzard", plus almost everything can be transferred to the electronics, which the ship does not do any complex dynamic maneuvers.
      1. +5
        26 February 2012 17: 00
        Let me quote myself:

        How does the plane turn in a horizontal plane? By no means using the rudder on the keel, it is only an aid. The plane rolls to one side and sets a bank. On the "bottom" wing, lift drops. on the raised wing. on the contrary, it increases - the torque turns the plane in the desired direction. By the way, this is related to the fundamental parameter that determines the maneuverability of the aircraft - the load on the wing. The lower the load on each meter of the wing, the easier it is for the wing to "turn" the aircraft.

        As you can see, everything is very simple. But the ekranoplan has a problem with this - how to lower the wing if there is water in a couple of meters under the console? With a slight roll, the turning moment will be so small. that the radius of the ekranoplan bend was several hundred meters (and when fully loaded and more than a kilometer). And this is unacceptable. It is impossible to fix this flaw.

        That's all. And electronics have nothing to do with it.
        1. matvey.z
          0
          27 February 2012 02: 08
          All true.

          The turning radius of the KM / "Lun" is comparable to the SR-71 = 70 km. (His truth is for a different reason.)

          Also, after a salvo of missiles, abnormal operation of the ekranoplan engines will be observed, caused by the ingestion of rocket fuel combustion products generated during the launch of the missiles.
          Unburned particles will be deposited on the blades of the fan and compressor of the engine. The accumulation of unburned particles will reduce engine thrust, which will increase the likelihood of a stall from the compressor blades and engines.

          It is easily struck by fighter and attack aircraft of deck aviation or coastal aviation.

          It is easy to detect by optical devices, including from satellites, on the "trail".
          1. 0
            29 February 2012 19: 28
            70 km?!?! I do not want to take your word for it, but is there really a reason to believe in such data? This is an incredible turning radius! .... How do you know about this?
            1. 0
              29 February 2012 20: 54
              In the numerous videos with which the network is full, he unfolds specially catching his wing, which Alekseev is proud of. Minimum Radii.
              Or was it such a joke ???
              1. 0
                1 March 2012 00: 58
                Not an indicator. Someone with a more competent opinion came up better. As for the video ... you know yourself, you can interpret distances and distances in different ways.
                1. 0
                  1 March 2012 02: 26
                  There is hardly any more competent opinion in the near future than Alekseev’s opinion. Maneuverability is emphasized.
                  Reinforcement with simple logic. The fulcrum is water, the maneuver with the tip is described, the design is designed specifically for this type of load.
                  They did it wisely. Corresponds to the purpose of the ship.
                  1. 0
                    1 March 2012 10: 50
                    In this case, I pay tribute to the courage of Alekseev's engineering solution! Seeing in your comment the word "ship" about the ekranoplan, I doubted, but ... it turns out quite a logical chain. The structural strength of the ekranoplan airframe is "ship-like".
                    1. +3
                      1 March 2012 18: 47
                      Nonsense all this. During the transition from air to medium, which is 800 times denser, the ekranoplan design will experience loads incomparable with life. Watch the video of numerous emergency landings on the water - even a helicopter creeps terribly at a low speed. Watch the documentary Video of World War II about airplanes falling at 300-500 km / h into the water and how debris fly over a hundred meters.

                      Although it is quite possible at low speeds. But then the question is: why do we need a tool that barely creeps above the surface of the water and consumes fuel, like an airplane?
                      1. 0
                        1 March 2012 19: 03
                        Sweeping doubts about calculations, experiments, and the notion of well-known practice are generally beyond the scope of a reasonable conversation.
                        Low awareness and reluctance to look into open sources is not an argument.
  21. 0
    26 February 2012 15: 31
    "The experience of participation of ekranoplanes" Eaglet "in exercises, where they took on board units of the marines (military equipment and personnel - up to 150 people) and ensured delivery to an unfitted coast, showed that their use allows a fundamentally new way to build tactics combat operations in wartime, as well as opens up wide opportunities for the effective use of ekranoplanes to control the sea in peaceful conditions "-
    "Naval Aviation in the Service of Russia" Platonov A.G. publishing house "Restart +" 2000

    "The determining factor in the combat effectiveness of the fleet is not so much its quantitative composition, but rather the qualitative characteristics of each combat unit, the balance of heterogeneous forces" -
    Fleet Admiral S. Goroshkov



    Several ekranoplan-missile carriers "Lun" with the support of aviation and not one American aircraft carrier would not dare to come close. These are underrated machines. It is not known how they would behave in the open ocean, it is quite possible that they are only suitable for closed maritime theaters.

    "Lun" carries six launch containers of 3M-80 Mosquito anti-ship missiles. For the first time in world practice, ship missiles were statically tested at a speed of about 500 km / h "-
    "Naval Aviation in the Service of Russia" Platonov A.G. publishing house "Restart +" 2000

    Just imagine what a small fleet of such machines could have if their development had gone further! It is a pity that the implementation of projects 903 ("Lun"), came at the time of the decline of the USSR. Very sorry.

    I just wanted to add that the article, in my opinion, is completely incompetent. Compare 2 fundamentally different cars. Airplane and ekranolet! The main task of such machines is to patrol and protect the NEAREST waters, they could quickly land an airborne group or transfer troops, there is no point in using them at distant frontiers. Perhaps with modernization, they would be able to perform different tasks, but what can we say about what will not happen.
    1. +3
      26 February 2012 17: 19
      "The experience of the participation of the Eaglet ekranoplanes in the exercises ... has shown that their use allows a fundamentally new way to build the tactics of conducting military operations in wartime ...
      No verbosity, please provide numbers.

      "The decisive factor in the combat effectiveness of the fleet is ... the balance of diverse forces" - Admiral of the Fleet S. Goroshkov
      I have no confidence in Gorshkov’s dry, bureaucratic words. Thanks to the efforts of this man, our country has lost its carrier fleet.
      Appreciate actions, words are worthless

      During the tests, for the first time in world practice, the stat of ship missiles was carried out at a speed of about 500 km / h "
      Rockets, in many ways similar to the Mosquito, have been launched without any problems from aircraft flying at transonic speeds since the 1960s. Moreover, the Moskit had its own aviation version. Where is the new achievement here?
      It is impossible to call an ekranoplan a "ship". it is an aircraft, but unlike airplanes it flies badly and slowly ..
  22. Gromila78
    -2
    26 February 2012 16: 08
    What is meant by the word "visibility"? For which means of detection?

    I learned about the imitation of the battle with "Lightning" in the Alekseev Design Bureau in 2006.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Significantly lower visibility than aircraft
  23. fatanee
    +3
    26 February 2012 17: 24
    Cons - cons, but there is such an option:

    a flotilla consisting of, say, roughly, an aircraft carrier, missile boats, one or two cruisers, and a pair of submarines. Maybe this is a formidable weapon, BUT they are slow-moving in comparison with ekranoplanes. If for such a flotilla to make a special design not for the transport of troops and for carrying out rescue operations, but look towards the "Eaglet" and create a special ekranoplan, which will be much more economical than those monsters of the KM type. Better to let the specialty lie in the fact that he will develop a speed of 200-500 km / h and he will have enough anti-ship missiles in service in order to inflict a good blitz strike at the enemy's forces, quickly return to the "base", refuel , re-arm and go back to the hike. By "base" I mean this fleet, because not every ship has a nuclear reactor in its bowels and fuel is still taken with a margin. So you can make a small supply for such an ekranoplan, which will be part of this flotilla.
    Turboprop engines will provide greater efficiency compared to jet ones. Displacement and lifting capacity do not need to be increased, and 50 tons of lifting capacity will be enough above the roof in order to load more than one anti-ship missile into the winged aircraft.

    Isn't that an option? If not, why?
    1. A_B
      A_B
      +1
      1 March 2012 20: 04
      Quote: fatanee
      Isn't that an option?

      You can, of course, and so. But why? wassat
  24. 0
    26 February 2012 17: 38
    The first planes / helicopters also did not differ in carrying capacity and speed. For evolution, time is needed. The screens were not given = ((

    The first planes / helicopters also did not differ in carrying capacity and speed. For evolution, time is needed. The screens were not given = ((
    1. +2
      26 February 2012 18: 20
      The first aircraft in thirty years completely replaced the airships and became the main means of aviation. Helicopters also took root very quickly - literally over 10 years since the appearance of the first flying samples, because had undeniable advantages.

      With the ekranoplans, the opposite is the situation - for 30 years of research, they could not create a competitor to airplanes (or ships). Compared to an airplane, the screen has lower speed and higher flight cost - why is it asking, is it necessary?
      Compared to a ship, the screen has 100 times the high cost of flying. Nobody needs this either.
      1. slan
        0
        26 February 2012 20: 22
        And who has been doing it for 30 years? It is very expensive at all.
        1. +3
          26 February 2012 21: 06
          And who worked with them for 30 years?
          In the USSR - design bureaus of Alekseev, Bartini, Beriev
          1. Darn
            0
            27 February 2012 16: 41
            It is necessary to try on Comrade L. N. Shchukin with his ECIP, I was surprised to find out that by the ekranoplan there is also an ekranoplet, I don’t know how to differ.
            1. 0
              27 February 2012 17: 25
              The ekrolet can go away from the screen and fly like an airplane. WIG can not perform such a flight.
            2. +2
              27 February 2012 18: 49
              But this is a myth. Crikoleto create unrealistic. Now I will explain why:

              The center of pressure (point of application of force) of the wing of the ekranoplan is closer to the trailing edge, at the wing of the aircraft, on the contrary, closer to the leading edge. When switching from "airplane" mode to "screen", the center of pressure shifts back, which leads to problems with balancing. Those. it is not possible to create an effective model of an aerodynamic aerodynamic aircraft.

              And why not. The ekranoplan has no advantages over the aircraft, only disadvantages.
              Normal flying at low altitude is not a screen effect. because the pressure surge does not have time to bounce off the ground and reach the wing due to the high speed of the aircraft.

              EKIP is the most famous of the "ekranolet" projects.
              EKIP - an unmanned aerial vehicle with a take-off weight of 350 kg, a fun attraction that did not find real application
              1. +2
                27 February 2012 19: 31
                SWEET_SIXTEEN The center of pressure (point of force application) of the wing of the ekranoplan is closer to the trailing edge, while at the wing of the aircraft, on the contrary, is closer to the leading edge. When switching from "airplane" mode to "screen", the center of pressure shifts back, which leads to problems with balancing. Those. it is not possible to create an effective model of an aerodynamic aerodynamic aircraft.,

                I’ll ask you to bring a scientific source, which will say that this is not possible. Yes, I agree that the pressure center (pressure center) is shifting, but it does not follow from this that flight is not possible. For example, you know that the CD for the subsonic wing is somewhere around 25% SAH (average aerodynamic chord), and at the top of the sound - 50% SAH. Aircraft normally tolerate such a shift in the data center. Yes, I agree that the 2-mode apparatus will represent a kind of set of compromise solutions, and will not be optimal for one flight option or for another. The main thing is that it is optimal for solving its task.
        2. A_B
          A_B
          0
          1 March 2012 21: 55
          Quote: slan

          And who has been doing it for 30 years? It’s very expensive.

          in reality, there are dead-end branches of development, the idea is good, but it makes no sense. This is like an intricate way to get rid of cockroaches.
          To catch cockroaches, but not to kill them, but to stick specially sharpened matches in the form of a cockroach phallus in their asses. Cockroaches “dropped” in this way will be offended and will leave your apartment forever.

          Although it was probably easier to just crush.
  25. +2
    26 February 2012 19: 20
    Aircraft are constantly changing. Refined / modified. The screens were not lucky because they did not appear at the right time. And notice the first ships made of steel, they also looked askance. And the portable phones were considered fantastic.
  26. Gromila78
    +1
    26 February 2012 20: 09
    As soon as I remember, only 2 out of 8 engines work after the screen. In terms of efficiency, the ekranoplan occupies an intermediate place between ships and aircraft.
    1. A_B
      A_B
      -1
      2 March 2012 09: 21
      Quote: Gromila78
      In terms of efficiency, the ekranoplan occupies an intermediate place between ships and aircraft.

      and how is it?
      Probably the average temperature in the hospital?
  27. Gromila78
    +2
    27 February 2012 14: 07
    The experience of amphibious operations shows that the landing is doomed without heavy weapons. In 1944, German tank crews near Arnhem chased the British paratroopers with a whoop for more than a week. Even now, after disembarking, the crew of the combat vehicle first searches for each other, and then with the song "I know you are exactly here" they are looking for their vehicle. This is the question of airborne assault forces. Amphibious assault has its own advantages and disadvantages. The speed of DesO is too low, no more than 18 knots for our Polish-built airborne ships. But on the other hand, there is the possibility of landing heavy equipment on an unequipped coast in the shortest possible time ("Mistral" in this respect is strongly limited by 4 helicopters and 2 boats). The speed of the DKVP is about 50 knots, but the radius of their application is not great. Now let's look at the ekranoplan. There is a unique opportunity to create an ekranoplan capable of delivering a company tactical group with heavy weapons at a speed of about 500 km / h. An ekranoplan belongs to the category of innovations that could change the idea of ​​conducting amphibious assault operations. Or, for example, a couple of hours after loading, place a minefield in the Bosphorus (this option is quite possible). There is very little time for the reaction to intercept the ekranoplan. This is what it is
    Quote: deoman
    "The experience of participation of ekranoplanes" Eaglet "in exercises, where they took on board units of the marines (military equipment and personnel - up to 150 people) and ensured delivery to an unfitted coast, showed that their use allows a fundamentally new way to build tactics combat operations in wartime, as well as opens up wide opportunities for the effective use of ekranoplanes to control the sea in peaceful conditions "-
    1. +2
      27 February 2012 18: 37
      Even now, after disembarking, the crew of the combat vehicle first searches for each other, and then with the song "I know you are exactly here" they are looking for their vehicle.
      Not true. All the landing operations over the past half century have been carried out very simply: special groups seized the airfield (or a suitable site), where then the main forces arrived with armored vehicles and heavy weapons. Fast and efficient. So it was in Hungary, so it was in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, so Bagram and Shindad and Kandahar were captured in Afghanistan, so the special operation in Iran took place during the liberation of the US embassy.
      It makes no sense to argue that the enemy will destroy the airfields - the landing forces captured and held the object without any problems. During the "Prague Spring" it turned out beautifully in general - the KGB special forces disguised themselves as athletes flying to competitions, and within half an hour captured the international airport and the runway in Prague, and their "civil" liner turned out to be an air command post, which gave the main forces a bearing to the airfield and served a radio beacon during the landing (the Czechs still managed to turn off the electricity)

      IL-76 does not require a strip at all - a fairly flat ground wasteland

      Here is a unique opportunity to create an ekranoplane capable of delivering a tactical company with heavy weapons at a speed of about 500 km / h

      This does not make sense to discuss - the reason I indicated above
      1. Gromila78
        0
        27 February 2012 20: 14
        When armored vehicles do not have time and there is no aviation support, 6 companies happen. An example of Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia is not correct. In Afghanistan, oddly enough, there is no sea. In Czechoslovakia, you give an example of a special operation like Eben-Emael and the release of hostages by the God-chosen in Nigeria (if I’m not mistaken) - here there is all the hope for surprise and lack of resistance. I'm talking about amphibious landing operations. What about the idea of ​​a high-speed mine layer? laughing
        1. +2
          28 February 2012 01: 21
          The example of Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia is not incorrect. In Afghanistan, oddly enough, there is no sea.

          I quote your words:
          "after disembarkation, the crew of the combat vehicle first looks for each other, and then with the song" I know for sure you are here "they are looking for their car. This is the question of airborne assault forces."
          Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia - the answer to your question. Or do not you remember what you are talking about?

          here is all the calculation for surprise and lack of resistance.
          A very good tactic. The Prague Spring was well planned at all levels. This experience can always come in handy.

          I'm talking about amphibious landing operations
          Have they been held over the past 50 years? So that the marines waist-deep in water and mud crawled along the beach under heavy fire?
          If we talk about Iraq - there the troops landed already on the shore, cleaned to shine. UDC delivered tens of thousands of soldiers across the globe, landing boats with a sense, sense, arrangement, moored to the preserved piers in Iraqi coastal villages and busily transported people, cargo and equipment to the shore ... part of the group brought transport aircraft to Kuwait, from there across the border under its own power ...

          What about the idea of ​​a high-speed mine-layer
          Stupidity
      2. Gromila78
        +1
        27 February 2012 20: 36
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        this was the special operation in Iran during the liberation of the US embassy.

        smile
        1. +2
          28 February 2012 01: 09
          We talked about the capture of the landing site - and this stage was completed. What then the landing operation ended with is another matter.

          If you really want to laugh at the crooked Yankees, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the photo materials from the theater on Dubrovka and Beslan. There, on their territory, the operation failed.

          But seriously - everyone has setbacks.
  28. schta
    +1
    27 February 2012 14: 40
    Devices of this type at least have the right to be in the attention.
    1. +1
      27 February 2012 16: 51
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      No verbosity, please provide numbers.

      I cited the source. Unfortunately, I do not know the numbers, but I will look for information about these teachings.

      Gromila78, Thank you for understanding and support wink
    2. 0
      27 February 2012 17: 45
      Comrades, please be familiar with all those interested.
      On page 22 an interesting comparison of Orlenok and A-40.
      Marine collection 8-2010 "Ships that can fly" N.V. Yakubovich.

      http://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F
      %20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%8D%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B
      0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%20%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%
      BA&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CG0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmilitary.tomsk.ru%2Fforum%2Fd
      ownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D21715&ei=44RLT5PPNqGp4gS2ppXqAw&usg=AFQjCNGvcB3WP9a3z4
      Hg1c2VrXFOOspYOw & cad = rjt
  29. +1
    27 February 2012 18: 27
    And further. The main reason for the failure of the program for the creation of ekranoplanes in the USSR was that ekranoplans were considered ships and were created using "ship-based" technology. So for example, if you just replace the AMg61 material with D16T, then we will already get a significant reduction in the weight of the airframe, and, consequently, an increase in weight efficiency, fuel efficiency, etc. etc. The ekranoplan is a very interesting platform for anti-ship missiles (development of the ideas laid down in the "Lun"), it will be interesting to speculate on the prospects in this direction.
  30. +3
    27 February 2012 19: 49
    And here's another thing - in my opinion, the most significant.
    The program for creating ekranoplanes in the USSR was an experiment.
    Development, design, construction, testing - were, in general, "the initiative of Rostislav Evgenievich.
    The money was huge, and the prospects were unclear.
    Alekseev R.E. was a "cool" comrade - which is only one flight task - "flight in the dock". And "quarrelsomeness" and unwillingness to suck up well .. - are not always welcome.
    The then military leadership did not know what to expect from these machines - not an airplane, not a steamer, no one knows what ... but how to report upstairs - "the queen gave birth to a son or a daughter in the night?"
    Then the death of Alekseev, then the death of the second KM.
    Well, at least three combat models were built, well, at least it was so. Yes, and Lun - still not cut., Link above.
    Respecting the opinion of Oleg Kaptsov (... Sweet ....) - I do not agree in the main. Perspectives of ekranoplanes - nobody still knows them. In terms of practice. In my opinion - very promising cars.
    WIG - not airplanes, not ships, not hovercraft. They are different. Accordingly, they need to be applied - according to ekranoplanom.
    WIG Russia needs.
    http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/miscellaneous/ekranoplans/index.htm
    1. solarra
      +1
      27 February 2012 23: 39
      I completely agree with you. Carefully reading all of the above, I conclude that the idea of ​​a real project in my opinion is underestimated by 90% !!! The project is simply ruined in the bud! If you do it in an airplane, and even with invisibility technology, you can actually reduce the weight by half, and radars will not be taken at long and medium distances. And even with modest data, it is possible to place an anti-ship missile system capable of destroying the enemy’s AOG in interception mode in a bomber (revolving launcher). Unlike a strategist, it can stagger across the seas and oceans for a week. Unlike a nuclear submarine, the cost is a penny, and ten to twelve missiles are already comparable with it. And you can also install Topol-M and get another base, and not just a car and stealth will be fantastic! Like a railway carriage, only a sea-island one. And developing the idea based on the latest technologies, the device will unique characteristics. And I’ll tell critics a strategist for a flight burns a railroad tank of kerosene and no one complains.
  31. coast
    +2
    1 March 2012 23: 44
    Lun is a handsome man, a bird of prey, Google is very visible from the satellite, paint and put the marafet on, and drive the children there on excursions, maybe the genius will grow up and make a new promising model !!!!!!!!!
  32. galeo88
    +2
    13 March 2012 19: 18
    Yes, in vain they abandoned work in this direction, an excellent thing is no words, but the AU should be the captain as well, as it took two meters below and sailed everything ... And plus the sea may not be calm and this can seriously affect the use of such handsome men. By and large, the old ones are certainly not suitable for use, but they are an excellent basis for further research on the "screen effect".
  33. +2
    18 March 2012 23: 32
    Once again, I would like to remind the author of this material that an ekranoplan is not an airplane, and not its hypertrophied likeness, and not even a "plane-ship" (which it was nicknamed in the article), but a ship. A ship with a dynamic maintenance method. And his comparisons with airplanes are a priori incorrect ...
    Learn materiel, classification, definitions and wording. Article-minus.
  34. Maslov elisei
    +2
    9 June 2012 22: 58
    "... I do not like the attraction of facts" by the ears "..." - firstly, only some disadvantages are expressed, and secondly, they are attracted by such ears ... It is not clear from what finger all this was sucked!
    Rostislav Alekseev would rise from the dead to kick his ears to such a scribble if he read all this!
  35. 0
    1 March 2017 22: 21
    Kaptsov? Well, of course !
    in its usual peremptory manner
    I am not for and against the ekranoplans
    it’s just that the evolution of airplanes has been going on for more than 100 years, and it makes no sense to compare the first “shelves” with modern airplanes.
    also ekranoplans - in fact, there were single experimental models. there’s no experience, not just use, but even just control of ekranoplans - because such experience simply has nowhere to come from
    maybe at the present stage of technological development (new lightweight composite materials, new engines and avionics, etc.) is it possible that there will be a revival of interest in these machines?