Military Review

Fifteen megawatts on Dead Man's Chest


Shipbuilding engineer Vladimir Yatskov proposes to return to the development of aircraft-carrying ground effect vehicles. The idea looks very attractive - the fleet receives an unsinkable aircraft carrier that can move at a speed of around 300 nodes. What is alarming?

On the ship with a take-off weight of 16-18 thousand tons, it is planned to place more than two dozen aircraft. But let’s recall the modern small aircraft carriers of a similar or even greater displacement: the English “Illastries” (now withdrawn from the British fleet), the Italian "Giuseppe Garibaldi" and the like ("Book of problems for an aircraft carrier", "military-industrial complex" No. 1, 2017). They carried a total of 8-12 aircraft. And these are displacement ships, the volume of the internal premises of which significantly exceeds the similar E-plan in similar take-off weight. Therefore, in the best case, 4-6 modern combat aircraft can be placed on such an aircraft carrier. This is too little for a ship like Goodbye Montana to have significant operational value. In any case, the combat capabilities of its air wing cannot be compared with the power of the air group of a classic aircraft carrier, say, project 1143.5, where from 65 aircraft to 36 are military aircraft.

Pay attention to the power plant superE-plan. The author measures its potential in megawatts. Meanwhile, it is more appropriate to take into account the engine thrust indicator, since, although the ekranoplane belongs to a specific class of ships, in essence it is closer to seaplanes. In this case, the key index determining the possibility of its separation from water is the specific thrust-to-weight ratio — the ratio of the maximum total thrust of all engines of the vessel to its take-off weight. For existing E-plans, it ranges from 0,23 to 0,28. Although on the cruise flight can be 0,09-0,11. On the basis of these data, we estimate the required total thrust of the power plant of an airplane.

Fifteen megawatts on Dead Man's Chest

The aircraft engines available today in take-off mode (in particular, in the afterburner) develop thrust of the order of 30 tons. Note that it has not grown too much over the past two decades, so the most heavy aircraft have four, or even six, like the An-225, engines. The Americans put eight motors on the famous B-52 bomber. In the medium term, it is unlikely that an engine with more than 40 tons will appear on the take-off afterburner and 20 tons - on the cruise. Even these numbers seem fantastic today. Nevertheless, we take them as the basis for further calculations. Based on such a predicted thrust of one engine, it is easy to determine their number for WIG of various take-off weight.

That is, it will be necessary to place more than 130 engines on the ekranoplan-aircraft carrier, each with a load that is not quite attainable today. And, if we assume that in the take-off mode, special launch rocket engines can be used, which have a particularly large load, in addition to the main engines, the required amount of the ultimate - more than 100. Where to place the motors on a relatively small surface of an e-plan of the type of a rectangular monocry 250 meters long? After all, they must be installed within the same tier, otherwise they will create mutual interference. I'm not talking about the problems associated with the simultaneous use in flight of such a large number of engines. We recognize that in reality, no more than 15-20 engines can be installed on the wing, which corresponds to the maximum take-off weight of the vessel up to 3000 tons.

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Fitter65
    Fitter65 13 December 2017 15: 44 New
    And what kind of indignation of the air environment these tens of multi-ton will create. It turns out that just the airplane simply can’t approach the landing strip of the eco-aircraft carrier.
    1. maxim947
      maxim947 13 December 2017 22: 26 New
      Yes ... the designer came up with ... how he had not yet foreseen the possibility of immersing 300 meters of this miracle and moving on land))
      Looks like to get into the GOZ.
  2. ZVO
    ZVO 13 December 2017 15: 54 New
    Oh and heresy in the head of this Yatskov ...
    Really, those who retype it, do not understand that in the head of the "constructor" are no longer thoughts. already cockroaches ...
    1. The Siberian barber
      The Siberian barber 13 December 2017 16: 11 New
      Rather, an attempt to "monetize" the brilliant (at least for its time) ideas, the great designer Alekseev. Or, the laurels of the American military-industrial complex, with their appetites, haunt))
  3. Fuzelir
    Fuzelir 13 December 2017 16: 07 New
    Well, build, and use it where? Our seas do not differ in peace ....
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 13 December 2017 16: 07 New
    I can also throw an idea with approximately the same probability of implementation:

    1. AKC
      AKC 14 December 2017 11: 56 New
      forgot to put the towers of the Civil Code. Here with them the idea makes sense !!!
      P.S. is already beginning to annoy me (personally) that VO prints any nonsense and the amount of this nonsense is increasing !!!
      1. Sargas
        Sargas 17 December 2017 20: 51 New
        During WWII, japs ​​had 2 aircraft-carrying submarines. And the japa did not use bacteriological weapons in the USA only because the fleet command clamped such a boat for Detachment 731.
  5. Nemesis
    Nemesis 13 December 2017 17: 22 New
    Why is this needed ?! Not only is the project very expensive both in construction and in operation, it is dangerous for the crew, almost like an airplane, because it will have great restrictions on use on waves, it will not be universal, because it does not have air defense and anti-submarine defense systems. .. The conclusion is obvious - it just is not needed ...
  6. duchy
    duchy 13 December 2017 19: 20 New
    Yeah, and a couple more trains with kerosene tanks, they’ll teleport on the rope behind. drinks bully
  7. groks
    groks 13 December 2017 21: 17 New
    Why exactly the analogue of an aircraft carrier? "Lun" - ready mini-KURO. EKIP is even more interesting - you can hit him, beloved by all, “Caliber”, more than “Tomahawks” in “Zumvolt”. Moreover, it can be used even in the Belarusian Sea. Euro-missile defense will lose its meaning.
  8. Conductor
    Conductor 13 December 2017 21: 38 New
    Yes, the Russian land is rich in talents.
  9. Stoler
    Stoler 13 December 2017 22: 06 New
    Do I have one feeling that the Ukrainian "inventors of patriots" have moved to us? laughing
    1. demo
      demo 17 December 2017 20: 34 New
      From the first lines I thought about it.
      Explicitly “root” sources from the category - Ukraine will become a Great Space Power, the Legislator of aviation fashion, the Main Agricultural Supergiant, and hereinafter referred to as the statements of Klimkin and K.
  10. yousha1980
    yousha1980 13 December 2017 23: 17 New
    Would not hurt a couple of dozen modernized moons with calibers. It would deliver an itch to the NATO more Pole Bears.
  11. yousha1980
    yousha1980 13 December 2017 23: 46 New
    I’m not sure that the ekranoplan is needed as an aircraft carrier, but it seems promising as a carrier for various weapons systems.
    A flying ship is good for everyone, but the main drawback is its short range.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 17 December 2017 13: 43 New
      And the time from the transition from the state of the problem to the state of debris is record low, to instant.
      1. yousha1980
        yousha1980 7 January 2018 22: 45 New
        Why's that? What will hit? RCC or SAM?
      2. yousha1980
        yousha1980 7 January 2018 23: 01 New
        This is if all the power of NATO against one unit, which is without air defense. And what if with an air defense module like Tor or Shell? And if a group of 2-3 units? And if harmoniously with other branches of the army? Dust swallow torment.
  12. Tektor
    Tektor 14 December 2017 13: 40 New
    The project is possible to implement. For example, for an e-plan with a “corvette” displacement of 2–2,5 thousand tons, engine thrust is required for separation from the water of 500–600 tons * s or 14-16 of the PD-35 engines currently under development. This is 4 engines front and rear and 3-4 engines on the wings. Thus it is necessary to keep within 600 - 800 tons of displacement of the hull with ship equipment. Approximately 800-1000 tons of fuel for a range of at least 15 thousand km, and preferably 20 thousand km. And there remains 600 - 700 tons for various weapons systems, including several Su-34 or Su-57, 4-5 pieces, a link, which, perhaps, at a speed of 400 km / h can simply sink vertically onto the deck. Or a crane arm will rise from the deck, which will cling to the flying plane and gently lower it. Obviously, the platform, possibly raised to a height of several meters, for launch and landing on the deck should be in the fore part of the e-plan. Those. there probably should be two of them, offset by a minimum distance from the axis.
  13. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 15 December 2017 07: 07 New
    The whole point of heavy ekranoplanes was to jump over the Black Sea with great speed and strike Turkey. In all other tactical schemes, this contraption is absolutely unnecessary. Extremely gluttonous, capricious for the weather, uncomfortable ... Since at the moment its main purpose is irrelevant, there is no point in building.
  14. Zubr
    Zubr 15 December 2017 09: 44 New
    In general, of course, the idea is very interesting and technically feasible. But it seems to me that we do not need it yet, the budget is not rubber. And the other side of the coin is that the Sharikovs scratch all indiscreet places in thought, which is no longer able to fully protect the AUG from hypersonic weapons. The range of aviation is growing and the means of destruction have grown decently, new engines and new means of destruction are approaching. It seems to me that this is an anachronism. Maybe I don’t understand something. For example, I am a supporter of compaction and new physical principles.
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 17 December 2017 20: 26 New
      What are these principles ?! Where did you find them?