Project "Orlan": the return of combat ekranoplan

146
In recent years, it has been repeatedly reported about the imminent resurgence of the domestic direction of the ekranoplanes. It was argued that in the coming years there may appear several new types of such equipment, designed to solve various problems. Together with other samples, a new combat ekranoplan may appear, armed with missiles of one type or another. It is supposed to be used to protect the maritime borders of the country, including in remote areas. Very little is known about this project, but it is already possible to make a definite picture.

On the existence of the next domestic project of an airplane has become known 30 July. The vice-premier Yury Borisov, responsible for the military-industrial complex, told the press about him. According to Yu. Borisov, in the new State Armaments Program, designed for 2018-2027 years, there is an experimental design work on the creation of a promising WIG. The project has a working designation "Orlan". The program provides for the development of the project and the subsequent construction of a prototype.



Project "Orlan": the return of combat ekranoplan
Impact ekranoplan "Lun" during the test. Photo Militaryrussia.ru


Unlike other ekranoplans, the development of which was announced in the recent past, the Orlan will be a military vehicle. It is supposed to equip with rocket armament, the type of which, however, was not specified. An ekranoplan will be able to patrol, attack various targets or participate in rescue operations.

Y. Borisov named the possible work areas of the future Orlan. He noted that the Russian infrastructure on the Northern Sea Route is not very developed and needs to be protected. Perspective ekranoplan can patrol in those areas and protect them from possible threats. In addition, the possibility of work of the Orlan in the Black or Caspian seas is not excluded.

What organization is entrusted with the development of "Orlan" - was not specified. There is every reason to believe that the project is being created in the Central Design Bureau for hydrofoil vessels. R.A. Alekseeva. It was this organization that was the first in our country to take up the subject of WIG and created most of the projects. For several decades of work in this area, the Central Clinical Hospital on SEC has managed to accumulate substantial experience that can be applied in modern projects.

Also interesting projects of similar technology were available at the Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex named after Gm Beriev. For example, the Be-2500 project provides for the construction of an EKOL mass of about 2,5 thousand tons. Such a device, according to calculations, could carry out a high-speed flight at a minimum height and, if necessary, rise higher. The payload was determined in 1 thousand tons. The maximum range was declared at the level of 16 thousand km, which would allow to fly along the entire Northern Sea Route.

Officially announced data on the Orlan project are not particularly detailed at this time, but they do provide an overall picture. In addition, they bring to mind one of the old projects of technology for a similar purpose. A few decades ago, in our country, a military ekranoplan was created with rocket armament; This sample was called "Lun". There is reason to believe that the newest project "Orlan" will be to some extent similar to its predecessor, and their main differences will be associated with the use of modern technologies.

However, it is not at all necessary that the new Orlan will repeat the previous pattern even in the most basic aspects. Experimental "Lun" was distinguished by outstanding dimensions and weight, and in addition, it had to be equipped with eight engines at once. One of the reasons for this was the technical features of the onboard weapon system. An ekranoplan carried six launchers for Moskit anti-ship missiles at once. These devices were located on the upper surface of the fuselage and were installed one after another. It is possible that a different arrangement of units and the use of smaller missiles can reduce the size and take-off weight of the machine, without adversely affecting the speed and other characteristics.

Any information about the technical appearance and exterior of the new "Orlan" has not yet been announced. However, the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister and the well-known information about the previous domestic ekranoplans can be the basis for some assessments. Most likely, the project will offer the construction of the apparatus, most similar to the aircraft, but having some characteristic features. One should expect the construction of a nizkoplan with a small elongation wing, equipped with several turbojet engines. The tail plumage should be built on a T-shaped pattern. To improve the technical and operational characteristics, modern materials and technologies should be applied.


General view of the multipurpose ground-effect A-080-752. Figure CDB SEC them. Alekseeva / ckbspk.ru


Previous domestic ekranoplans, including those with a large mass, could reach speeds of up to 450-500 km / h due to the powerful propulsion system. Prospective "Orlan" may have similar characteristics. Some Soviet and Russian projects provided for the possibility of flying not only at a minimum height using the screen effect, but also lifting with a horizontal flight “in an airplane” manner. Whether such opportunities will receive a promising model is unknown.

It is alleged that "Orlan" will conduct patrols in the Northern Sea Route and ensure its protection against various threats. If we take into account the nature of the latter, then we can imagine what kind of weapons will need an ekranoplan. First of all, he needs anti-ship missiles with high performance. In this capacity, existing P-800 "Onyx" products can be used. It is also impossible to exclude the possibility of using the complex "Caliber" in the version for surface ships. With the help of such a complex, the Orlan could attack ground or underwater targets.

The “Onyx” and “Caliber” missiles differ from the older “Mosquitoes” in smaller dimensions, however, they retain rather large sizes. However, in their case, the layout issues remain quite complicated. The experienced Lun carried launchers for six rockets on the fuselage roof, which not only gave it a distinctive appearance, but also worsened its aerodynamics in a certain way. The optimal solution to the problem would be to place weapons inside the machine, without using large external units.

What missiles the Orlan will receive and how they will be placed on the car will be known later. Perhaps the Russian designers are currently engaged in solving this issue and have not yet determined the optimal layout option.

Of interest are the words of Yu. Borisov about the possibility of attracting an WIG to search and rescue operations. This means that the car will have to have a cargo-passenger compartment of sufficient size, in which it will be possible to transport rescuers or the equipment necessary for them, as well as victims found and evacuated. Combining rockets and bulk load in one project may not be the easiest design task.

According to Yu. Borisov, the Russian infrastructure in the Polar region is not yet developed, and Orlans will have to work there, covering the northern borders of the country. It can be assumed that in this region WIG will be able to show their full potential in the field of flight performance. The equipment of this class can be operated only over flat surfaces: in the Far North it can be both the surface of the sea and ice fields.

Moreover, when working on a pack ice, an EK board gets rid of some difficulties. When flying over water, excitement has a noticeable effect on the screen effect and, accordingly, on the characteristics of the machine. Ice fields are more stable, which simplifies piloting.

It is easy to notice that the perspective ekranoplan is now seen as a kind of replacement for some aircraft. He will have to patrol in remote areas and, if necessary, use missile weapons. This allows us to consider the "Orlan" a kind of analogue of the existing long-range marine bombers aviationwhose tasks also consist in the search and destruction of dangerous surface or ground objects.

Due to a number of characteristic features of the design inherent in ekranoplans, a promising model may have some advantages over traditional aircraft. At the same time, he will have to lose them in other areas. For example, the use of the screen effect can increase the payload, but seriously limits the maximum speed. In practice, this means that the bomber, carrying fewer weapons, can quickly reach the line of its application.

A characteristic advantage of WIG, of great interest in the context of their combat use, is their low visibility for enemy detection systems. Moving at a low altitude above the surface of the sea, land or ice, the machine can move secretly and go into the area of ​​the launch of rockets without unmasking itself. In addition, a ground-effect vehicle (WIG) can be a challenging target for air defense assets of enemy ships. This applies to both anti-aircraft missiles and deck fighters.


Layout of the Be-2500 seaplane. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


However, we should not forget that WIGs have several fundamentally intractable shortcomings. Some of them degrade performance and make it difficult to operate, while others impose significant restrictions on the ways and methods of work. The ekranoplan of traditional design, which does not have the ability to rise to a considerable height, requires the correct choice of route, which should not be attended by tall objects or sharp drops in height. In addition, it cannot perform deep turns, which seriously increases the turning radius and limits maneuverability.

You should also recall the administrative problem that the first Russian ekranoplanes had to face. In terms of design, this technique is similar to airplanes, but is intended for use fleet. This requires the involvement of both the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry, as well as related departments from both areas, which makes it difficult to carry out the necessary work.

According to official data, the Orlan project will be developed within the framework of the current State Armaments Program, which is in force until 2027. When exactly the work should start, it has not yet been clarified, but it is clear that the finished sample of promising technology will appear no earlier than the mid-twenties. Given the various tests, refinements and the need for a fairly complex preparation for mass production, it should be assumed that the operation of serial equipment - if it appears - starts only at the beginning of the thirties.

It can be assumed that by the time the Orlans began service, the Russian infrastructure in the Polar region will change for the better and be able to more effectively protect the northern borders of the country. However, their total length and, as a consequence, the area of ​​responsibility of ekranoplans by that time will not be reduced. Thus, despite the development of all other elements of the defense in the Northern direction, the Russian army may also need fundamentally new models.

The state armaments program, designed for the period from 2018 to 2025 a year, started just a few months ago. It provides for several new development work, including the design and construction of a promising ground-effect vehicle with the Orlan cipher. It is possible that the project "Orlan" has not yet had time to start, but now it attracts attention and is of great interest. Previous domestic projects of military ekranoplans could not be called fully successful, and it remains to be hoped that the new development in this area will be able to change this state of affairs.

On the materials of the sites:
http://interfax.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://rg.ru/
https://svpressa.ru/
http://ckbspk.ru/
http://beriev.com/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-606.html
146 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    6 August 2018 07: 05
    The carrying capacity was determined at 1 thousand tons.

    There is clearly a font. Even Mriya does not raise more than 250 tons.
    1. +17
      6 August 2018 08: 30
      Quote: Fedorov
      There is clearly a font. Even Mriya does not raise more than 250 tons.

      =======
      Dear Valery! You actually article carefully read ???? There, in fact, we are not talking about planes, but about "ekranoplanes" and "ekranoprolet" ....
      And SCREEN, with the same starting weight as the plane, has a significantly higher carrying capacity !!!! This is FIRST !!!
      And here’s the second: An-224 Mriya has a maximum take-off weight of 664 tons, i.e. Max. payload (250 t) is approx. 39% ....
      In the article, indicative figures for a perspective ekranoplan are indicated: max. weight approx. 2.5 thousand tons, max payload - approx. 1 thousand tons (i.e., the same 40% !!!) .....
      Well, WHERE is the "font-guy" here ??? Rather - just a "blunder" commentator[i] [/ i] !!!!! request bully
      1. +3
        6 August 2018 09: 01
        firstly, the paper will endure, it was possible to write 10000 tons - there is no product
        secondly, re-read your comment and compare the 2nd and 4th paragraph - where is the “significantly higher payload”?
        thirdly, compare the real weight and carrying capacity of Orlyonok and Mi26 or ancient An12, for example, and leave these nonsense
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 09: 45
          Quote: Tlauicol
          firstly, the paper will endure, it was possible to write 10000 tons - there is no product

          ========
          Firstly, it was about PROJECTS !!! Secondly - "Lun" with a maximum mass of 380 tons and a payload of 137 tons (0,36), "Ruslan" - respectively 392 and 120 tons (0,30!).
          There was also “KM” with max. weighing 544 tons and a load of 307 tons (0,56) For reference, "Mriya" at max. take-off weight of 640 tons, can lift a maximum of 250 tons (0,39) !!!! Any questions?????
          1. +6
            6 August 2018 10: 26
            Quote: venik
            Secondly, Lun with a maximum mass of 380 tons and a payload of 137 tons (0,36), Ruslan has 392 and 120 tons, respectively (0,30!).
            A lun with such a load will fly 2000 km, and An-124 - 5400 km

            Quote: venik
            There was also “KM” with max. weighing 544 tons and a load of 307 tons (0,56)
            WIG fuel is not needed at all? This is not a payload, but the sum of the masses of fuel and payload. According to your logic, Mriya raises 390 tons
            1. +1
              6 August 2018 13: 37
              Quote: Mimoprohodil
              WIG fuel is not needed at all? This is not a payload, but the sum of the masses of fuel and the payload.

              =======
              And here it is, my friend - you "in kogne not Pgava"(as the" classic "used to say) !!!!
              It is EXACTLY about USEFUL LOAD, but not about fuel !!! bully
          2. +3
            6 August 2018 10: 57
            You also considered fuel for ep for a payload? pretty boy ! good
            Who needs a device that can raise 100 tons of fuel for their own engines? while having a smaller range and speed at a higher cost?
            1. +2
              6 August 2018 13: 40
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Who needs a device that can raise 100 tons of fuel for their own engines?

              ========
              Firstly: fuel was NOT CONSIDERED !!! Took ONLY the "payload" !!! ( tongue )
              Secondly, "ekranoplan" - MUCH more economical and aircraft and helicopters (by definition!!!) - up to 30% !!! (Learn the materiel!) hi
              1. +10
                6 August 2018 13: 48
                Quote: venik
                Firstly: fuel was NOT CONSIDERED !!! Took ONLY the "payload" !!! (

                Listen, making a mistake - don't be afraid to persist in it - it's funny.
                You do not take the payload mass from the ekranoplanes, you take the difference between the mass of an empty ekranoplan and its maximum take-off mass. And for airplanes you take exactly the mass of the payload - that is, the difference between a refueled airplane and its max. take-off.
                Ekranoplan in terms of economics tightly loses to airplanes, because it is forced to carry a huge mass of take-off engines (needed to exit the screen) and which are no longer needed for anything.
                So yes, learn the materiel :)
              2. +1
                7 August 2018 17: 47
                Quote: venik
                Secondly, the ekranoplan is MUCH more economical than airplanes and helicopters (by definition !!!) - up to 30% !!! (Learn the materiel!)

                I wonder why with the rise to a height of a jet engine, fuel consumption decreases ?? All the noise around the ekranoplanes only due to the fact that a very smart one manager decided to replace the ekranoplan with about ten aircraft. Let's see what happens;)))
      2. +8
        6 August 2018 13: 14
        Quote: venik
        And SCREEN, with the same starting weight as the plane, has a significantly higher carrying capacity !!!! This is FIRST !!!

        Alas, my good sir, the ekranoplan, with the same starting weight, has a significantly LOWER payload
        Eaglet. - empty weight 100 t, max take-off - 140 t, respectively, payload mass (fuel included) 40 t or 40% of empty weight
        Lun - empty weight 243 t, max. take-off - 380 t payload mass 137 t or 56,4%
        Aircraft.
        Mriya - empty weight 250 t, max take-off 640 t payload mass - 390 t or 156%
        Tu-160 - empty weight 110 t max take-off 275 t, payload 165 t or 150%
        Quote: venik
        Rather, it’s just a “blunder” of the commentator [i] [/ i] !!!!!

        This is exactly
        1. +2
          6 August 2018 13: 55
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Mriya - empty weight 250 t, max take-off 640 t payload mass - 390 t or 156%

          ==========
          Sorry, Andrey! Maybe you are a great economist ..... But who told you that Mriya can "raise" 390 tons?????
          Spit in his face !!!!
          The MAXIMUM load that Mriya lifted was 250 tons, and then it barely pulled away from the strip !!! (saw!)
          Secondly, in the "comments" it is not about the "dry" weight, but about the maximum take-off !!!
          If you think, then "KM" should have a coefficient of approx. 140% .....
          What when taking into account the "dry" weight of "Mriya" (250 tons) gives a coefficient of 100% (???) or almost one and a half times LESS !!!!
          Sorry, of course, Andrey - LEARN "MATCH" !!! soldier
          1. +5
            6 August 2018 15: 39
            Quote: venik
            Sorry, of course, Andrey - LEARN "MATCH" !!

            Vladimir, I’ve already chewed everything that’s called and put it in your mouth, and what hasn’t come to this yet? :))))
            Quote: venik
            Sorry, Andrey! Maybe you are a great economist ..... But WHO told you that Mriya can “raise” 390 tons

            ANY DIRECTORY :))))) We open and read.
            Quote: venik
            The MAXIMUM load that Mriya lifted was 250 tons, and then it barely pulled away from the strip !!! (saw!)

            No, not seen. You saw the "Mriya" that took off from 140 tons of fuel and 250 tons of payload, and all those same 390 tons.
            Quote: venik
            Secondly, in the "comments" it is not about the "dry" weight, but about the maximum take-off !!!

            Then what happiness do you take for the ekranoplanes dry weight? :))) In the moon 243 t - this is DRY weight. In the Eaglet 100, t is DRY weight. That is, the weight WITHOUT fuel. How else to explain? :))))
            Quote: venik
            Secondly - Lun with a maximum mass of 380 tons and a payload of 137 tons

            Lun didn’t HAVE USEFUL LOAD 137 t, since 137 t IS THE GENERAL MASS OF FUEL AND USEFUL LOAD
            137 t Moon is an analog of 390 t Mriya :)))
        2. 0
          29 March 2020 17: 54
          It is strange to read all these attempts to conduct a correct, in general, dispute between interested and erudite persons, who do not take into account one little circumstance: Mriya, An-22 and other aircraft - a technique of a long-formed industry, AVIATION, which has found its niche, having for decades verified rules of design, construction and operation, both for the airframe and for engines, and all units and equipment elements. And here is a technique called to life, FIRSTLY, by the will of ONE VICTOR, not once beaten, but continuing to create this wonderful hybrid technique, which has not yet found an owner. Marine ONLY FOR APPLICATION, the ekranoplane - AERODYNAMIC SUPPORTING AIRCRAFT. Alekseev, by the will of the circumstances, WAS FORCED, in the absence of norms for calculating flight loads for the adopted flight conditions (including landing), to take overestimated safety factors (here's an extra "meat" of the structure that eats up the payload), use NON-ECONOMIC FOR LOW ALTITUDES engines (which so "devour" fuel at the surface of the water), bulky ship equipment, and even cables and switching equipment (weight return!). And the 544 tons mentioned is a record TEST weight. With a CALCULATED design weight of 450 (four hundred and fifty tons) Alekseev, after 7 years of operation of the KM structure in electrolyte (in the Caspian the water density is somewhere between 1,1-1,2 ppm), decided to check the RESIDUAL strength. But, knowing about the extra "meat", he ordered to load another 100 (STO) tons of sand in bags. As a participant in this release, December 1, 1973, I declare! the impression is amazing, no deformations were found. Look for the book "Ships in the Fifth Ocean". AUTHOR
          1. +1
            29 March 2020 19: 19
            Quote: ekranoplan5
            It’s strange to read all these attempts to lead a correct, in general, argument

            It is strange to see the lack of good manners in a person who seems to be supposed to know them by age.
            Quote: ekranoplan5
            And here is the technique brought to life, FIRST, by the will of ONE MOBILE

            No need to torment the caps. They are familiar with the history of ekranoplanes. And yes, they were engaged in ekranoplanes not only in the USSR, just in the same USA they very quickly realized that this branch was a dead end and did not force work on it
            Quote: ekranoplan5
            Alekseev, by the will of the circumstances, WAS FORCED, in the absence of norms for calculating flight loads for the adopted flight conditions (including landing), to take overestimated safety factors (here's an extra "meat" of the structure that eats up the payload), use NON-ECONOMIC FOR LOW ALTITUDES engines (which so "eat" fuel at the surface of the water), bulky ship equipment

            It doesn’t make much difference. Aircraft wing a priori should have a great thrust-weight ratio, while its contours are not optimal for flight, like any amphibian, and the hull is stronger than an airplane, as it should land on water. That is, the most ideal ekranoplan will blow the aircraft in its performance characteristics. And about everything else ... the extreme danger of moving at low altitudes, low speed, poor handling and so on and so forth is already written above.
    2. +1
      6 August 2018 13: 00
      This is where the ekranoplane is concerned, they do not fly high above the water, and the pressure under the wings will be greater than that of airplanes (the name of the structure derives from these properties), thereby making it possible to increase the carrying capacity relative to airplanes with similar design weights. And yet, the supporting structure also weighs much more with conventional aircraft than with ekranoplanes. In the end, we can add that, for conventional aircraft, the main load acts during take-off and landing, since ekranoplanes do not have such loads, the theoretical weight of the structure can be made even easier. So that the load capacity can be increased without affecting the weight of the structure.
      1. +2
        6 August 2018 13: 16
        Quote: fidi
        thereby allows you to increase the carrying capacity relative to aircraft with similar design weights

        Tell me, is it so unbearably difficult to see the empty mass / maximum take-off mass? The ekranoplan carries a significantly lower payload.
        1. 0
          6 August 2018 13: 56
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Tell me, is it so unbearably difficult to see the empty mass / maximum take-off mass? The ekranoplan carries a significantly lower payload.

          ========
          NUMBERS - "into the studio" !!!!! fellow
          1. +2
            6 August 2018 16: 27
            Quote: venik
            NUMBERS - "into the studio" !!!!!

            What other numbers, except those that I indicated above, are needed for you? :)))
    3. 0
      6 August 2018 13: 31
      Surely the author or editor made a mistake, most likely it is 100 tons, and this load is likely.
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 14: 08
        Quote: cat hippo
        Surely the author or editor made a mistake, most likely it is 100 tons, and this load is likely.

        ============
        Vladislav !!! I gave the data - in 1966 (!!!) in the USSR, the KM (Caspian Monster) ekranoplane was tested - in fact, the abbreviation "KM" meant: "Ship Model" ..... Load capacity - 307 ( !!!) tons .....
        WHAT "blooper"Do you deign to reason ????? request
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 14: 52
          Quote: venik
          Quote: cat hippo
          Surely the author or editor made a mistake, most likely it is 100 tons, and this load is likely.

          ============
          Vladislav !!! I gave the data - in 1966 (!!!) in the USSR, the KM (Caspian Monster) ekranoplane was tested - in fact, the abbreviation "KM" meant: "Ship Model" ..... Load capacity - 307 ( !!!) tons .....
          WHAT "blooper"Do you deign to reason ????? request

          wow belay dry weight 240, maximum take-off 544, and carrying capacity 307 tons !!!!
          indeed a child prodigy - generally without fuel it flies and without fuel, and it’s even easier, sorry, before take-off !!!! Wonder weapon !!!! soldier give two Yes
    4. 0
      7 August 2018 12: 10
      WIG capacity is several times higher than that of aircraft with similar engines.
      I made small models of ekranoplanes in an aircraft model circle (naturally without calculations) - the lifting force was several times higher than that of gliders. I think that in 1-1.5 m2 of wing area you can fit an ekranoplane, which is already capable of taking away a weight of 40 kg with an engine of 0.5-1 hp.
      1. 0
        7 August 2018 15: 29
        Quote: yehat
        WIG capacity is several times higher than that of aircraft with similar engines.
        Orlyonka’s payload is several times higher than that of the An-12?
      2. +3
        7 August 2018 20: 29
        Quote: yehat
        WIG capacity is several times higher than that of aircraft with similar engines.

        Wing Lun had 8 (EIGHT) engines, equivalent to those that are on the Su-33 (together 101 000 kgf) and lost outright on the payload Tu-160 with its 72 000 kgf
        1. 0
          7 August 2018 22: 59
          ekranoplan and sediment Lun - things are different.
          1. +1
            8 August 2018 01: 03
            Quote: yehat
            ekranoplan and sediment Lun - things are different.

            OK, please name the ekranoplan, which the ekranoplan :))))
            1. 0
              8 August 2018 08: 30
              as I read, the same eaglet had a higher specific gravity.
  2. +10
    6 August 2018 07: 56
    statements about ekranoplans - a dumb PR for probing the soil under the potential drank.

    ..screens have only a slight lift advantage in a very narrow range of flight conditions,
    while losing in all other respects to conventional aircraft.
    1. +8
      6 August 2018 08: 09
      I absolutely agree, the next megaproject that is needed exclusively to create 1 sample and drank billions of rubles. Let the frigates learn how to do at least 1 piece in 2 years. And the an-48 level planes (we have no new middle class, we fly on junk ... last disaster in Syria example)
      1. +1
        6 August 2018 09: 05
        Quote: Xroft
        Another megaproject that is needed exclusively to create 1 sample and drank billions of rubles.

        ========
        Most of all, the "experts" "like" - who, if they DO NOT UNDERSTAND what, then immediately begin to hysteria: "I drank the budget" !!! ( angry ) ........
        Quote: Xroft
        Let the frigates do learn to learn at least 1 pc in 2 years.

        ========
        Immediately the question: "And where does the" frigates "????? request
        Quote: Xroft
        And an-48 level aircraft

        ==========
        I hasten to please you - type aircraft An-48 in Russia will not learn to do - NEVER !!!!! Just because such a plane in nature DOES NOT EXIST laughing !!!
        1. +4
          6 August 2018 11: 28
          Quote: venik
          Most of all, the "experts" "like" - who, if they DO NOT UNDERSTAND what, then immediately begin to hysteria: "I drank the budget" !!! () ..

          What can be misunderstood here? Allocating money to worthless, useless crap. I drank and eat.
          1. 0
            6 August 2018 14: 10
            Quote: Winnie76
            What can be misunderstood here? Allocating money to worthless, useless crap. I drank and eat.

            ==========
            Well, SO PROVE (with "numbers", please !!!) fool
        2. -1
          8 August 2018 14: 06
          Quote: venik
          Well, SO PROVE (with "numbers", please !!!)


          And please give me the numbers in the studio - how much do you pay for these stupid cheering comments? And then the economic situation is difficult - I would probably also earn extra money in my free time lol
  3. +2
    6 August 2018 08: 08
    The advantages of ekranoplanes are doubtful, but they have drawbacks ... Shaving flight for any aircraft is the most risky "evolution" - and this light alloy structure MUST land on water and ice, while maneuvering with large rolls - it cannot!
    1. +2
      6 August 2018 08: 59
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Shaving flight for any aircraft is the most risky "evolution"

      ========
      The trick is that the "ekranoplan" - DOES NOT NEED the elevators !!!! He himself goes around the gentle bumps in the relief !!! At the same time, the flight altitude (climb and decrease) is regulated exclusively by engine thrust !!!
      And as for the "ekranolet" - then the elevator is certainly needed there (since the machine can exit the "screen mode" and fly "on the plane"). In the case of "ekranoleta" - the main limitations of the "ekranoplan" - removed !!! Somewhere like that !!! hi
    2. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 05
      The ekranoplan must be compared with hovercraft, and not with an airplane.
      1. -1
        7 August 2018 16: 24
        Do not. Neither with SVP, nor with SPK ekranoplans it is not necessary to compare. WIG is an aircraft for high density air.
        Compare economic efficiency with what you want. Combat effectiveness, too.
        The argument "we have, but they do not have" - ​​does not warm. They don’t have just because they don’t really need it.
  4. +1
    6 August 2018 08: 09
    Shaw, a5? There will be no ekranoplanes, if they were needed, if all of them had acquired them long ago, calm down already.
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 08: 53
      Quote: EvilLion
      if they were needed, if everyone had acquired them long ago, calm down already.

      ========
      Relax The ekranoplanes construction program "covered" together with the Union and the ensuing economic collapse ......
      And as for the rest .... So, the Americans - still can’t build something impressive - NO TECHNOLOGIES !!! fool
      1. +2
        6 August 2018 14: 32
        maybe because it’s just not needed? laughing
        1. 0
          6 August 2018 16: 01
          Quote: faiver
          maybe because it’s just not needed? laughing

          ========
          Reminds a "bearded" joke: "Well, it didn’t hurt too much" .......
          Well, you can still recall the Krylovskaya fable about the "Fox and Grapes" ..... There, "she" also "didn’t feel pain" .......
          1. 0
            6 August 2018 16: 56
            Quote: venik
            Quote: faiver
            maybe because it’s just not needed? laughing

            ========
            Reminds a "bearded" joke: "Well, it didn’t hurt too much" .......
            Well, you can still recall the Krylovskaya fable about the "Fox and Grapes" ..... There, "she" also "didn’t feel pain" .......

            What about the V-22 Osprey tilt convertiplane?
            All adequates also laugh at this squalor on the principle of "..green grapes .."
            or do you still think that his concept is flawed?
        2. 0
          11 August 2018 08: 37
          In my opinion, for the Americans, the issue of force action in the desired point of the World Ocean is solved by the constant presence of a large number of "slow" surface ships, the USSR and Russia did not have and do not have such resources to maintain a "permanent" fleet. Therefore, there is an attempt to resolve the issue using "fast" ekranoplanes, so that at the right time, at the right point in the World Ocean (for Russia, it is mainly the Arctic), "heap the foe" or cover the area with his presence
  5. +1
    6 August 2018 08: 19
    ".... Wing of a traditional design, unable to climb to a considerable height.... "
    Kirill! Article, of course (+) !!! There is only a small remark - the material would be much easier to write and perceive if you used 2 concepts: actually "ekranoplan"(this is a machine capable of flying only at very low altitudes using the screen effect) and "screen fly"(as it is commonly called machines capable of climbing to a height, sometimes significant, and acting" by plane "!!!). hi
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 09: 04
      so you show at least one working ekranolet which can lift at least a bag of potatoes into the air
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. -1
        7 August 2018 16: 38
        Alexander Martin Lippisch X-113
        1. 0
          7 August 2018 16: 57
          yeah, they didn’t take the potatoes, poured the excess fuel, gained the height on the afterburner and sat down - what’s the benefit?
          1. -1
            7 August 2018 18: 37
            For benefits, read my comment above. Do not load in one bag and potatoes, and logic.
    2. +3
      6 August 2018 09: 20
      In fact, according to the international classification, there are three types of ekranoplanes:

      Type A - a vessel that is certified for operation only within the “screen effect” coverage area. Such vessels in all operating modes are subject to IMO requirements;
      Type B - a vessel that is certified to briefly and for a limited amount increase the flight altitude beyond the “screen effect”, but to a distance from the surface not exceeding 150 m. It also complies with IMO requirements. The maximum height of such a “flight” should be less than the minimum safe altitude of the aircraft according to ICAO requirements. A height limit of 150 m is controlled by ICAO;
      Type C - a vessel certified for operation outside the area of ​​the "screen effect" at a height exceeding 150 m. It obeys the IMO requirements in all operating modes, except for "aircraft". In the "airplane" mode, safety is ensured only by ICAO requirements, taking into account the features of ekranoplanes.


      Moreover, Alekseev conducted tests of ekranoplanes over the forest. According to the results, flying in the forest is possible at an altitude of about 50 m.
      So the ekranoplane will fly over hummocks - especially large.
      By the way, creating a high ekranoplan is not such a difficult task.
      Actually, for the ekranoplan the engine is the most problematic place (as for airplanes).
      Finding a powerful and economical engine is very difficult
      1. +1
        6 August 2018 09: 58
        Quote: alstr
        Finding a powerful and economical engine is very difficult

        This applies to absolutely any technique .. And for ekranoplanes / aviation, the main task now is to master the family of PDs in all ranges .. The sooner there are positive results, the sooner we will leave the deadlocks in many directions, and this is IL-96,76, An-124 , MI-26, PAK YES .. There is a line there and easier options .. so funds should be invested in this direction.
      2. +1
        6 August 2018 14: 30
        Quote: alstr
        Actually, for the ekranoplan the engine is the most problematic place (as for airplanes).
        Finding a powerful and economical engine is very difficult

        =========
        good That is why, in the schemes of “ekranoplan” two (two!) Types of engines are used “start”, capable of providing “separation” from the surface and “marching” - providing flight over the “screen”) .....

        START engines are marked with a red oval .... YELLOW - marching !!!!!!
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 14: 36
          Quote: venik
          Quote: alstr
          Actually, for the ekranoplan the engine is the most problematic place (as for airplanes).
          Finding a powerful and economical engine is very difficult

          =========
          good That is why, in the schemes of “ekranoplan” two (two!) Types of engines are used “start”, capable of providing “separation” from the surface and “marching” - providing flight over the “screen”) .....

          START engines are marked with a red oval .... YELLOW - marching !!!!!!

          oops, another flaw in front of the plane was foundrequest
          1. 0
            6 August 2018 15: 10
            Quote: Tlauicol
            oops, another flaw in front of the plane was found

            =======
            This is NOT a DISADVANTAGE - This is - ADVANTAGE!!!!
            Mi-26 carries 20 tons of cargo (with 2 engines of 11,4 tons of thrust - only 22.8 tons) ... And the Eaglet can carry 28 tons of cargo using a marching engine of only 13,5 tons !!! ! (i.e. in one and a half times weaker!!!) .... And then the range is 1.5 times MORE!!
            Well, and what exactly DISADVANTAGE "Ivan" discovered ??????? laughing
            Excuse me, I didn’t want to “mock” Vasya .... Well, it just so happened .... (It's your own fault!) wink
            1. +4
              6 August 2018 15: 25
              did not want to scoff at you, but mi26 is not a plane request
              1. 0
                6 August 2018 17: 52
                So is ES, as it were, too.
                But seriously, then on the photo KM, and this is actually a big model and the starting engines are not optimally located.
                Look at the same Eaglet. Everything is different there, two starting engines are sunk into the fuselage and directed under the wing. This is in addition to allowing more efficient use of power, but in addition it also provides the ability to fly on an airplane to an altitude of 3000 m. True, the range naturally decreases.
      3. 0
        6 August 2018 14: 59
        Where can I look at B and C?
        Herbalife and pictures of science fiction do not offer

        as for the new engine, it will be installed on the plane - more profitable more economical easier faster further more mobile
        1. 0
          6 August 2018 18: 59
          Eaglet was classified as Type C, and Lun was Type A
  6. +1
    6 August 2018 08: 23
    already wrote this in VO, but again, a few years ago, during a direct line with the President, he asked the question: Is there a future for Russian military ekranoplanes? The answer was yes. I fell in love with these devices after reading an article in Wings of the Homeland. Amazing !!! We should not lose such technologies !!!!!!
    1. +9
      6 August 2018 08: 38
      several years ago, during a direct line with the President, he asked the question: Is there a future for Russian combat ekranoplanes? The answer was yes.

      A few years ago, the president promised that while he was in power, they would not raise the retirement age .... So there is no special faith in such assurances
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 08: 53
        I knew that someone would write something similar, so the answer was prepared in advance, the kings come and go, but the miracle technique remains!
        1. +5
          6 August 2018 09: 00
          but the miracle technique remains!
          I remember the snowstorm, that 144, the moment 1.44 and so on, so it’s more likely to go to metal
          1. 0
            6 August 2018 14: 38
            Quote: spektr9
            I remember the snowstorm, that 144, the moment 1.44 and so on, so it’s more likely to go to metal

            =====
            But in order to “NOT GO ON THE METAL”, PEOPLE are needed (not just people, but PEOPLE !!! From the Capital Letter !!!). No, not those who do not "sit on a soft sofa" and cry out: "Everything is gone !!! They remove the gypsum! The client leaves !!!" ......
            And those who DO!!!!
            Here for now THEY ARE, Russia - Will not fall!! soldier
            1. 0
              6 August 2018 15: 23
              PEOPLE are needed (not just people, but PEOPLE !!! From the Capital Letter !!!) So long as they are, Russia will not fall !!!!!

              It will not disappear, for sure, people with a capital letter will not give laughing

          2. 0
            7 August 2018 06: 06
            and it was ,,,,, BUT I do not see the point in this, so as not to laugh and not to wash! And the one who is looking at night shaves, hopes for something after all!
        2. -3
          6 August 2018 13: 36
          So they stayed. At one time, he stood alone in Astrakhan, then they brought him to Kaspiysk for cutting. The eaglet in the beginning of the XNUMXs on Dag diesel stood in dust.
      2. +1
        6 August 2018 14: 39
        so he said a lot of things for 18 years, and things are still there ...
      3. 0
        6 August 2018 15: 12
        Quote: spektr9
        A few years ago, the president promised that while he was in power, they would not raise the retirement age ....

        ======
        And WHY here is the "retirement age" ???? fool
        Where is Rome, and WHERE is Crimea ????? request
  7. +4
    6 August 2018 08: 40
    Again on the same rake .. The uselessness of ekranoplanes has already been written about repeatedly:
    https://topwar.ru/90960-bespoleznost-ekranoplanov
    .html
    “Only one leg was found in the water, with a boot in camouflage. They buried it like that, ”recall eyewitnesses to the wreck of the ekranoplan“ Eaglet ”in the Caspian in 1992. In the process of turning, when moving on the “screen” at an altitude of 4 meters and a speed of 370 km / h, “pecking” occurred, longitudinal vibrations began with changes in height. In the process of hitting the water, the ekranoplane collapsed.
    1. +5
      6 August 2018 09: 11
      This always happens. Just remember how many testers died when testing aircraft? The latest example is the death of two pilots when landing on the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning in 2014.

      Moreover, I found in the internet a training manual for the Institute named after Alekseev for the calculations of ekranoplanes.

      So, the most profitable profile for ekranoplan - the flying wing has not yet been theoretically developed. Developed, what was most worked out, i.e. airplane scheme.

      Those. ekranoplan work froze at the level of biplanes.
      1. +1
        6 August 2018 13: 17
        Quote: alstr
        Those. ekranoplan work froze at the level of biplanes.

        For 28 years of the USSR, they could and will advance a bit
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 13: 34
          This requires funding. He was not after Alekseev’s death (more precisely, his removal from work). Just like there was no financing for the second generation of the SEC (they just started to reproduce something).
          And here we need not just OCD, but fundamental research of about the same class as in the transition to jet aviation.
          1. +3
            6 August 2018 13: 39
            Quote: alstr
            This requires funding. He was not after Alekseev’s death (more precisely, his removal from work).

            Alexander, financing definitely went to the death of Ustinov, the end of 1984, and maybe later. Ekranoplanes began to be engaged in in 1962, more precisely - even earlier, we are talking about the first order of the USSR Ministry of Defense. 22 years with near-zero exhaust. How many more decades did you need to fund this dream of reason?
            1. 0
              6 August 2018 14: 52
              Well, if you consider that the financing went on the residual principle (the same engines were decommissioned aircraft), then everything is not as bad as it seems.
              Firstly, the first return (CM do not consider) was received in 1972 - this is the first Eaglet built. In 10 years, only 5 of the 24 planned were built (this is about the issue of financing).
              Secondly, they built Lun and there were projects of a lifeguard and fire variant. (this is 87 year old).
              Thirdly, a passenger ship was being developed to replace the SEC (there were already projects, but they were not implemented in the metal due to the death of Alekseev and the problems of perestroika).

              This is not so small, considering that in fact 1-2 KB worked on this topic (compare how many KB worked on improving aircraft).

              In addition, customers did not initially have at least some understanding of how EP can be used and what tasks it can be used for (here you need to remember how many years the practice of using aircraft has been developed, as well as the eternal debate about where to put EP in the fleet or aviation).

              But exploitation is the thing that pushes for new solutions. But the EP had trouble with this exploitation - in fact, it wasn’t.
              1. +2
                6 August 2018 15: 48
                Quote: alstr
                Firstly, the first return (CM do not consider) was received in 1972 - this is the first Eaglet built

                ??? That is, the model for static tests suddenly became an active ekranoplan? :))) Strongly.
                Quote: alstr
                Secondly, they built Lun and there were projects of a lifeguard and fire variant. (this is 87 year)

                Lun was accepted for trial operation (only experimental!) In 1990, 28 years have passed. By the way, Lun is a rare and arch-expensive slaughterhouse (one personal dock is worth what)
                Quote: alstr
                and there were projects of a lifeguard and fire variant.

                Fortunately, unrealized. There is no fireman from it (as long as we get out of the dock, everything will end) the lifeguard with its funny seaworthiness is decorative.
                Quote: alstr
                Thirdly, there was a development

                28 years "Development was underway" - for this it is necessary to shoot.
                Quote: alstr
                This is not so small, considering that in fact 1-2 KB worked on this topic

                4 generation fighters were made much faster. One KB
                Quote: alstr
                In addition, customers did not initially have at least some understanding of how ES can be used and for what tasks it can be used.

                Because its inherent limitations do not allow the use of ekranoplan at least somewhat effectively in any area.
                1. 0
                  6 August 2018 18: 45
                  Well, a bit wrong - 73 (first flight before the production copy). In the 74 year, a tail break accident.

                  The first flight of the Moon in 87. Next 3 years of various tests. and in the 90th transferred to trial operation.
                  Expensive: on a serial basis, the cost of a rocket boat with 4 Mosquitoes and Lunya would be approximately equal.
                  And the EP has advantages: speed (at 400 versus 70-80 km / h) and a smaller crew (10 against 40).

                  The development of a new generation of SECs began in the early 80s and did not last long (before Alekseev was removed from the post of Civil Code).

                  And as for the fighter of the 4 (we note the 4 of the generation), it was not just one design bureau that worked, but a group of design bureaus that developed different parts of the fighter. In the case of ES, the development was carried out by one KB, which used EXISTING aggregates.
                  And remember how many design bureaus designed the first and second generation aircraft (still piston)? There were only a dozen well-known brands. And while no one canceled industrial espionage. Those. in any case, there was an exchange at least at the level of ideas. This was not the case with ekranoplanes.
                  1. +1
                    6 August 2018 19: 42
                    Quote: alstr
                    Expensive: on a serial basis, the cost of a rocket boat with 4 Mosquitoes and Lunya would be approximately equal.

                    This is impossible even in principle. Already if only because the RCA does not need a cruising dock, but in fact the device itself would cost a lot more. Decline, but some engines there would be more expensive than RCA.
                    Quote: alstr
                    Well, a bit wrong - 73 (first flight before the production copy). In the 74 year, a tail break accident.

                    Not. The first copies - it is not interesting, F-35 won the first copy when it flew? Interesting adoption or the beginning of mass production.
                    Quote: alstr
                    And as for the fighter of the 4 (we note the 4 of the generation), it was not just one design bureau that worked, but a group of design bureaus that developed different parts of the fighter. In the case of ES, the development was carried out by one KB, which used EXISTING aggregates.

                    Yes, I agree, but still I do not see much difference. The ekranoplan did not need any special engine, for example, and in the avionics there was nothing that we would not produce
    2. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 21
      Quote: Svetlana
      “Only one leg was found in the water, with a boot in camouflage. They buried it like that, ”recall eyewitnesses to the wreck of the ekranoplan“ Eaglet ”in the Caspian in 1992.

      =========
      Yesterday there was information about the crash of Mi-8 in the Krasnoyarsk Territory ..... Mi-8 Lousy Helicopter?????
      Not a pilot, but on the "bears" to fly "had a lot ..... more RELIABLE" turntables "- NO !!!!!
      And what, you, by this dearest "post" want to "prove" ????? fool
  8. +1
    6 August 2018 09: 06
    There are a couple of cases in which ekranoplans are needed. Patrol, rescue, PLO, and the like. URO is not their element. There is one problem! Target designation!
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 13: 40
      Quote: garri-lin
      There are a couple of cases in which ekranoplans are needed

      Well, well, well :)))
      Quote: garri-lin
      Patrol, rescue, PLO

      How do you imagine a rescue operation in a storm of 8 points on a trough capable of flying with excitement not exceeding 5-6 points?
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 15: 25
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        How do you imagine a rescue operation in a storm of 8 points on a trough capable of flying with excitement not exceeding 5-6 points?

        ========
        Chelyabinsk, it seems, from the "seas" at least 2-3 thousand km ....... And you, Andrei believe that "there" (in the sense of the "okeyan seas" - every day - a storm of 8-9 points ?????) ......
        Well, if the storm is 8-9 points .... Well tady - ICE BREAKERS will go to save .....
        Well, if the "calm" ... Well, or 2-3 points ??????? bully
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 15: 51
          Quote: venik
          And you, Andrei, think that "there" (in the sense on the "okeyan seas" - every day - a storm of 8-9 points ?????).

          No, I suppose (statistics hint :))) that rescue operations are usually needed in a storm :))) Well, ships are not often in distress with 2-3 points, infrequently
          Quote: venik
          Well, if the "calm" ... Well, or 2-3 points ???????

          There is such a wonderful thing, the helicopter is called :)))))
        2. 0
          6 August 2018 15: 52
          Well, if it’s "calm" ... Well, or 2-3 points - send the plane
    2. 0
      6 August 2018 14: 41
      and screw seaplane is not easier?
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 15: 26
        Quote: faiver
        and screw seaplane is not easier?

        =============
        SIMPLY !!! .... But there - their problems !!!!!
        1. +2
          6 August 2018 15: 30
          those. Komsomol hardening - first we create difficulties for ourselves, then we overcome them heroically
  9. BAI
    +4
    6 August 2018 10: 12
    Here the question arises as with Armata and Su-57: "But there are combat missions for him?" Or can you do with an inflatable boat with a motor?
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 29
      Quote: BAI
      Here the question arises as with Armata and Su-57: "But there are combat missions for him?" Or can you do with an inflatable boat with a motor?

      ==========
      Well, by and large it’s possible to get by with a bulldozer instead of a tank ... Especially if window grilles are on it (instead of anti-cumulative screens, "hang .......
  10. +4
    6 August 2018 12: 12
    Well, how to comment? Armata is not needed, Su -57 is not needed. HERE SCROLL IS YES !!! THIS IS A BABLE !!! laughing lol laughing
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 33
      Quote: Stoler
      Well, how to comment? Armata is not needed, Su -57 is not needed. HERE SCROLL IS YES !!! THIS IS A BABLE !!!

      ==========
      And who said that Armata and Su-57 are NOT NEEDED ???? You personally "whispered in the ear" ??? laughing
      EVERYTHING - OWN TIME!!!!!
      The asymmetric answer "- this is the ability to" keep in your pocket "" powerful arguments "..... And at any time FAST" pull them out ".......
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. +3
    6 August 2018 12: 51
    limited use equipment. only in the Caspian and in uninhabited places. afraid of poles, power lines and other things strongly protruding above the horizon, but at 450 km / h. on a cliff-cliff 10-15m jump, hummocks no how much? how much fuel is eating? the same "fool" as on an air cushion - shtetl. in the vastness of Australia and the Sahara are not going to direct it?
    and on a u-turn how much does this colossus need space? Will the bridges be above or below?
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 34
      Quote: dvaposto
      limited use equipment. only in the Caspian and in uninhabited places. poles, power lines

      ===============
      Can i ask you?
      And what, in Russia there are no such places ??????? request
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 15: 46
        read: poles, power lines and other strongly protruding above the horizon is afraid
        1. 0
          6 August 2018 23: 07
          That is, in the north, everything has long been entangled in us by power poles and high-rises! The built-up step cannot be stepped on. And when did you manage?
          1. +1
            7 August 2018 03: 32
            that is, the first pine or hill or a sharp bend of the river will become his grave
            Quote: Fil743
            That is, in the north, everything has long been entangled in us by power poles and high-rises! The built-up step cannot be stepped on. And when did you manage?
  13. +2
    6 August 2018 12: 53
    The wave is high on the Northern Sea Route, it’s not the Caspian, how can I use the ekranoplan effect? Along the coastline over the tundra? Maybe yes, but a matter of safety, reliability and manageability. If so, then a completely successful idea - a high-speed carrier rocket with a long-range and heavy-duty radar - cannot solve this problem by anything else. At a speed of 500 km / h, it does not require airfields, it has a radar and solid weapons - several of these machines will be able to cover the coastal area from boats and cruise missiles.
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 19
      What is the long-range radar? WIG flies "low-low." The radio horizon is scanty. Airfield / port required. He can’t fight cruise missiles (he just won’t notice). With a range, everything is also sad (compare with similar planes - inferior at times).
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 18: 57
        This is looking where to put the antenna. If it’s on top (it’s best in the tail, then there will be a height of about 15 = 25 meters (depending on the flight altitude), that is, it is quite comparable to a ship’s mast. It should be kept in mind that the ES can rise above the screen ( if you design it)

        An airfield or port is required with minimal training (not even very flat). There is no talk about water at all = you only need a slip or a pier. At the same time, it should be noted that the ability without airfield base and amphibiousness are two different things. Those. here the question is in the technical task. In theory, an ekranoplan with landing both on land and on water is possible.

        He does not need to fight with the Kyrgyz Republic. More precisely, you can shove the S-300 into it (it will pull the control cabin and 4-8 rockets in weight and volume), but it is not necessary. And notice, because the antenna height will be higher than the nominal antenna height of the S-300 post.

        With range - yes.
        1. 0
          6 August 2018 19: 47
          Quote: alstr
          This is looking where to put the antenna.

          ("Never put it in yourselves!" - the advice of a phone repairman who complained that the phone does not work well in hard-to-reach places) laughing Sorry, I just remembered, of course, this has nothing to do with you hi
          Quote: alstr
          If on top (it’s best in the tail, then there will be a height of about 15 = 25 meters (depending on the flight altitude), that is, it is quite comparable to a ship’s mast.

          That is a scanty review.
          Quote: alstr
          An airfield or port is required with minimal training (not even very flat). There is no talk about water at all = you only need a slip or a pier.

          the moon required a personal dock of four emblems of gold from His Imperial Majesty. Cruising in size, by virtue of 44 m wide moon. That is, it was the most expensive unit in the world in the base.
          1. +2
            7 August 2018 18: 32
            The dock was required because such requirements were of the fleet. If you wish, you can do everything like the Eaglet and he will land on land and on the water. And there will be no need for docks.

            The radio horizon from a height of 25 m (despite the fact that the height of the object is 10) is 31 km.
            These are exactly the same parameters of the S-300 without additional funds.
        2. 0
          6 August 2018 20: 42
          I accept your upper estimate of the height of the radar - 25 m. This means a radio horizon - about 20 km. Even the S-300F cannot be shoved into the ekranoplan - it will burst, and the possibilities of even the old rocket (75 km) will be used by only 1/3. In addition to the surface of the airfield / port, maintenance will also be required, both for the ship and the aircraft at the same time.
          1. 0
            7 August 2018 18: 40
            S-300 is completely pushed in. The weight of the control room with the antenna in my time with the machine was 40 tons. At the same time, the weight of the system fell sharply due to the reduction in the weight of the computer (earlier it weighed 3 tons)
            Plus a launcher with missiles another 10 tons (without a car).
            We take energy from the starting engines.
            As a result, we have 50 tons of weight at maximum and ammunition of 4-8 missiles.

            Only this does not make sense. The ammunition is too small. And if you increase the carrying capacity (for more ammunition), it is easier to use the EP as a transporter. Then, with a loading capacity of 100-150 tons, 3-4 EPs can be transferred to a regiment of a two-division staff with a control unit, which is much better than a separate division.
            1. 0
              8 August 2018 11: 56
              Then it is not so interesting - the time of loading, transfer, deployment is long. It makes no sense, then it is better to constantly base the regiment, but many regiments are needed. The interest is precisely in the rapid strengthening of the air defense of the defense sector by the flown up electronic warfare. Or the rapid advance of ES with RCC to the threatened area.
              1. -1
                8 August 2018 12: 41
                Deployment time is short 30 minutes per landing and 5 minutes to deploy next to the landing.
    2. +2
      6 August 2018 23: 14
      Yes, the screen effect is significantly reduced with strong excitement. But here everything is the same as for the ships: the boat throws on the waves already the guts of the crew, it wraps it up, and on the tanker with the same excitement the pitching is not very strong. The larger the size of the ekranoplan, the less sensitive it is to sea waves.
  14. +1
    6 August 2018 13: 07
    It can be assumed that by the time the Orlan service began, Russian infrastructure in the Arctic would change for the better and could more effectively protect the country's northern borders.
    I share and welcome the author’s good aspirations regarding the Orlan, but I would like to note that our aviation is concentrated on two dozen (or more) airfields, which, for the sake of American practice, have been called bases, and the USSR Air Force infrastructure, which had more than 300 airfields of various destination "successfully" thrown, without the slightest prospect of recovery! If there are doubters, see at least stories from Yandex Zen. I understand that they will immediately condemn me for some kind of advertising on the site, including for the accuracy of the information, but believe me, the problems with the airport infrastructure are the same as with the whole country as a whole! sad
  15. +1
    6 August 2018 13: 38
    A good solution, such a monster that flies like an airplane but is now over the wave, is a big problem for air defense systems. I think this will be a headache for amers and NATO. The mobility and good armament of such an object will only strengthen our defenses. And I would also like that such projects be used for civilian purposes. After all, it is great to board such a boat, or a plane, and in half an hour arrive in Turkey or another coastal state. I think that in the civilian, commercial sector, this machine, or the like, has a great future.
    1. +5
      6 August 2018 14: 44
      will be a headache for amers and NATO
      - he will be a headache for us ...
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 15: 55
        Quote: faiver
        - he will be a headache for us ...

        =========
        For whom??? For you??
        I recommend "Citramon" well or "Spazmalgon" ...... VERY from "headache"HELP !!!!!
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 16: 12
          take an interest in the history of Tu-144 flights, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Aeroflot and Tupolevs stood on their ears every flight to Almaty and back, and these flights will also take place about the same ...
          1. 0
            6 August 2018 23: 21
            So we are not developing a supersonic passenger winged craft, but a military (dual) purpose and at a speed of 400-500 km / h
  16. +2
    6 August 2018 13: 39
    Only designed in 2027! It is clear that there will not be any ekranoplan, but Borisov says a lot of things, like Ragozin lol
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 16: 45
      Quote: Siberia 9444
      It is clear that there will not be any ekranoplan, but Borisov says a lot of things, like Ragozin lol

      =========
      And Siberia 9444 (Alexander), SOMETHING WHICH says ...... Like Rogozin ...........
  17. +1
    6 August 2018 14: 18
    So! We have a “body” of several thousand tons, flying at an altitude of several meters, maneuvering between ice piles. American racing.
    Am I interested in maneuvering the pilot? Imagine his face. And how much will he endure?
    Article rubbish
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 14: 27
      Even under Alekseev, work was begun (but not finished) to simplify the management of electronic components. A prototype was created that had control like a conventional machine.
      And then no one canceled the automation of the flight process. As there is flight automation on ALL modern fighters (well, now they don’t fly without them due to the specifics of aerodynamics), so here a similar system can be made.

      Therefore, there are no special problems, because all the core technologies are already there.
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 15: 54
        not a single plane flies at ultra low altitude. no such technology
    2. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 49
      Quote: Angelo Provolone

      1
      Angelo Provolone (Angelo Provolone) Today, 14:18
      So! We have a “body” of several thousand tons, flying at an altitude of several meters, maneuvering between ice piles. American racing.

      =========
      That's ALL FOCUS! The ekranoplan "goes around" smooth obstacles even "without the participation of pilots" ..... And for the more "cool" ... For this RADAR there is ... And "on-board computer" ..... request
    3. +1
      6 August 2018 16: 49
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      So! We have a “body” of several thousand tons, flying at an altitude of several meters, maneuvering between ice piles. American racing.
      Am I interested in maneuvering the pilot? Imagine his face. And how much will he endure?
      Article rubbish

      =======
      Nonsense - "comment! (Angelo Provolone) - it seems -" fellow countryman "from" cyber-military of Ukraine ") ........
      Well, or just "DILETANT" !!!!! fool
    4. +1
      6 August 2018 23: 58
      For your information, a "body" of several thousand tons at cruising speed will not be able to fly below several TENS: the screen does not start. It begins to manifest itself significantly at a height of 0,5 wing chords (additional lifting force is already comparable to the weight of the aircraft) and below. And the lower the effect, the stronger the effect. Now imagine what should be the aerodynamic chord of the wing of your "body" with a mass of several thousand tons and a length of 150-200 meters? No less than 50-60 meters! Here, in general, it can reach a paradox: if the flight speed decreases (during landing, for example), the flight altitude, on the contrary, will tend to grow
  18. +3
    6 August 2018 14: 46
    hummocks, winds, blizzards, storms, fogs - are all the Arctic, what the hell are ekranoplanes? drank the dough is ... hi
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 15: 53
      Quote: faiver
      hummocks, winds, blizzards, storms, fogs - are all the Arctic, what the hell are ekranoplanes? drank dough it ..

      =========
      Woohhhhhh !!! HERE is the true "comment" of Man LOT years living in ARCTIC!! laughing
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 16: 14
        in vain you laugh, I just do not live far away and have been to the Arctic regions ....
        and I know what is minus 40 with the wind, and minus 60 with the wind ...
        1. -1
          6 August 2018 20: 14
          Quote: faiver
          in vain you laugh, I just do not live far away and have been to the Arctic regions ....
          and I know what minus 40 is with the wind, and minus 60 without the wind ..

          ========
          Well, I ASK FORGIVENESS ..... I myself have not been to those latitudes for a long time ........
          1. +1
            6 August 2018 20: 17
            well, forgive wink , welcome to our Kolyma lol
  19. +1
    6 August 2018 15: 02
    Quote: EvilLion
    Shaw, a5? There will be no ekranoplanes, if they were needed, if all of them had acquired them long ago, calm down already.

    Previously, they simply did not see his prospects and invested money in airplanes and in space (there was a space race). And now the ekranoplan, its "flight" qualities, is a very promising model. The flight speed is about 500 k / h and can be splashed anywhere. With a sinking ship, rescuers, he can very quickly deliver to the crash site.
  20. 0
    6 August 2018 15: 51
    Reminiscent of allegations of success in a neighboring garden ... What are ekranoplanes? Where are the pennies on them? And who will do all this and on what? There are not enough pennies for finished products (Armata Su-57, etc.). But is there something to build from scratch? Drop it ... On paper, of course, the sun-faced man will say something ... But in reality, as always, there will be zero ...
  21. 0
    6 August 2018 19: 20
    Quote: Fedorov
    The carrying capacity was determined at 1 thousand tons.

    There is clearly a font. Even Mriya does not raise more than 250 tons.

    In this case, the figure of 1000 tons takes place in all publications. Another thing is that the circuses associated with this project are crazy - yes

    Quote: venik
    Firstly, it was about PROJECTS !!! Secondly - "Lun" with a maximum mass of 380 tons and a payload of 137 tons

    No, the namesake. Alas, this is really nonsense duplicated from article to article.
    The technical parameters of EP Lun are as follows
    1. Maximum take-off weight - 380 tons
    2. Empty weight. There are some minor discrepancies. In one case, 286 tons are indicated, in the other - 243 tons
    3. Payload - 6 anti-ship missiles "Mosquito" in launch containers. The Mosquito, depending on the modification, had a weight of 3,95 to 4,5 tons. Take the maximum, 4,5 tons. Let TPK weigh half a ton. Total six missiles in the TPK - 30 tons. This is the payload. And 137 tons, this is most likely the total weight of fuel and fuel ...
    It is checked elementary. The fuel consumption in the engines is taken and it is approximately considered how much fuel is needed for the maximum range. This is about 100 tons.

    Quote: cat hippo
    Surely the author or editor made a mistake, most likely it is 100 tons, and this load is likely.

    No, this is not an author or editor. This blooper is replicated online. Where are the following parameters BE-2500 "Neptune"
    1. Maximum take-off - 2500 tons
    2. Empty weight 1500 tons
    3. The payload weight is 1000 tons.
    Tricky question". And where is the FUEL ???? On what does it fly in airplane mode 17000 km, and in ekranoplanom - 10700 km ???
    In addition, the BE-2500 project is not just a project. This is a stillborn project. According to its characteristics, it should have 8 NK-116 engines with a thrust of each 105 tons. The most powerful engine we are developing is the thirty-ton PD-30 with a thrust of 30-32 tons. The most powerful western GE90-115B (EMNIP) - 57 tons. We are up to an engine with a thrust of half a ton, like Beijing with cancer, and with a thrust of 105 tons .... However, they want to get something similar by 2027. The new "Orlan" should have a take-off weight of 600 tons, a length of about 90 meters and a wingspan of 75. How many engines are needed for this - history is silent

    Quote: venik
    Vladislav !!! I gave the data - in 1966 (!!!) in the USSR, the KM (Caspian Monster) ekranoplane was tested - in fact, the abbreviation "KM" meant: "Ship Model" ..... Load capacity - 307 ( !!!) tons .....

    This is a blunder. How are the same mistakes made in relation to the "Eaglet" and "Moon". This suggests that the authors of books and articles are very far from what they write. And consider the payload in conjunction with fuel. Andrei, yes, and I repeatedly gave TTX in other branches. And everywhere the value of PN is very small. At Orlyonka it is 20 tons, at the Moon 30-37 tons, at KM there was essentially no payload. Only mass characteristics were reserved for her.

    Quote: venik
    The trick is that the "ekranoplan" - DOES NOT NEED the elevators !!!! He himself goes around the gentle bumps in the relief !!! At the same time, the flight altitude (climb and decrease) is regulated exclusively by engine thrust !!!

    Sorry, namesake, but you're talking nonsense. Does a device with longitudinal instability fly without a “elevator”? And it takes off without deviating the elevator to the take-off position ??? But do not tell me what these ekranoplanes are at the top of the keel? Moreover, the KM has a horizontal tail of 37 meters with a wingspan of 37,6






    Quote: alstr
    And then no one canceled the automation of the flight process. As there is flight automation on ALL modern fighters (well, now they don’t fly without them due to the specifics of aerodynamics), so here a similar system can be made.

    Can. The only question is that a subsidence of a fighter or a bomber by 5-10 meters or small changes in pitch ("pecking" to make it clearer) is a trifle, but subsidence of an ekranoplan or "pecking" by the same values ​​at a flight altitude of 4-5 meters are fatal. Any ekranoplan turn with such a wingspan can only be a “pancake”. Roll with a wingspan of 44 meters with a flight height of 4-5 meters will lead to the same consequences

    Quote: Simon
    And now the ekranoplan, its "flight" qualities, is a very promising model. The flight speed is about 500 k / h and can be splashed anywhere. With a sinking ship, rescuers, he can very quickly deliver to the crash site.

    No, alas, no prospects. For take-off and landing, he needs several kilometers of clean space. So not anywhere it can splash down.
    As a lifeguard, it will not be used. A ship (ship) is in distress Very rarely, so that it would not be a storm, etc. The crew leaves the board on life rafts and boats. With such excitement, the ekranoplane may sit down, but that which does not take off is unequivocal. How will he, the rescuer, pick up people from boats and rafts that he will scatter in tens and hundreds of meters in a wave? So that he will reach the crash site faster than helicopters and ships, but then ???
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 20: 45
      Sorry, namesake, but you're talking nonsense. Does a device with longitudinal instability fly without a “elevator”? And it takes off without deviating the elevator to the take-off position ??? But do not tell me what these ekranoplanes are at the top of the keel? Moreover, the KM has a horizontal tail of 37 meters with a wingspan of 37,6
      ===================
      Dear "namesake" (sorry - I don’t know the first name!)
      You give drawings of the "Eaglet", which is NOT a "ekranoplan", but "SCREENER"!!!!! Ie is able to fly"by plane"!!!!!!
      And here he needs the ALTITUDE HEIGHT !!! ........
      This is ONCE !!!
      Now the second is
      -----------
      Sorry, namesake, but you're talking nonsense. Does a device with longitudinal instability fly without a “elevator”? And it takes off without deviating the elevator to the take-off position ??? But do not tell me what these ekranoplanes are at the top of the keel?
      ==================
      I WILL TELL - STABILIZER!!
      The question is HOW it goes "to take off" ????? And what does he have there and the "bow" ?????? Do not know??? There - START engines !!!!! It is they who lift the ekranoplan "from the water" ...
      So, stop "grinding nonsense" !!!!! fool
      One more thing!!!! With "what hangover", namesake, did you get that the ekranoplan has "longitudinal instability" ?????
      And WHERE did you get the data that for the ekranoplanes "fuel weight" is not taken into account ??? WHERE????? request
      1. 0
        7 August 2018 01: 55
        Quote: venik
        And WHERE did you get the data that for the ekranoplanes "fuel weight" is not taken into account ??? WHERE????

        How many more do you need to write?
        The maximum take-off weight of the Moon is 380 tons. The weight of the EMPTY Moon is 243 tons. Quite completely empty, not a drop of fuel. Total mass of payload + fuel = miserable 137 tons. That is, the payload of this trough is from the force of tons 40
    2. 0
      7 August 2018 21: 05
      The fact of the matter is that the flight of a modern fighter without automation is IMPOSSIBLE under the control of an ordinary pilot. A test pilot with great difficulty. The thing is that ALL modern fighters are aerodynamically unstable and for a straight flight you need to “steer” constantly. It is difficult for an ordinary pilot. More precisely, you can, but then you can forget about combat work.
      It is this "taxiing" that is involved in automation. And there are no failures (look at any parade - nobody fails anywhere).

      The same thing can be done (and was done on an experimental machine in the mid-80s) for ES.

      As for the U-turn, "Possessed KM and good maneuverability - he was capable of sharp U-turns with a big roll and touch of the washer (wing end) on the water.". This is from aviaru.rf.

      So not everything is so bad.

      As for take-off and landing in a storm, in one of the essays about KM there was a phrase that a trained pilot could put a pilot in a storm exceeding operational values ​​by 1-2 points.
  22. +3
    6 August 2018 22: 05
    A very promising direction for the theft of public money was invented by Putin's officials. A few tens of billions of dollars will be mastered. They will build several miniature models, one full-size plywood model and ....... money will run out. There will be the same shame with gigantic spending as Roskosmos with spaceports and Chubais with nanotechnology.
    Who thinks the same, like.
  23. 0
    6 August 2018 22: 33
    So ekranoplan - is it a ship or is it still an airplane? And how to deal with it? Using RCC or air defense? It turns out that: the ekranoplan pilot saw that he was being attacked by anti-aircraft missiles - he got into the water, and went on down the water. RCC flies up - sharply detached from the water surface and increased speed. RCC is confused - the "ship" leaves at 400 knots towards sunset))
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 23: 00
      Quote: Fedor Egoist
      So ekranoplan - is it a ship or is it still an airplane?

      This is peacock weed. Under-plane, under-ship. Hemorrhoids, in short, low flying.
    2. +1
      6 August 2018 23: 14
      Quote: Fedor Egoist
      And how to deal with it?

      Kill fighters with the help of air-to-air missiles. Kill almost any ship’s missile launcher. Today is not the 80 years, when such missiles had problems with hitting low-flying targets, and most missiles can safely land on ships
  24. 0
    6 August 2018 22: 58
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    There is such a wonderful thing, the helicopter is called :)))))

    Which, well, quite by accident, in the "hover" mode (and in other flight modes it is very difficult to use a helicopter to save the crews of ships in distress) uses the same SCREEN EFFECT! And for a helicopter whose rotor dimensions are comparable to or smaller than the ship’s dimensions (which is mainly observed), this same screen effect becomes a hell for the pilot because of the uneven flow around the rotor masses thrown off by the main rotor above and outside the ship’s structure (above the deck, outside its limits, the effect disappears sharply, although the height of hanging does not change). But a modern ship (not an aircraft or a helicopter carrier) rarely has a deck devoid of external superstructures
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 23: 17
      Quote: Fil743
      Which, well, quite by accident, in the "hover" mode (and in other flight modes it is very difficult to use a helicopter to save the crews of ships in distress) uses the same SCREEN EFFECT!

      Yes, it’s not a question, continue to build helicopters and call them ekranoplanes, no problems, no objections laughing
      Quote: Fil743
      And for a helicopter, the rotor dimensions of which are comparable or less than the dimensions of the vessel (which is mainly observed), this same screen effect becomes hell

      "Real hell" will be an attempt to save someone from an ekranoplan (which is not a helicopter)
  25. +2
    6 August 2018 23: 05
    Quote: venik
    You give drawings of the "Eaglet", which is NOT a "ekranoplan", but a "SCROLL" !!!!! Those.

    Schemes and photographs of EP KM and Lun disappeared somewhere

    Quote: venik
    I WILL TELL - THE STABILIZER !!!!!

    Absolutely. Horizontal tail. With elevators, by the way.
    And by the way, here is a fragment from the book "Cruise ships of the Fatherland" regarding the elevator


    Quote: venik
    The question is HOW it goes "to take off" ????? And what does he have there and the "bow" ?????? Do not know??? There - START engines !!!!! It is they who lift the ekranoplan "from the water" ...

    Engines create an air cushion that "lifts" the ekranoplan. All further acceleration and access to the calculation screen is carried out using the elevator, shifted to the take-off position. Just like that, he himself will not rise to a height. Lifting power is certainly good, but for some reason the plane does not break away from it by itself when accelerating in a strip.

    Quote: venik
    One more thing!!!! With "what hangover", namesake, did you get that the ekranoplan has "longitudinal instability" ?????

    Well actually the basics. This is one of the most serious disadvantages of the ekranoplan. It is this problem that has only been partially resolved. In particular, the SM-8 was tested in particular pitch stabilization system. But still. The problem persists. The main reason is the movement of the apparatus near the supporting surface.

    Quote: venik
    And WHERE did you get the data that for the ekranoplanes "fuel weight" is not taken into account ??? WHERE?????

    I repeat again. TTX of the same Moon is as follows:
    1. Maximum takeoff weight (weight of the ekranoplan (empty) itself, fuel, crew, fuel and lubricants and water, payload - 6 missiles) - 380 tons.
    2. The weight of the empty ekranoplane (ekranoplane body) - 243 tons
    3. The payload weight - 6 missiles in the TPK - about 30-37 tons.
    Everything Else FUEL. And his fuel is 380 tons - 243 tons - 37 tons = 100 tons. Some publications write that the payload is 137 tons. But the authors consider that the payload is the weight of the fuel and the payload (missiles). Then yes, the MOON will have such a “payload” of 137 tons. Sometimes, more or less serious about their work, they give a footnote that this is the weight of fuel and rockets. Some are not. And as a result, the very misunderstanding that has arisen with us.

    Let's take it. Based on your postulate that the payload (and it was always and everywhere only the load) is equal to 137 tons, then the difference between will be the following
    380 tons (take-off weight) - 243 tons (empty winged craft or as dry weight is sometimes said) - 137 tons of payload = 0. That is, where is the fuel then ?????
    Some authors, I repeat once again write that the payload is the weight of the fuel and cargo. It is not right. Yet, as they say, fly (fuel) separately, and burgers (payload) - separately
  26. 0
    6 August 2018 23: 24
    Quote: garri-lin
    URO is not their element. There is one problem! Targeting!

    Even in those distant 80s there was a simple way out: target designation from the aircraft accompanying the ES raid.
    The same Tu-95, Tu-95МР, Tu-95РЦ and Tu-22.
    Now there are two more options:
    1. Simply targeting from satellites - worked out in the US and in the PRC. This is how the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile DF-21D https://lenta.ru/news/2018/02/01/df21d "works with the radar and optical equipment of Yaogan satellites." (and here is the video on which the reconnaissance satellite is clearly visible: - at 0: 47).

    2. Disposable and reusable (with landing on the water, returning to the shore) drones, starting straight from the EP (both screw and turbojet). With modern miniaturization, it is generally not a problem to shove a pair of such drones on a healthy EP, the only problem is to work out their launch from the EP at a speed of 400 km / h. I have no doubt that the Chinese will someday do this for their missile boats, ES (if they have them) and even for submarines (by the way, Americans with 2006 are developing this miracle for submarines: http://www.topnews.ru /video_id_84.html
    project "Cormorant" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Cor
    morant - in our "Cormorant" - this is much more difficult than launching a drone from an EA.
    1. -1
      7 August 2018 01: 51
      Quote: PavelT
      Even in those distant 80s there was a simple way out: target designation from aircraft accompanying the EP raid

      Just in the 80-e Tu-95 as target designators are so old that no one seriously considered them in this capacity
      Quote: PavelT
      Just targeting from satellites - worked out in the USA and China.

      It has not been worked out either there, since in the USA the period from the moment of detecting the object to the moment of issuing the CO to it is still a day and a half. About China generally keep quiet
      Quote: PavelT
      This is how the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile DF-21D works

      100500 has already explained once again that Dongfeng is a great Chinese fake, already the Chinese themselves have recognized EMNIP (that the rocket can only hit stationary targets), and you still tell tales about the ballistic missile
      Quote: PavelT
      Disposable and reusable (with landing on the water, with return to shore) drones starting directly from the ES

      And what do you want from them? :))))) Do you imagine the possibilities of such a drone? :)) This is zero without a stick, not intelligence
  27. 0
    6 August 2018 23: 24
    Well then, after the military, let's get a line of civilian ekranoplanes. Which in the tundra will be able to practically displace helicopters - expensive and unreliable devices.
  28. 0
    7 August 2018 23: 58
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Just in the 80-e Tu-95 as target indicators are outdated so that no one in this capacity has seriously considered them.


    Somehow unfounded this statement. Bother to uncover the essence of obsolescence.
    What is outdated there specifically? The plane itself? Does he need to fly higher and / or faster? Seriously?
    Maybe a radar? (In the 80 years, that radar couldn’t detect ships from the 300-400km distance? Seriously ???) The electronics are outdated, can the communication systems? They change in such aircraft to new ones, this is not a problem. The Americans have upgraded their B-52 many times in this sense.

    About Tu-22 I understand you have nothing to argue?
    So the variant with Tu-22 as a means of targeting for electronic signature worked perfectly. Thanks at least for this :)

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    It has not been worked out either there, since in the USA the period from the moment of detecting the object to the moment of issuing the CO to it is still a day and a half. About China generally keep quiet

    Detection of an object (what? What?) From a satellite in a low orbit, then identification of this object (in ten seconds), then (optional) determination of the course and velocity of the object (another ten - another seconds) is quite enough to be issued in seconds (which there to count and calculate?) DD for cruise and ballistic missiles. Accuracy in 0.5 km is enough. All the same, the target will maneuver and by the time of the arrival of the rocket there she will need to be guided by her own seeker. If the carriers of the missiles in the direct line of sight from the satellite, then transmitting the CU to them from the satellite in 5-10 seconds is not a problem at all. Who can doubt it at all and write about some days ???

    Quote: PavelT
    This is how the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile DF-21D works


    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    100500 has already explained once again that Dongfeng is a great Chinese fake, already the Chinese themselves have recognized EMNIP (that the rocket can only hit stationary targets), and you still tell tales about the ballistic missile

    Who explained this? The same shots that do not believe in the landing of Americans on the moon :)? Or the one who believes that China has 200-300 nuclear warheads, weak industry and outdated technology? I'm sorry to pull you out of your cozy virtual reality (where China is a backward country), but this is no longer the case. In China, the number of industrial robots (http://www.forbes.ru/kompanii/341905-revolyuciya-
    robotov-kak-kitayskie-kompanii-stali-krupneyshim-
    igrokom-na-rynke), and the average salary, and life expectancy is longer than in Russia (and the retirement period there with 60 years did not raise, although the Chinese already in 1997 lived on 70.5 years on average). And their tourists every year in Moscow 1 billion dollars left (ours in Beijing less).

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And what do you want from them? :))))) Do you imagine the possibilities of such a drone? :)) This is zero without a stick, not intelligence

    Drones are different, I gave an example of a very exotic drone, which is designed to work in very, very difficult conditions. Those. This is an extreme case. I thought it was obvious. The drone for EP can be more.
    On the drone can not put a radar with a range of 300-400 km? Seriously impossible?
    Just a necessary question on the essence of the discussion about the CO: Well, how do the CO get other carriers of cruise missiles? Surface ships for example. You don’t like the Tu-95, the satellites for some reason, you doused the drones with contempt ...
    The helicopters remain (the better they are drones ???) and the ships themselves.
    And what is better with the mast of a cruiser with a radar (or binoculars) to detect targets and to issue DD from it? With a radar height of 50 meters above sea, how far will it see an enemy cruiser of the same size? Can you count?
    1. 0
      8 August 2018 01: 54
      Quote: PavelT
      This statement is somehow unfounded.

      It's very simple, come here TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers. CH 3. Deck tacticsread. Then you go to airvar ru and read an article on the Tu-95RC http://www.airwar.ru/enc/spy/tu95rc.html
      Quote: PavelT
      Maybe a radar? (Well, that radar couldn’t detect ships in the 80 years and lead them from a distance of 300-400km? Seriously ???)

      Pavel, you don’t have to put a lot of question marks, you need to spend at least a little time studying the materiel. Extremely the Tu-95RC radar gave a range of 350 km on large NKs, but in fact a “bear” with such a radar would have been detected by RTR means long before approaching the AUG order, and would have been shot down, because we had no similar long-range aircraft carriers
      Quote: PavelT
      Electronics is out of date, maybe communication systems? They change to new ones in such airplanes, this is not a problem. The Americans have modernized their B-52 many times in this sense.

      And ours planned to write off the Tu-95RC closer to the end of the 80's, as completely obsolete.
      Quote: PavelT
      About Tu-22 I understand you have nothing to argue?

      What to mind? In the USSR, they wanted to make a long-range reconnaissance target designator Tu-22М3Р, but they were never brought to mind, today we do not have EMNIP operating aircraft of this type.
      Quote: PavelT
      So the option with the Tu-22 as a means of target designation for the EP worked quite well.

      In someone’s fantasies, of course. Well, in practice, even when all the 12 Tu-22М3Р were in service, the old Tu-22 old men were engaged in intelligence services for the Tu-3М16.
      Quote: PavelT
      The detection of an object (what? With what?) From a satellite in low orbit, then the identification of this object (for ten seconds), then (optional) determination of the course and speed of the object (another ten or another seconds) is quite an event to issue in seconds (which there to count and calculate?) TsU for cruise and ballistic missiles.

      Yeah. And in order to hack the Pentagon archives, you need to drive into the Google search engine the "access code for the Pentagon archives" :)))))
      Quote: PavelT
      Who in general can doubt this and write about some day ???

      Someone who is at least a little familiar with how intelligence satellites work :)))))) Pavel, what you write is sorry, but it's such a childhood :)))))
      First, if we are talking about optical reconnaissance satellites, they will not single out any separate object - there will not be enough brains. They map the surface of the earth, and then how it will turn out, because even the clouds are already an obstacle for them. This is the time. The second - the satellite controls one point of the earth for no more than 20 minutes per day. Thirdly, the photo needs to be transferred to the ground, this is usually done when the satellite passes over its territory. Fourth, on the earth it is necessary to understand and analyze all these cards in order to find the goal there. This is a long time, even if its approximate location is known.
      Satellites radar spies. They need a huge amount to ensure constant coverage of the earth's surface (each holds one point of the earth 20 min). The USSR did not cope with this task (Liana), the United States did not even try - they had the 2 Discovery project allowing them to prepare a central control unit with a delay of ONE HOUR (42 satellite at the geostationary station), but it turned out to be too expensive for the USA.
      At the same time, the same trouble is with them - the satellite itself will not find anything and will not make an estimate. A satellite can only transmit a radar image, which already on earth will need to be analyzed and the target we need to identify. “Liana” was able to provide data in real time, but even there were a bunch of technical problems that made the delay in issuing TSU very significant
      In general, the same Americans in the exercises could hide for days from spy satellites. Whole AUG. And I strongly advise you to read about the "Pearl Harbor" 1982 r that happened to us at the Pacific Fleet http://www.38brrzk.ru/public/russia-parl-harbor/
      Quote: PavelT
      Who explained this? The same frames that do not believe in the landing of Americans on the moon :)

      Well, why? :)))) Those who understand that today neither Russia nor the United States are capable of creating weapons like Dongfeng
      Quote: PavelT
      I am sorry to pull you out of your cozy virtual reality (where China is a backward country), but this has not happened for a long time.

      And I am sorry to cut the wings of your irrepressible imagination, but the basis of China's prosperity is reverse engineering, that is, copying foreign samples. It's just that it is impossible to copy dongfeng, because there are simply no such technologies today, so there is nothing to copy.
      Quote: PavelT
      and the average salary and life expectancy are greater than in Russia

      Alas, this does not determine the level of development of science. And in it, the successes of the Chinese are not so great
      Quote: PavelT
      On the drone can not put a radar with a range of 300-400 km? Seriously impossible?

      Can. To do this, you need such a drone

      Weight - for 20 tons. Can we handle it? :))))) And put it on the ekranolet? :))))) Just don’t remember about the Su-35 radar - I’ll laugh :)
      Quote: PavelT
      Just a necessary question in essence of the discussion about the missile defense: Well, how is the missile defense received by other carriers of cruise missiles?

      For attacks on ground stationary targets - with delay, on moving targets - nothing. So it goes.
      Quote: PavelT
      The helicopters remain (the better they are drones ???) and the ships themselves.

      Remained aircraft DRLO and RTR aircraft, which, generally speaking, should carry out additional reconnaissance of targets detected by satellites
      1. 0
        9 August 2018 00: 54
        Thanks for the interesting answer - carefully read about this intelligence "Soviet Pearl Harbor." It is very important precisely in the application about the use of electronic signature.

        The conciliator is to send an EDS (EDS group) to intercept the AUG, if no one knows where the AUG hangs around at all is a bit ... stupid. The EA consumes so much fuel that it is simpler to send two Tu-95 / Tu-16 one more time until they find the AUG.

        This is an interesting thing: that AUG not only didn’t detect 11 of September (what a fun date!), Actually flying over it on a pair of Tu-95РЦ, but then lost it (in those areas where horizon-based radars are now getting). Agree here it is difficult to blame something on the equipment (radar) Tu-95РЦ - there is nothing said about the radar. Maybe they did not include the Kuril radar at all? "The radar operator in the porthole found a group of lights, but did not attach any importance to this, as he was to face the Enterprise-AUG." Once he looked out the window, it means he did not look at the radar screen. If so to use this expensive equipment, then it will always be to blame for such users ... alas. So you only added to me doubts about the operators of the Tu-95, but not about the Tu-95РЦ complex itself. In addition, you can always put a newer radar.

        Just take for comparison the situation with the defense of the Midway Islands from the AUG of the Japanese in 1942. The reconnaissance technique is even worse, the range of the aircraft is smaller, however, after all, they discovered AUG on the way with the help of some Katalin and observers with binoculars. And no one complained: “Catalina” will be noticed, it will not be able to fly away and dodge from Japanese fighters, and we have no escort fighter escorts for Katalin!

        Therefore, your argument: "The Tu-95РЦ sees an enemy ship for 350 km and has already been detected by the radiation of the radar" does not roll. So what? Did someone guarantee that intelligence is always safe? And the cruiser in the sea, noticing the enemy AUG is even closer 350 km, which does not risk at all?

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        First, if we are talking about optical reconnaissance satellites, they will not single out any separate object - there will not be enough brains.

        Of course, I did not mean a purely optical reconnaissance satellite. And primarily because of the clouds. Now it is clear that you meant by day (there you can suffer for two days).

        I meant exactly the radar. In principle, I didn’t touch upon the problem "will he be in the orbit at the right moment over the right place?" - for this is the same problem that you indirectly led above, “is there enough for the Tu-95 for the whole ocean?”. China has a lot of money, military satellites too - they can provide normal coverage of the Pacific Ocean. I still don't understand what can be processed there for hours (one hour) ??? after the satellite flew over the AUG and scanned with a radar.

        You brought a photo of "Hokay" here, about twenty tons of weight it was correctly mentioned. Did not impress.

        Well, do you know what the radar originally created for him? This is the AUG air defense, there both in the APS-125 radar and in electronics everything is under aerial targets (with a small EPR, even cruise missiles) and under the guidance of fighters it was sharpened, surface targets and their support were later added as an additional function. Here read about this radar: https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/dis
        p_old_pdf.cfm? ARC_ID = 72
        and note for yourself a simple fact: the weight of its 772 kg (into those distant 80s!) and 2000 of accompanied targets (are there so many surface targets in AUG?). It is necessary to explain that now electronics has become smaller? It is necessary to give examples of modern drones: RQ-4 Global Hawk, EuroHawk, Triton (on the latter, the radar is for surface purposes). There, the whole range of sensors (with radar) weighs from 800 to 1400 kg and it's not over yet.

        Let me post a photo of A-50 and post it, I will argue that without such a radar you can’t find the AUG in the sea-okayane .... And I’ll give the weight of IL-76 to 90-100 tons ... And I will list the crew. Do you like this juggling?

        PS There is an interesting point in the story: "In the evening, on Saturday, there were reports of fires in the barracks of our radio-directional points on Iturup and in Prov. B. With intervals of 10 hours. This significantly hampered the work of our direction-finding network. I do not rule out that it was the actual development of the American special forces "SEAL" ("sea lions") on our territory. "
        Interesting kink (whether from American saboteurs, whether from the author). Really believes that they would risk saboteurs for the sake of setting fire to the barracks (they would have given a push to the fire!), And not the direction finders themselves (generators, radio communications) ??? I have such stories without evidence (such as our divers with NATO somewhere in the bays of the Kola Peninsula stockpiled and fought) were always surprised by these strange complaints a la "that's what they are arrogant and insidious!" - they would have been killed (in their own waters!) and the corpses presented, then one could be proud of such storytellers ...
  29. +1
    8 August 2018 18: 37
    It pleases and inspires optimism!
  30. 0
    9 September 2018 17: 47
    For ekranoplanes, it is extremely important to have engines that are not afraid of flooding. Low flight altitudes in a supersaturated water environment can create failures or even engine shutdowns. In this regard, only new fundamental approaches in the design of the engine are able to solve, including voiced problems
  31. 0
    13 September 2018 08: 13
    The great and mighty Russian language has become scarce. Well, there is no way to call the weapon a new name. Just what I know - there are already two "Daggers", two "Orlans". Who is bigger ...?