Why ekranoplans are not needed by either the fleet or the aircraft as a whole


Launch of anti-ship missiles "Mosquito" from the WIG "Lun". Effective but useless


As you know, the USSR at one time was a world leader in the development and production of ekranoplanes, having explicitly taken first place in the world on this subject - explicitly simply because no one else simply invested in this topic.

The USSR, having invested in the work of the Design Bureau named after Alekseeva serious resources, he was able to build in many respects unique designs from a technical point of view. True, they did not find practical application, and this is not just so, although they sincerely tried to attach them to the cause, sparing neither money, nor resources, nor, alas, human lives. And still it didn’t work out.

In post-Soviet Russia, enthusiasts have repeatedly tried to revive this area, and it is worth noting that the navy, for which these aircraft are designed in theory, rejects any attempts to resuscitate ekranoplanes.

This, as will be discussed later, is absolutely correct, as it should be.

However, and it is also worth noting that among the command of the marine aviation there are sympathizers of this type of transport. Moreover, lobbyists of the revival of ekranoplanostroeniya precisely through naval aviation today and are trying to "get back into business." Easy to imagine (and such things in the newest stories were made in Russia more than once - always with a huge destructive effect), the “ekranoplanostroiteli” lobbying chain - “their people in naval aviation” - “presentation bypassing command at the government level” - “receiving research and development work, for example, from the Ministry of Industry and Trade”. As a result, we again get the satisfaction of technical fantasies at the state expense, and in difficult economic conditions. And, as usual, then our propaganda will come into play, which in a couple of weeks will be able to convince the masses that now all our enemies will end, because we have a new old superweapon - ekranoplanes. And after that, there will be nothing to stop, as it is impossible to intelligently analyze in public the need to build MRCs or patrol ships of Project 22160 and much more.

And such attempts are planned today.

Thus, the topic is quite relevant. It’s worth coming back to it from time to time so that people don’t forget what the real world looks like, what works in it and what does not work.

Not a miracle of technology


Earlier at the Military Review, the topic has been raised more than once, for example, twice this author Oleg Kaptsov did in two of his articles (see "The futility of ekranoplanes" и "Wing is necessary ... as a dead man galosh") With all the emotionality, sometimes excessive, the conclusions in these articles are quite correct.

However, it is necessary to reduce emotions and arm yourself with some numbers and elementary logic.

Supporters of ekranoplanes usually use as an argument the supposedly high efficiency of ekranoplan as a vehicle, emphasizing the supposedly unique characteristics of the first large ekranoplan in the USSR - KM. Allegedly, with a maximum take-off weight of 544000 kg, the KM had a payload of 304000 kg, which is a record ratio between the weight of the aircraft and the payload.

Count. If you believe in these figures, the proportion of the equipped weight of the ekranoplan in the maximum take-off mass is a little more than 44%. This is incomparably better than that of modern passenger airplanes, with a significant share of modern composites in the design and the lack of aircraft fuselage reinforcements necessary for landing on water and flying in dense air near the ground. For comparison, the same parameter:

Embraer ERJ175LR - 56,2%.
Embraer ERJ190LR - 55,8%.
Embraer ERJ195LR - 57%.

Thus, 44% are absolutely unrealistic numbers. Even with modern technology. The best aircraft from the same years as KM had a ratio of 69-70%. At the same time, they should not land on the water and did not have corresponding glider amplifications. In addition, KM enthusiasts forgot fuel, and it should be considered a plus to the mass of an empty airplane or ekranoplan. Alas, it is very difficult to find fuel data onboard the CM, nevertheless, we can estimate approximately.

The turbojet engine VD-7 had a specific fuel consumption cruising at an altitude of 0,73-0,8 kg / kgf * h. At the same time, their starting (maximum) thrust was somewhere 11300 kgf. The KM flight range at a cruising speed of 430 km / h was 1500 km, which gives us a trip time of 3,49 hours. This range is traversed by two aft engines. Add here a 5-minute (0,083 hours) take-off on all ten engines.

According to the mind, it is necessary to make an accurate calculation, separately for the take-off mode, with ten working engines and a different specific fuel consumption, etc.

We will not do all this, in principle, any engineer of a profile specialty, having all the necessary data, will easily count everything. We need an order of numbers.

There is a simple formula for hourly fuel consumption with steady flight parameters.

Q = Sud * G / K, where Q is the fuel consumption kg per hour, Court is the specific fuel consumption, G is the mass of the aircraft in kilograms and K is the aerodynamic quality.

The formula is inaccurate, used for approximate calculations, but we also need the order of numbers, no more. With a specific consumption of 0,8 kg / kgf * h for an aircraft weighing 500000 kg (we assume that part of the fuel took off) and aerodynamic quality 16 (accepted for today's ekranoplanes projects, but who has accurate data on the KM can substitute) hourly consumption - approx. 25000 kg. When flying for 3,48 hours, this is about 87000 kg. But we still have to take off. And takeoff is performed on ten engines, not two. Due to stupid extrapolation, we will take fuel consumption for take-off as 10 tons (although there really will be more). The very notion of practical range (and 1500 km of range for the KM this is it) requires us to have an unused fuel reserve. We multiply our 97000 kg by the minimum possible 1,05, we have 101850 kg of fuel. Let 102 tons. If you believe the fuel consumption figure of 30 tons on take-off mode, which some authors cite, then (30 + 87) * 1,05, and there will be 123 tons of kerosene.

That is, there is no supernatural weight perfection. Which is quite logical. At the same time, we clearly gave a head start to KM, accurate calculations or data on fuel consumption during take-off would give a different picture.

Why ekranoplans are not needed by either the fleet or the aircraft as a whole

Like Lun, KM is fetishized today

Thus, the payload we have left 181-202 tons, with a “handicap”. This is a lot for aircraft. Only An-225 Mriya could raise as much or more. And we compare: “Mriya” with a load of 200 tons could have a flight range of up to 4000 km, while KM - 1500, and then according to unconfirmed reports. Or you need more fuel. On the one hand, comparing these machines is dishonest; KM has much more ancient engines. But, the trouble is, there is nothing to compare with anymore, there are no analogues in mass or dimensions.

By the way, substituting the specific consumption of NK-87 engines (the most modern ekranoplan engines and exemplary D-18 peers from the "Mriya") in the formula for hourly consumption, we get a reduction in fuel consumption by only a third, by the way, so the "Mriya" is several times more efficient than hypothetical KM with modern engines (once it was built) and the same carrying capacity.

In addition, let us evaluate the fact itself: KM burns more than a hundred tons of kerosene for transportation of even a large mass of cargo, having a range of only 1500 km. With modern engines there will be slightly less than a hundred tons. We repeat - this is taking into account the fact that KM received from us a “head start” in fuel and payload. Where is that magical niche in the national economy in which such tricks are economically justified? Even without considering the cost of the life cycle of a machine with 8 or 10 engines? And, most importantly - taking into account the absolute impossibility of using this apparatus over land?

Counting a little more. Let us have 10 hours to prepare the miracle machine for take-off, after which it, having gathered 430 km / h, in two and a half hours delivers 200 tons of cargo to its destination per 1000 km and spends, for example, 40 tons of kerosene ( modern engines).

Total we have that in 12,5 hours we transported 200 tons of cargo at the cost of 40 tons of jet fuel. The same volume of transportation will be performed by seven typical road trains in 40 hours. The fuel consumption will be about 4 tons of diesel fuel. Instead of at least two pilots, with a salary of 300 rubles or more. per month (and for less money, nobody will go for IT), and only 000, you need seven drivers with a salary of 600-000 thousand rubles, up to 50 rubles in total. At the same time, trucks have incomparably lower cost of maintenance and repair and they are more flexible in application - they can then be put on different lines and sold in parts.

At the same time, logistics “rises” - the truck enters the warehouse and is unloaded there, there is no CM, it needs to load goods for transport and carry them further, we will not take into account the costs of this stage, but we would add time on the way - because that even if the truck reaches the destination in two hours, the cargo will finally be unloaded at the warehouse of the terminal in 14,5 hours from the moment the carrier issues an order for transportation and loading at the place of departure. If at the place of departure we add two hours from the warehouse to the port and to transshipment, then already 16,5 - up to the treasured figure of 50% of pure road transport is already nearby. And if the destination is 40 km from the port? At 100?

But what about the plane? A plane is faster than ekranoplan and is not tied to seaports. Air transportation is ordered mainly for the speed of delivery, and this speed includes both the high actual flight speed and the fact that an airplane with this speed can fly much further. Suppose a certain hypothetical ultra-modern winged wing type KM, but with the most modern engines, can probably deliver 50 tons of cargo to a range of 3000 kilometers with a speed of 430 km / h.

And the old An-22 can deliver the same 50 tons of cargo to a range of 4000 kilometers with a flight speed greater than about 180 km / h and without reference to the ports. But this is an old plane. Today, aircraft performance is much higher and speed is higher.

Interest for the sake of time. The ekranoplane will need 6,5 hours per 3000 km, then refuel after mooring (even if it’s all together for 2 hours, you can’t quickly do such things on the water), and then another 2,5 for the last thousand, which gives 10,5 hours in total 4000 km, and for an airplane with a speed of 580 km / h and without intermediate landings a little less than 7 hours - a third difference in favor of the airplane. Here it is, speed. When the ekranoplan moors, the aircraft will already undergo inter-flight service and will be under loading for the next flight, and the cargo will already be delivered to the recipient’s sorting warehouse and, apparently, processed there. In the period of 20-30 years of operation, the difference in economic effect is simply monstrous.

These analogies can be cited en masse and be considered with any input, the result will always be the same - the ekranoplane loses competition with other modes of transport. It’s as expensive as an airplane, but it can’t fly wherever it is needed, it requires at least the same amount of money for inter-flight service, but it doesn’t give such advantages, taking into account the time for the logistics of cargo from the winged craft and it’s on it for the time of cargo delivery to its The “typical” shoulder of the past years is generally comparable to trucks in speed. And this is precisely the reason why these machines have not been widely used anywhere. No one wants to get involved with such a business model because it is not viable.

Note that we are considering a certain ideal ekranoplan or an idealized KM (well, who really saw these 200+ tons of carrying capacity on it?), Or an even more idealized modern KM with normal engines.

But if you take the ekranoplans, whose performance characteristics were known and more or less disclosed, namely the "Eaglet", then there is a catastrophe quite eloquently described by Oleg Kaptsov: with a maximum take-off mass of 120 tons, the ekranoplan carries only 20 tons of payload. It is worthwhile to really compare this with the An-12, which had the same carrying capacity with a significantly lower mass and the best performance characteristics with not the most powerful 4 engines. Or with the same speed Mi-26.

Everything is obvious.

Well, of course, speaking of a hypothetical 200 tons of payload on the CM, it must be understood that to realize such a potential (turn out to be true) is possible only when transporting small cast iron ingots. Indeed, for a transport vehicle, not only load capacity is critical, but also the volume of the cargo compartment and the presence of loading hatches. KM did not have this, but the Eagles did, and we know very well today what weight gain they had.

And, of course, safety dominates this whole holiday of life. Of the 4 heavy ekranoplanes built in the world, 3 crashed, and for the same reason - due to an impact on water. This is the death sentence of the concept. And do not talk about stupid pilots who pulled the helm in the wrong direction. To make the helm stretch towards itself, and mechanization work out “in the opposite direction” - this is a question of one extra traction in the fur. drive control system or programming EMDS. This could be solved at the design stage. The problem is that this would not give anything - there are options when a device weighing hundreds of tons flying above the waves a couple of meters from the water can touch something for it, too much to see a solution to the “steering wheel from itself” all occasions. 75% of the ships that died in accidents and disasters - this is quite an indicator. Another figure that you can’t just get away with.

Not a superweapon


And then Lun pops up - a missile miracle with six anti-ship missiles, supposedly capable of destroying an aircraft carrier. Here you just need to exhale and tell yourself that you were again deceived, and the Lun aircraft carrier cannot be destroyed.


"Lun" in flight

To begin with, let's note this. When using anti-ship missiles for external target designation, Lun has no advantages over anything else. From a safe distance, anti-ship missiles can launch a ship or a group of combat aircraft in the same way. At the same time, unlike the Lunya, the ship will be able to be at the launch line for a very long time. This is generally an attribute property of surface forces - they can HOLD the water area, which is no longer available to any other forces.

At the same time, aviation is many times superior to ekranoplan in maneuver - it is faster in the case of fighter-bombers, faster at times, it can be transferred from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean in a couple of days, which is impossible for ekranoplanes.

That is, when working from the outside of the enemy’s radio horizon, it doesn’t matter which carrier, the enemy will not be able to touch him anyway. Accident rate will matter, and the ekranoplan will have it “slightly higher” than the six Su-30SM - for obvious reasons.

But everything changes when it is necessary to carry out additional reconnaissance of the target and strike at the same time, that is, when it is necessary to get into the enemy’s ship’s air defense zone and do all the work on their own, by the forces of the strike group.

How can fighters work? They can work in different groups, from different echelons. For example, part of the machines can gain altitude, working on purpose with their radar, and give the TsU strike groups at low altitude. Aircraft can attack from different sides, they have a margin of speed to break away from the enemy, they can perform a missile defense, and when resetting / launching an attack weapons can lead an air battle. They are quite difficult to destroy all at once. If at all possible. Their speed of entry into the enemy’s radar field can exceed the speed of sound - sometimes significantly, and this reduces the time for the reaction of the enemy.

What about the ships? There is another story. Ships can use passive means for reconnaissance to detect enemy radar, periodically conduct aerial reconnaissance with helicopters, and then, according to the results of several measurements and reconnaissance searches, get an approximate location of the enemy’s ships, then the final risk throw of the helicopters, determination of the elements of target movement (speed, course), and immediately calculate the data and launch the first salvo until the data is out of date. And all this is from outside the enemy’s radio horizon. And - running on rapprochement, at top speed. This is a long process, it takes time, for which the ship should literally "feel" for the enemy, without getting into his radio horizon. The enemy, by the way, will do the same, the “cat and mouse” there will simply be hellish, but in the end, the ship has a chance to “figure out” where the enemy really is.

And the ship also has many missiles - even a small corvette has eight.

And ekranoplan what of this can? Nothing. Its radio horizon is slightly smaller than that of a surface ship, and is approximately 18-20 kilometers, the ship will detect it a few seconds earlier than the ekranoplan can launch its missiles according to its radar. Such a huge machine cannot have any low visibility even without taking into account how well the waves it lifts are detected. EPR ekranoplan-rocket carrier more than 1000 square meters. meters. These are ship values. For comparison: a stealth fighter (we will not poke a finger whose) is a maximum of 0,5 square meters. meter. The Su-30SM, hung with missiles and fuel tanks, is at the strength of 30. According to the rocket-carrying ekranoplan, the ship will calmly work out an anti-aircraft missile, and that’s all over.

And, of course, he can’t climb for many hours along the propagation boundary of the enemy’s radiation, calculating the approximate coordinates of their source, like a surface ship.

And also ekranoplan can come across enemy fighters. And here he, against the background of several Sukhoi, will also look very pale, and the separation of such a miracle from enemy aviation is obviously unrealistic - having a turn radius of several kilometers and a speed of 400-500 km / h, it is simply impossible to leave the fighters. No way possible.

And, of course, the Lun will not reach the aircraft carrier even without enemy opposition. According to open data on its characteristics, the flight range (or swimming) of the device is 2000 kilometers. Based on the “military” formula (“Combat radius = 0,33 of practical range”), we see that it would be possible to plan the combat use of “Lun” in the limiting form for 600-700 km from the basing port. This is too little to strike at large NKs, and even in those areas where a strike against aircraft carriers is likely, the Lun will not be able to act on conditions of unrest. In addition, he then also need to look for a goal, and with an external control unit, planes are better. Work faster.

It is worth noting that the ekranoplanes are incredibly demanding on the basis of conditions. They need an ice-free water area for take-off, they need to take a take-off distance on a boat before flying, making sure that there are no foreign objects such as empty barrels or logs on the water. This water area sometimes needs to be trawled by minesweepers and always provide underwater diversion support.

In order for expensive (and they will be VERY expensive) ekranoplans not to rot too quickly, you need to be able to pull them to concrete platforms ashore right next to the water for maintenance, repair and drying. This implies a particular type of chassis, with a corresponding loss in weight efficiency (or it should be a removable chassis, to which a detachment of divers with special equipment will be attached). All the supporting services that are at the aerodrome, based on ekranoplanes, should also be the only difference from the usual aerodrome is the absence of a runway and the categorical condition to be located on the shore. If the ekranoplane will be something similar to the “Lun”, you also need to solve the rebus of loading missiles into this device, which also requires infrastructure, at least a special crane.

As a result, any person who is able to think about this should naturally raise the question: why is all this necessary?

A bit of elementary logic


The question of whether we need this weapon or tool in this form, in fact, in the end always starts to sound different: what should we spend our modest money on? Moreover, in relation to the economic realities of Russia, the word "modest" often sounds differently - "last". Which is better - a fighter or several dozen cruise missiles? Minesweeper or repair a dozen anti-submarine helicopters? Replacing armored vehicles in the marine corps with a more modern one or repairing landing boats from which this battalion should land? There is never enough money and you always need to choose. What is so important, why do you need to take money in favor of ekranoplanes, doesn’t it matter, are we talking about transport vehicles or percussion? This is a matter of tasks. And you can rephrase it like this: "What tasks, the implementation of which may be urgently necessary, can only be performed by ekranoplanes?"

Answer: there are no such tasks.

And indeed! What does the impacted ekranoplan give us? Ability to attack surface targets. Well, we already have something to attack it with, there is aviation in the form of the Su-30SM, there is a theoretical possibility “for inexpensive” to make an analogue of the Soviet MPA based on the Su-34, upgrading this aircraft to use Onyx or Zircon anti-ship missiles, and better than both, there are submarines and surface ships. Where is the place for ekranoplanes with all their limitations? Nowhere.

The next day, airplanes can attack targets on the shore, supporting the landing, and ekranoplan?

So what is the best way to spend the last money - on airplanes (far from one) or for one "Lun"? After all, the program for the revival of ekranoplanostroeniya is, in fact, the creation from scratch of an entire industry! And the output is slow and vulnerable carriers, all of which are incomparably weaker than a simple Su regiment.


Choose the right one, the budget is limited!

Maybe we need a life-saving ekranoplan with the ability to land on the water? But we have a Be-200 and there are still several Be-12 combatant units that are already useless as anti-submarines, but which can still be passed through a major overhaul and converted into search and rescue.


Why revive the ekranoplanostroeniya, if you can just buy a production aircraft?

And there is also a relatively successful experience with discarded radio-controlled boats, which, in principle, make the possibility of landing on water uncritical. And these forces do not have the limitations that ekranoplanes have, and with flight safety, everything is much better. So where is the place for ekranoplanes? Nowhere.

WIG patrol? No, the plane flies higher, it can be seen from it better in any range. Transport for hard-to-reach areas? But this plane can land on a ski chassis, fly from ice and dirt pads, this plane can take turns in skiing, wheels and floats, or even a hybrid of skis with floats, but an ekranoplan does not. WIG needs open water without ice and a gentle beach, and a point.

For comparison - the plane:



Maybe we need a tool for a quick landing? Something that could bring soldiers and military equipment to shore? But in the world, even for the BDK there are few suitable beaches, and even those where the aircraft can go ashore, generally count on the fingers, and everything is mostly somewhere in Oceania. So where to land from ekranoplanes?

And most importantly - are they better than the Il-76 with paratroopers? Here you and speed, and the plane, and technology drops, and people. Need to compare the new Il-76 with the "Eaglet"? Probably not. And it’s not necessary to fly at an extremely low altitude - achieving dominance at sea and in the air, as well as surprise, are necessary requirements for conducting an amphibious operation, the ability to spread above the water in such conditions will not be critical, but the risks of such a flight with a whole company of fighters like times critical and will be - remember about 75% of non-combat losses.


A piece of the coastal zone may well be captured by the airborne forces - without ekranoplanes

Supporters of ekranoplanes like to fantasize about the fact that now new materials, engines and electronics will come up, and then it will be possible to make new ekranoplanes, and at the same time to train highly specialized pilots under them, push the steering wheel away from you when full of reflexes a normal pilot wants to pull it.

But for some reason none of them can answer the question - why is this all? What will dramatically increase our capabilities with ekranoplans?

Because there is no answer. Opportunities will not grow, money must be spent on something else. As it is, in fact, is planned. And the task of society is to make sure that all this remains.

Today, both the Navy as a whole and the naval aviation have monstrous gaps in the most important directions. So, we do not produce anti-submarine helicopters, nor anti-submarine aircraft. Few anti-submarine ships. One old collapsing aircraft carrier, which so far has nowhere to haul. The collapse in the mine forces, the terrible terms of repair and modernization of ships, the disaster in naval underwater weapons, the impasse in the doctrines of development fleet as a type of aircraft. Or, easier - we have a lot of problems that it’s time to finance in priority order for a long time. In such conditions, any “sawing” projects that require redirecting money from solving pressing problems to technical projection should be crushed in the bud.

And the revival of the ekranoplanes, desired by some stupid military figures, is one of the first places on the list of such strangulation projects.

Let's hope that the ekranoplanostroiteli will continue to have some failures on the way to the development of budget money. They have much to spend without ekranoplans.
Author:
Photos used:
https://helpiks.org/, Wikipedia Commons, Минобороны РФ, ПАО «Объединенная авиастроительная корпорация», Welcomedagestan.ru, foto-history.livejournal.com/vladimirtan,
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Strashila April 5 2020 05: 34 New
    • 12
    • 10
    +2
    There is a time for everything, maybe in the future there will be an application of these technologies, it’s like with airships, which are sometimes used sometimes.
    1. Grandfather April 5 2020 06: 11 New
      • 16
      • 22
      -6
      and everything seems to be correct, and the arguments are valid ... but I, if I choose, would prefer to be at the moment of impact ... on the ekranoplan.
      1. tracer April 5 2020 07: 17 New
        • 18
        • 9
        +9
        Oh grandfather, the point is from you on the site .. "Only here the grandmother will not catch up, do not humiliate the guardsman" (DMB). On the ekranoplan, it will definitely not catch you, never.
      2. qQQQ April 5 2020 09: 16 New
        • 16
        • 3
        +13
        Quote: Dead Day
        and everything seems to be correct, and the arguments are valid ... but I, if I choose, would prefer to be at the moment of impact ... on the ekranoplan.

        And why not prefer, while others are at war, we on the ekranoplane are waiting for calm sea. They waited, flew (sailed), and while all the enemies were waiting, or sailed away or drowned, they returned, we wait further, and there you look and the war is over.
      3. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 10: 42 New
        • 19
        • 12
        +7
        Yes, somehow disputed arguments, the author writes about quality at 16, and I found 25-30 and with theoretical possibility of bringing it to 50, but even at 25 the picture changes dramatically in favor of EP. This time.
        The author gave an extremely strange formula for hourly fuel consumption, how aerodynamic quality can affect the fuel consumption of the engine in the selected mode, and the number of working engines not taken into account if you apply this formula! With different modes, different consumption, of course.
        I’ve found another formula,
        The amount of fuel consumed per hour of flight is called hourly consumption. The hourly consumption is measured in kilograms per hour of flight, Ch kg of fuel./h or in liters of Ch l / h. Knowing the specific gravity of the fuel developed by the engine in this flight mode, thrust ... ... and the specific fuel consumption, hourly consumption can be determined by the formula

        where Cf, Cf are the specific fuel consumption of the turbojet engine and piston engines; Pп, Ne - thrust and power of turbojet engine and PD; γ is the specific gravity of the fuel, g / cm3. It can be seen from the formula that the hourly fuel consumption is directly proportional to the specific fuel consumption and the developed thrust (or power)

        https://vzletim.ru/upload/iblock/5f4/aerodynamics14.pdf
        There is no quality in this formula, which is logical. And according to this formula, fuel consumption is not more than 22 tons per hour, or rather noticeably lower, I explained below for both engines, even with the maximum traction set by me, I left the specific consumption from the article, because traction on the edge. I don’t know the regime, but set the kerosene density to 0,8. As a matter of fact, the Mriya, which the author mentioned, has about the same hourly consumption, with 6 motors, 0,6 kg of consumption and a thrust of 4860 at the propulsion mode. It is easy to calculate that if KM motors like Mriya’s motors would have fallen at least twice. These are two.
        In principle, it’s possible to end this author’s gross mistake, but I got confused with the formula later than the rest, I’m not a techie, but I cut her eyes directly, so I’ll continue:
        The author compares EFs with airplanes, but does not mention hovercraft and hydrofoils, and here EFs are a direct competitor to them, and surpasses them both in speed and economy (SVP), even with the parameters that the author cited. (it is clear that we are not talking about the landing options, although ETs and how to drop them should not be discarded). These are three.
        For some reason, the author strictly ties EP to seaports, but why is this? Ships with a large draft of several meters are tied to the ports, what draft can a short plane have? Judging by the photo, the KM sediment is not more than 2 meters, but rather less. He went up to the pier with his nose, and in shallow water, by himself or in tow and ready. Weather protection is of course higher in the ports, but the cove there also settles, with little draft, something else. There is no need for ES tight binding to ports, certainly not like airplanes of comparable carrying capacity to airfields, these are four.
        1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 27 New
          • 12
          • 2
          +10
          There is no quality in this formula, which is logical.


          Pn is the required thrust; aerodynamic quality is embedded in its formula.

          It is easy to calculate that if KM motors like Mriya’s motors would have fallen at least twice.


          On the moon there were modern engines like Mriya, NK-87, a special option for ekranoplanes. At KM, the specific consumption is 0,8 kg / kgf * h, for Lun engines 0,53, where did you get the drop in consumption by half, all other things being equal?

          That's the trick, that he whips kerosene as if into himself, even with normal engines.

          For some reason, the author strictly ties EP to seaports, but why is this? Ships with a large draft of several meters are tied to the ports, what draft can a short plane have? Judging by the photo, the KM sediment is not more than 2 meters, but rather less. He approached the pier with his nose, and in shallow water


          But the pier has the strength to withstand trucks, a cargo crane, jet fuel supply, access roads, change houses for workers, an administration trailer, an icebreaker, even if it’s not a big one, a busker, a raid boat — and that’s the port.
          1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 12: 38 New
            • 8
            • 4
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Pn - required thrust; aerodynamic quality is laid in its formula
            This is not indicated in the formula, just traction at the required mode.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            On the moon there were modern engines like Mriya, NK-87, a special option for ekranoplanes. At KM, the specific consumption is 0,8 kg / kgf * h, for Lun engines 0,53, where did you get the drop in consumption by half, all other things being equal?
            Allow me, you did the calculation for KM, just like I did, and on his march only two engines worked, unlike Mriya, in which there are six of them, as it were, the calculation is simple, two engines are three times more economical than six of the same ones, I gave number two. Like you, I did not take off.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            That's the trick, that he whips kerosene as if into himself, even with normal engines.

            I do not know such a trick; you did not show it in the article. )) Although the aerodynamics of Lun are tin of course. However, it is unlikely that he went to all eight engines in cruising mode. And for a warship, if not in itself - this is the norm. )
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And the pier has the strength to withstand trucks, a crane for cargo
            For example, from several sections loaded from trucks, floating bridges are assembled which 45 ton tanks can withstand. So the floating pier will not pull like that, and the non-floating even more so. All that you described is a base point, except for the icebreaker and the lighthouse)). And this item is much cheaper than just one GDP for an aircraft of much smaller tonnage and haha, more mobile. And the port is much cheaper than the airport, with incomparable cargo turnover.
            1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 39 New
              • 8
              • 2
              +6
              This is not indicated in the formula, just traction at the required mode.


              Yes? Well, calculate Pn then for any aircraft. Required traction is G / K.

              Excuse me, you did the calculation for KM, just like I did, and on his march only two engines worked, unlike Mriya


              The number of engines is taken into account in the required thrust, and yet yes, there are two of them, I will give advice - do not use algorithms. which you do not understand.

              I do not know such a trick; you did not show it in the article. )) Although the aerodynamics of Lun are tin of course. However, it is unlikely that he went to all eight engines in cruising mode. And for a warship, if not in itself - this is the norm. )


              Even your 22 tons per hour is already a disaster. So everything converges there. The device is disadvantageous, from the word at all.

              For example, from several sections loaded from trucks, floating bridges are assembled which 45 ton tanks can withstand. So the floating pier will not pull like that, and the non-floating even more so. All that you described is a base point, except for the icebreaker and the lighthouse)). And this item is much cheaper than just one GDP for an aircraft of much smaller tonnage and haha, more mobile. And the port is much cheaper than the airport, with incomparable cargo turnover.


              Only the airport must have anyway.
              1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 14: 58 New
                • 7
                • 4
                +3
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Yes? Well, calculate Pn then for any aircraft. Required traction is G / K
                Okay, of course, with less quality and about equal weight, more traction will be needed. However, the ekranoplan is not any aircraft, it doesn’t even fly, and the quality 16 is clearly not about him, on the screen by itself, I found and brought a figure of 25-30. And with quality 25, the required thrust per 500 tons is equal to 20 tons, for Mriya, with the same 500 tons and quality 19, the required thrust is already 26 tons, I understand that at the surface and at altitude this is all plus or minus, again different speed but let it be so, and in this case the economy is already quite comparable, and for commercial designs! Let me remind you that the lifting force on the screen is noticeably higher than outside it, and this no less noticeably increases the conditional aerodynamic quality.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The number of engines is taken into account in the required thrust, and yet yes, there are two of them, I will give advice - do not use algorithms. which you do not understand.
                I did not understand earlier (did not delve into), I understood now, but for the advice of the ATP.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Even your 22 tons per hour is a disaster
                I pointed out that this is a frankly overestimated figure, which I also considered according to the formula without taking into account quality, but with maximum traction, although at cruising expense. How complicated it turned out. laughing
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Only the airport must have anyway.
                Yes, and early to refuse ports! tongue Especially shallow, and they are quite enough even for a fully-fledged analogue of KM. You can not say about airports for Mriya.
          2. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 12: 42 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            By the way, the Alekseyev ekranoplanes were built at a shipyard, albeit an experimental one, so the technologies there are not quite aviation, like the cost of construction, although this is already my speculation.
          3. your1970 April 5 2020 14: 55 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Moreover, do we have potential an adversary with whom we could fight naval landings?
            And in general - is there any expediency in sea landings now with us?
            USA? NATO? Japan? Not even funny ...
            Where else?
          4. sergej987 April 6 2020 22: 27 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            And the pier has the strength to withstand trucks, a cargo crane, jet fuel supply, access roads, cabins for workers, an administration trailer, an icebreaker at least not big, a busker, raids ......
            And is there a gdp for mriy in every zadrishchinsk? Are auto roads with infrastructure, gas stations, cafes, workshops in Russia the same everywhere? KM would have got its niche of cargo transportation.
        2. TAMBU April 5 2020 12: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          0,6 kg consumption

          Feel free to take 0,5-0,52 ... 0,6 was in the 80s
          1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 12: 54 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            In Mriya, 0,57-0,63 is indicated.
            1. TAMBU April 5 2020 14: 42 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              at stand “T” 0.52 it gave me stably ... it’s clear that it’s not in operation ... as part of a series of experiments, in my opinion two hundred thrusts, but that was 10 years ago ... I worked on this task very a solid team of Progress ... therefore, as a last resort, I recommend taking the lower border =)
              1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 15: 14 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Thank you, of course, but here it was all about engines of the 60s, so anachronism will be, sir. )))
    2. Gardamir April 5 2020 08: 02 New
      • 8
      • 6
      +2
      Technologies, materials have changed and it is possible to return to airships, although in civil aviation.
      1. Aviator_ April 5 2020 10: 07 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        The weather has not changed, so there will be no return to airships.
        1. Gardamir April 5 2020 10: 29 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          The climate is changing globally, but it does not affect the development of technology.
          1. Aviator_ April 5 2020 10: 39 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Of course it is changing. But hurricanes from this are not getting smaller. At one time (10-30 years of the last century), airships were in demand due to the weak development of aircraft construction.
            1. Gardamir April 5 2020 10: 58 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Here, after all, how, we argue that planes, ekranoplanes, airships are better, but there will be some flying saucers.
    3. SVD68 April 5 2020 08: 24 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Quote: Strashila
      There is a time for everything, maybe in the future there will be an application of these technologies, it’s like with airships, which are sometimes used sometimes.

      Of course there are. As found for hydrofoils. This is transporting people with giving the trip some exoticism. For other purposes, there is a better means.
      1. stalki April 5 2020 09: 22 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        As found for hydrofoils. It’s transporting people while giving the trip some exotic
        Hydrofoil boats are not exotic, but speed for a large number of passengers. What vessels can still boast of this, in such mass?
        1. SVD68 April 5 2020 09: 54 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          Quote: stalki
          Hydrofoil boats are not exotic, but speed for a large number of passengers. What vessels can still boast of this, in such mass?

          If you take into account the price of tickets, then that is exotic.
          1. stalki April 5 2020 12: 55 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            If you take into account the price of tickets, then that is exotic.
            Price is a completely different story and the fact that it is unjustifiably inflated is the cost of capitalism, and so they fully justified their purpose, especially under the Soviets.
            1. dauria April 5 2020 14: 51 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              and so they fully justified their mission, especially under the Soviets.


              On the rivers - they somehow justified. But along the river there is always a road. With stops. And the "Rocket" walked its 65 km to Gorodets from Gorky with one stop in Balakhna. It went or ride, or only local from Balakhna and Gorodets. And so by bus.
              Now at all a seam - who needs a "Rocket" when they even ride a bakery in their car? Now the Volga even bothers the people - there are only one bridges across it in the city area. Wild traffic jams at the entrance to the bridge. With Oka, the same problem - ride only for a walk back and forth.
              1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 15: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: dauria
                But along the river there is always a road.
                Oh, I don’t know, there are different rivers, with different banks, and you won’t be able to climb other and dozens of kilometers from a boat.
              2. stalki April 5 2020 15: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Here in St. Petersburg, meteors still carry tourists, and in the old days, he often rode to Peterhof.
              3. Aag
                Aag April 5 2020 19: 49 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                Try to ride from Irkutsk to Bratsk by car, you will understand the advantage of “Comet”, “Meteor”.
                Of course, with the prices of tickets under the Union it was different.
              4. dropout April 6 2020 13: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                In the mid-80s, I had to repeatedly travel from Odessa to Ochakov and back on Comet. There was no better option either in time or in price.
              5. Bobrick April 7 2020 21: 11 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                In the upper Kama there are big problems with bridges (crossings only in the cities of Tchaikovsky and Perm), and the roads do not go parallel to the river. Driving along roads only by mileage turns out to be 2 times longer (sometimes more), in time the Rocket also turned out to be faster.
                Under these conditions, the Rocket turned out to be a real alternative to intercity buses (and even in the 70s it was generally uncontested, there were almost no roads)
        2. grandfather_Kostya April 5 2020 19: 40 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Hydrofoil ships are not exotic

          And exotic too. I recall with enthusiasm a trip from the center of Leningrad (the 70s) to Peterhof on Meteor in sunny weather and a wave of up to 1 m. And I could get bored in a banal train.
      2. common man April 5 2020 14: 03 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        Quote: SVD68
        This is transporting people with giving the trip some exoticism.

        For five years I sailed on the Meteor from the regional center to my city. On Meteor 4 hours, by train 8 hours. There were no buses then, asphalt too. The comfort of the Meteor and the train is not even worth comparing. So it was not exotic but the most necessary. And this is just the Urals, not Siberia with its open spaces.
      3. telobezumnoe April 5 2020 18: 26 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        unmanned transporters, ready for weeks to travel in the stratosphere with huge cargoes to sparsely populated places, while using refrigerators can save money, as well as refuel with hydrogen and not helium, because there are no people there .. I think they will be very popular, and you can take energy from solar panels at those heights are more efficient to use hydrogen in the same way instead of fuel and id.
    4. Sergey S. April 5 2020 09: 56 New
      • 9
      • 7
      +2
      Quote: Strashila
      There is a time for everything, maybe in the future there will be an application for this ...

      Surely there.
      He contacted quite a bit with experts on ekranoplanes from a past life.
      They convinced the usefulness of ekranoplanes.
      Now I’m not rushing into the battle for ekranoplans.
      But if R. Alekseev comes to life ... I will be sure of the success of this project.
      Who is against a plane with a triple load at an extremely low altitude ...
      And if necessary, "Eaglet" took off at 3400 m.
      With experienced pilots and 4 points, a large one was acceptable (for flight).
      A beach instead of a landing strip ...
      1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 42 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        But if R. Alekseev comes to life ... I will be sure of the success of this project.


        Here I agree - if you can revive R. Alekseev, then the ekranoplanes will also turn out to be a useful thing. The probabilities are comparable.

        And if necessary, "Eaglet" took off at 3400 m.


        If you only knew how that flight went ...
        1. tlauicol April 6 2020 05: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa


          And if necessary, "Eaglet" took off at 3400 m.


          If you only knew how that flight went ...

          so tell or show. IMHO tales are
    5. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 00 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Not found. They do not provide any additional features beyond those available.
    6. ccsr April 5 2020 14: 43 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Strashila
      There is a time for everything, maybe in the future there will be an application of these technologies, it’s like with airships, which are sometimes used sometimes.

      It may well be, but not for the armed forces - such a technique is absolutely useless from the point of view of operational use. And the author of the article described in some detail why at that time the General contractor in the person of the Ministry of Defense refused this development. I think that the situation will not change in the future either, and as the resolution of the tsar general said on the petition for the development of new weapons - "The benefit is doubtful, the damage is obvious."
  2. tracer April 5 2020 05: 48 New
    • 25
    • 12
    +13
    This is the first and most complete article on marine ekranoplanes. Everything is laid out on the shelves, how and why. Virtually everything. A very good article. You can use it as a link in this topic. Thanks to the author.
    1. Lopatov April 5 2020 08: 49 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Quote: tracer
      Almost all

      The main thing is missing:
      But what about ekrooslet?
      That is, aircraft that can steadily go on the "screen" and at the same time rise to a rather large height. For example, the “hybrid” of the Sukhoi S-90 design bureau was supposed to rise to a height of 4 km.
      1. U-58 April 5 2020 09: 34 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        Yes, and Eaglet quite a plane to 3 km ..
        1. Lopatov April 5 2020 10: 20 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: U-58
          Yes, and Eaglet quite a plane to 3 km ..

          Well, yes.
          And I was sure that it was an ekranoplan ...

          Ignerents are such Internet ... People tend to hide under the rug what they do not understand. They look, yeah, three kilometers is the ceiling, but how can it be in an ekranoplan? And they just don’t write a characterization.
          1. U-58 April 5 2020 12: 27 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I did not understand your sarcasm ....
            1. Lopatov April 5 2020 13: 31 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              When describing "Eaglet" very rarely indicate its ceiling
              1. tlauicol April 5 2020 13: 37 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                When describing "Eaglet" very rarely indicate its ceiling

                When describing the "flights" Orlenka even less often give evidence
                1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 58 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Not a flight of 3000 meters really was. How from there people then left without gray hair and not on a stretcher - it is not clear. On the verge of disaster, everything went.
                  1. tlauicol April 5 2020 14: 51 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Not a flight of 3000 meters really was. How from there people then left without gray hair and not on a stretcher - it is not clear. On the verge of disaster, everything went.

                    is this evidence? here is the first point. they tested a rocket or I bombed or nuclear submarines - and that, did not forget to grab a camera. And here .. some gossip
                    1. timokhin-aa April 6 2020 14: 49 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Not at 3000, but at 300. I made a mistake, I wrote from memory.
                      I found this

                      WIG "EAGLES" basically flew like airplanes, but only at an altitude of 1-10 meters, according to flight instructions, and V = up to 385 km / h, maximum. Kazan engines, after 5-8 times repair, pulled more.
                      And, they didn’t fly like s-t at high altitudes because:
                      -there was no high-altitude equipment (aneroid-membrane pointing devices of height, parachutes, escape systems ...). The device of the speed indicator was Radio Altimeter-up to 10 meters. RV-10.
                      -Also, due to its design, i.e., due to the aerodynamic layout of the wing, mainly intended for the movement of an ekranoplan, near a water or other surface.


                      и

                      Literally a few people know about this, but in the year, approximately 1983-85, we, in the regime of secrecy and secrecy, at our own peril and risk, without any consent, and permission, several times, quietly, raised "EAGLE" S-21, purely visually and tentatively, approximately to a height of 300-500 meters (but, before each such departure, K.K., Yu.G., individually and personally, one on one, always asked for each member’s consent crew on such a dangerous flight, everyone had the right to refuse, such a flight, but no one refused), the weather and visibility were beautiful, they flew for 20-30 minutes. According to KK, he is also a commander in / h (Yu.G., a very competent and experienced pilot), the ekranoplan, at such a height, doesn’t listen well to the rudders, especially the aileron flaps and is completely unstable in the GP, it’s constantly somewhere pulls, there is a constant threat of overflowing on its side or in a corkscrew. the steering wheel must be held tight, constantly struggling, and fending off these deviations and disturbances with the wheels.
                      1. tlauicol April 6 2020 15: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        tales are fishing. cameras were already there. and air defense too
        2. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 02 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          At risk for the life of the crews after a personal conversation with each of the pilots, the general once once. He could not manage at high altitude.
      2. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 00 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        What are they needed for?
        1. Lopatov April 5 2020 11: 17 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          For example, for landing.
          Or in order to use intelligence tools "on the jump"
          Well and so on
          1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 12: 16 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Planes for all this is better
            1. Lopatov April 5 2020 13: 47 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Planes for all this is better

              Seaplanes.
              And that is not a fact, which is better.
              For S-90 settlement:

              1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 55 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Strange numbers, it seems like this C-90 was planned to sacrifice strength and escape from the chassis.

                And that looks unrealistic.
                There is a really flying eaglet, compare it with analogues by airplanes or helicopters. For example, with the Mi-26, it also carries 20 tons.
        2. Vadim237 April 5 2020 12: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Clean ekranoplanes are not needed, but large seaplanes - ekranoplanes are needed as a vehicle, a system of rescue on the oceans, fire extinguishing of extensive fires and possibly as an air launch system.
      3. Fizik M April 5 2020 21: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        On the fence ... it is written, and there is firewood.
        In fact, there are no arguments for ekranoplan
    2. qQQQ April 5 2020 09: 19 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: tracer
      Thanks to the author

      I support ekranoplans as a concept for research, yes, for practical use it is a complete dead end.
      1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 18 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        They have already been investigated in full, in my opinion, it’s already good to investigate.
  3. mark1 April 5 2020 06: 09 New
    • 18
    • 12
    +6
    Alexander Timokhin, as an "enemy of technological progress" ...
    However, the role of ekranoplanes in the Armed Forces has not really been determined, and it will not be determined if they are not built, the last word has not yet been said.
    1. tracer April 5 2020 07: 13 New
      • 12
      • 5
      +7
      And who should say that word? Technical calculations plus appropriateness, cost and safety. This is the last word. THE LAST DOES NOT HAPPEN. And I think that those who make decisions have a more complete picture.
      1. Gardamir April 5 2020 07: 54 New
        • 10
        • 22
        -12
        A complete picture of what? Six months ago, Mr. Sobyanin advocated the reduction of hospitals and medical staff.
        1. tracer April 5 2020 08: 08 New
          • 16
          • 6
          +10
          Which Sobyanin? This article is about ekranoplans. About pensions still start.
          1. Gardamir April 5 2020 08: 17 New
            • 9
            • 28
            -19
            I'll have to start about pensions. You have a cunning plan around the enemies of Russia, but you don’t know everything. Do not know so keep quiet!
            1. carstorm 11 April 5 2020 09: 27 New
              • 12
              • 5
              +7
              Yes, you have all the enemies who disagree with you at least in something. you will forgive but this is paranoia in its purest form.
              1. Gardamir April 5 2020 09: 40 New
                • 8
                • 10
                -2
                And who asked you, Mr. 'all right?'
                If gspodin Trasser is not up to date, then why did he express his opinion. Moreover, somewhere on another planet there are people who have a more complete picture. I just gave an example, one that had a more complete picture in December, but as if pressed, I jumped into a jump.
                As for the enemies, a man who loves his homeland sees everything, both good and bad.
                In this case, I am for the development of science and who knows, maybe the future is for ekranoplans.
      2. serezhasoldatow April 5 2020 11: 28 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        The RF Ministry of Defense should work on this issue. And so ... For interest, you can also debate. I saw him, my impressions are still +++++.
    2. 1976AG April 5 2020 07: 43 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Quote: mark1
      Alexander Timokhin, as an "enemy of technological progress" ...
      However, the role of ekranoplanes in the Armed Forces has not really been determined, and it will not be determined if they are not built, the last word has not yet been said.

      So after all, they built it already in due time, but they did not decide. And what is this new approach, first do something, and then think under what to adapt it ??
      1. SOVIET UNION 2 April 5 2020 09: 01 New
        • 7
        • 10
        -3
        And why were phones and computers created? When the first phones appeared, they also did not know what to do with them. And who was thinking why the computer was a hard worker? And the appearance of the first cars was also incomprehensible. And the black square of Malevich? What did he draw there? It turned out to be a modern TV! And what is the use of a TV? Does he bring you money? What is he doing in your house then?
        1. Lopatov April 5 2020 09: 13 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
          When the first phones appeared, they also did not know what to do with them.

          A matter of priority.
          If you do not have houses, then why do you need phones?

          The USSR had quite powerful naval aviation. And he could allocate a fraction of funds for experiments with ekranoplans.
          1. SOVIET UNION 2 April 5 2020 09: 46 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            There are priorities, of course. But here they raised the question of economic efficiency. Or a penny to inflict ruble damage, or inflict a penny destruction in rubles. We love to talk about economic efficiency! For example, budget money must be saved !? Of course you must! Therefore, we pay the population at a minimum! It is logical in terms of economy? It is logical! Then it’s logical from the point of view of economy to officials to pay as well as the population, and to refuse to buy luxury cars! Is it logical? Or not? Why do not we want to save here? Some kind of not logical logic turns out! And so of course you can talk about efficiency! About the benefit! About saving! Are we living logically or economically? Well, if you think about it !? Or nobody thought about this issue? The author, of course, is well done for raising this question. But then let us expand the topic of this question! What is the effectiveness of estates in several hectares? What is the use of them? Why in Moscow every year to change the asphalt if in the outback of the road like during the war? Or is it not a matter of efficiency? And so of course you can speculate about the effectiveness! For example, why treat pensioners if they die soon anyway? Why pay pensions at all if citizens are not useful? Well, if we touched on the topic of efficiency, then let's discuss all issues of efficiency? Here in the world of capital they love to tryndet about economic efficiency. Only when the topic of efficiency concerns selfish interests does the topic of efficiency recede into the background! Why? And this is my skin and I will not stand for the price !? If the article touched on the topic of economic efficiency, so let's discuss all topics of economic efficiency, and not just ekranoplanes!
            1. Aviator_ April 5 2020 10: 14 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              What is the effectiveness of estates in several hectares? What is the use of them? Why in Moscow every year to change the asphalt if in the outback of the road like during the war?

              Troublemaker! You criticize the interests of the ruling class!
            2. Lopatov April 5 2020 10: 25 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
              But here they raised the question of economic efficiency.

              In terms of economic efficiency, a plane is better. For it is more universal.
        2. 1976AG April 5 2020 12: 54 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
          And why were phones and computers created? When the first phones appeared, they also did not know what to do with them. And who was thinking why the computer was a hard worker? And the appearance of the first cars was also incomprehensible. And the black square of Malevich? What did he draw there? It turned out to be a modern TV! And what is the use of a TV? Does he bring you money? What is he doing in your house then?

          Well, maybe you personally didn’t know what to do with the phones, but the inventor knew, so it’s not necessary to speak for everyone. And the computer appeared just when there was a need for processing large amounts of data. It turns out you know absolutely nothing. And about the black square ... you would have to my psychiatrist my friend ...
      2. Genry April 5 2020 10: 52 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Quote: 1976AG
        So after all, they built it already in due time, but they did not decide.

        What did they build? Aircraft glider, equipped with junk (served) engines. Then it was important to determine the properties of this technique. Then there should have been a second stage with a new concept for the EKIP airframe. But the collapse of the USSR did not allow ....

        Вики: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%9A%D0%98%D0%9F


        1. Vadim237 April 5 2020 12: 08 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          EKIP is just a project - an attempt to wishful thinking, since all its economic indicators and efficiency were based on a non-existent engine.
          1. Genry April 5 2020 12: 54 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            since all its economic indicators and profitability were based on a non-existent engine.

            Which engine did not exist?
            In such projects, more than one engine is installed, and they could be selected from existing ones, as was done in the Caspian Monster.
            And we are talking about modern development. That there are no engines even abroad?
            1. Vadim237 April 5 2020 20: 34 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Yes, take any engine - and thereby lower all the parameters of the aircraft in terms of efficiency and flight range to a minimum. They had new fuel there, or somehow differently only the engine for it was not only experimental for smaller models.
              1. Genry April 6 2020 09: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                take any engine - and thereby lower all the parameters of the aircraft in terms of efficiency and flight range to a minimum.

                You, as antediluvian "mechanic," say, such as: it’s impossible to make submarines because of the shortcomings of the steam engine.
                The whole point of ECIP in the concept of a glider. The engine can be any: even nuclear or solar-electric or ....
          2. Fizik M April 5 2020 21: 53 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            There were enough fairy tales on the aerodynamics
      3. serezhasoldatow April 5 2020 11: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So at one time and fell apart!
      4. alstr April 5 2020 11: 29 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        You will laugh.
        Question: on which Bula engine for the first time reached a speed of 100 Km / h?

        answer: electric car at the turn of the 19-20 centuries.

        Now the question is: how many years have passed before the mass use of electric vehicles and engines with internal combustion engines?
        About 100 years old. When new technologies and materials appeared.
    3. qQQQ April 5 2020 09: 22 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: mark1
      However, the role of ekranoplanes in the armed forces is really not yet defined, and will not be determined if they are not built

      Indeed, let's build, and make sure that there is no need to build, but the money is spent.
      1. serezhasoldatow April 5 2020 11: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In order to build, you need a customer who determines the TTZ. While this is not possible, you can arbitrarily break the spears.
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2020 10: 17 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: mark1
      However, the role of ekranoplanes in the armed forces is really not yet defined, and will not be determined if they are not built

      You put the cart in front of the horse. First, the role (functional) is determined, from them - TTX, then the development stage, and only then, if the achievement of the necessary TTX is confirmed, then the achievement of the required functional is achieved - construction
      You suggest first building, and then wondering where to stick it. This is a fundamentally wrong approach.
      1. mark1 April 9 2020 20: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You put the cart before the horse.

        Not at all. The ekranoplanes are built not only in the interests of the Moscow Region (for the most part), and operation by various customers allows both to gain operational experience in various conditions, and to formulate requirements for the future. Hence it turns out that the last word has not yet been said.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 10 2020 08: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Ekranoplanes in the interests of Moscow Region are not being built now. And if someone civilians have a desire and money for financing - why not? Just not at the expense of the state, please
    5. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 02 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Yes, everything is obvious really
      1. Aag
        Aag April 5 2020 20: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Thank you for the article. Do not come up with (or yet) tasks for ES.
        Sorry, but for: "Yes, everything is obvious really" put a minus.
  4. Magic archer April 5 2020 06: 12 New
    • 12
    • 6
    +6
    Almost everything agrees with the author. Unfortunately, all those small pluses can not be compared with the minuses. I remember somehow arguing here about the need for ekranoplanes and again cited the Be-200 as an argument and its anti-submarine modification. And by the way, the opponent used precisely for the idea of ​​fixing the anti-ship tasking of the ekranoplan. But to my question how the ekranoplane will get to the order where the aircraft carrier is covered by its wing, missile defense missile defense, nuclear submarines, and other destroyers, the opponent merged with the words -I say they are all-crawler and argue with me is pointless))) and the article is plus!
    1. Grandfather April 5 2020 06: 25 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      will pick up the order
      I understand a little mistake .. but funny .. fix it soon.
      1. Magic archer April 5 2020 06: 27 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes thank you. T9 wink
    2. Ross xnumx April 5 2020 07: 31 New
      • 13
      • 7
      +6
      Quote: Magic Archer
      But to my question how the ekranoplan will get to the order where the aircraft carrier is covered by its wing, missile defense missiles, nuclear submarines, and other destroyers

      How to tell you? Quickly, inconspicuously for radars, at a distance of the launch range of the anti-ship missiles, releasing which are also discreet and retire.
      Most interesting, they do not need several hundred. This is an individual weapon that has the right to exist, such as: combat swimmers ... or some other AS-12 ...
      But in general, the need for certain types of weapons is checked and determined as a result of their practical application. Have you heard about the S-400 shot down by an “enemy”? But!!! No one questions their relevance and the need for production. Why is there such a bias towards ekranoplans?
      hi
      1. Gardamir April 5 2020 07: 51 New
        • 13
        • 13
        0
        It seems that the author has something personal.
        1. tracer April 5 2020 12: 16 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          It seems that you are not in yourself. In addition to negativity and squabbles, your comments do not differ, do not carry at least some thematic load. You have all the enemies, plans are cunning, and always personal with someone.
      2. Parabelum April 5 2020 07: 59 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        He will not be able to quietly get to the launch distance of the RCC. The radar of the ships "sees" much further than the radar of the ekranoplan. Sorry my profane view, but the ship’s radar is much higher and its power is greater. Considering that there is air patrolling in the combat warrant, the ekranoplane will be noticed before it detects the warrant. Given the absence of an air defense system on the ekranoplane, one aircraft is enough for it. There would be a better chance for the mosquito fleet when a large number of small fast boats simultaneously launch anti-ship missiles.
        1. Genry April 5 2020 11: 09 New
          • 4
          • 5
          -1
          Quote: Parabelum
          He will not be able to quietly get to the launch distance of the RCC.

          The starting range is not a constant value. Caliber has already shown this.
          Quote: Parabelum
          The radar of the ships "sees" much further than the radar of the ekranoplan.

          Show a ship radar with a range of at least 500 km.
          A WIG can go along coordinates without a radar.
          Quote: Parabelum
          Considering that there is air patrolling in the warrant, the ekranoplane will be noticed before he finds the warrant.

          The presence of combat ekranoplanes will force the enemy to patrol vast territories, with very short time intervals, which is not absolutely effective and requires huge costs (cost-effectiveness of the war).
          Quote: Parabelum
          Given the absence on the winged air defense system, one aircraft is enough for him.

          Who told you such nonsense about air defense systems?
          Quote: Parabelum
          There would be a better chance for the mosquito fleet when a large number of small fast boats simultaneously launch anti-ship missiles.

          These slow-moving bast shoes will be easily detected by patrolling.
          1. PSih2097 April 5 2020 13: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Genry
            Show a ship radar with a range of at least 500 km.

            I understand that we are talking about a strike at the KMG, and not at the AUG, but still there is a big problem in target designation, both from air and from space.
            Quote: Genry
            The starting range is not a constant value. Caliber has already shown this.

            The caliber in the RCC has a completely different range than the fixed targets on the ground.
            Quote: Genry
            These slow-moving bast shoes will be easily detected by patrolling.

            Project 1239 Sivuch Samum / Bora low-speed?
            1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 15: 32 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              The author of the article compared the ekranoplanes with airplanes, but there is no PC with ships and KVP, and here the ekranoplan just spreads the KVP and KPK in speed, and is superior / not inferior in terms of efficiency.
          2. Parabelum April 5 2020 15: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Do we have an ekranoplan with Caliber? You somehow forget about the AWACS aircraft included in the wing. The aircraft provides maximum target detection at a distance of about 540 km. Where are you going to sink aircraft carriers? By the shore? Or in the open ocean? And how far can he go into the ocean? According to reports from 2012, the range of caliber missiles at sea targets is 375 km
            1. PSih2097 April 5 2020 15: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Parabelum
              According to reports from 2012, the range of caliber missiles at sea targets is 375 km

              generally up to 500 km, but you need to specify at least the approximate location of AUG / KUG, because the head works up to 60km ...
              Quote: Parabelum
              The aircraft provides maximum target detection at a distance of about 540 km.

              350 - 400 E-2 Hawkeye, but the E-3 Sentry to 650 km. Yes, and “Hokai” do not fly alone, there are 4 of them on AB, so they work in pairs - a total of 540km.
      3. 1976AG April 5 2020 08: 09 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        "Have you heard about the aircraft shot down by" enemy "with the help of the S-400? But !!! No one questions their relevance and the need for production. Why is there such a bias towards ekranoplanes?"


        But we heard about how the S-75 and S-125 planes were shot down, and they relate to air defense systems, just like the S-400. So a very incorrect argument.
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2020 10: 18 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: ROSS 42
        How to tell you? Quickly, inconspicuously for radars, at a distance of the launch range of the anti-ship missiles, releasing which are also discreet and retire.

        Here he loses significantly to aviation, which can do exactly the same.
      5. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 04 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        How to tell you? Quickly, inconspicuously for radars, at a distance of the launch range of the anti-ship missiles, releasing which are also discreet and retire.


        Is that interesting? Sign up, don't be lazy laughing

        But in general, the need for certain types of weapons is checked and determined as a result of their practical application. Have you heard about the S-400 shot down by an “enemy”?


        No, but I’ve heard a lot about airplanes shot down by air defense systems
      6. bk0010 April 5 2020 12: 02 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: ROSS 42
        invisible to radars at the distance of the launch range of the RCC,
        He has a radio horizon like a ship (flies very low), it will not be possible to let it go unnoticed, except with an external control center, but if it is available, you do not need to be picked up: let yourself be from 300-500 km.
    3. SOVIET UNION 2 April 5 2020 09: 08 New
      • 8
      • 11
      -3
      And why the ekranoplan should be used only for military purposes? Are high-speed trains used by the military today? What about business class cars? What efficiency is there? You can’t bring your body to the window? Why Kruiser or Lombargini? Take building in megacities. Earth is expensive. It is more profitable to build in the country. So cheaper. Why is everyone turning to the center? Does your computer or cell phone bring you money? Why are you buying this? Take hypersound. What efficiency is there? The cost of manufacturing a rocket, the cost of delivery. What damage does hypersonic make? While they talked about achieving speed but did not talk about the power of destruction from him. What economic damage will hypersonic cause? The cost of hyper and brought destruction?
      1. SVD68 April 5 2020 09: 29 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
        And why the ekranoplan should be used only for military purposes?

        Here you correctly give an analogy with a home computer and a mobile phone. It would be even more correct to talk about a gaming computer and an expensive smartphone. They are designed to receive emotions. This is the only sphere of application of ekranoplan - trips of people (tourists) to get emotions.
      2. SOVIET UNION 2 April 5 2020 09: 50 New
        • 4
        • 12
        -8
        Well, what are the minusers? There is nothing to say? Yes, we all understand !? We don’t know how to speak !? Ha-ha-ha !!! Language means not trained, we have no logic !? Oh well! laughing wassat
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2020 10: 25 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
          Ha-ha-ha !!!

          Sorry, but you have no argument against which you can object. Therefore, people put a minus, not bothering themselves in search of grains of meaning in your stream of consciousness.
          If you believe that the ekranoplane may be of interest to a civilian, you should have justified this - then there would be a subject of discussion. As for your questions ...
          Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
          What about business class cars? What efficiency is there? You can’t bring your body to the window? Why Kruiser or Lombargini?

          Can. But the business class is more comfortable, it is much more interesting to drive, and most importantly, an expensive car emphasizes the status of its owner. And what does the ekranoplan have to do with all this?
        2. Fan-fan April 5 2020 10: 59 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Well, I set a minus, because you yourself, for example, will not fly a passenger on this ekranoplane, you will be worried, because the accident rate is terrible, three out of four ekranoplanes have crashed.
          And the author wrote correctly, there is no benefit from them.
        3. 1976AG April 5 2020 13: 00 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
          Well, what are the minusers? There is nothing to say? Yes, we all understand !? We don’t know how to speak !? Ha-ha-ha !!! Language means not trained, we have no logic !? Oh well! laughing wassat

          Do not disgrace your argument - it is at the kindergarten level, but why argue with children? First, study the history of the appearance of the TV, phone, the creation of a steam locomotive .. and only then speak. You simply showed your complete illiteracy in these matters.
          1. Ruslan67 April 5 2020 16: 23 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: 1976AG
            three of the four ekranoplanes crashed.

            Quote: 1976AG
            First, study the history of the appearance of the TV, phone, the creation of a steam locomotive .. and only then speak.

            Not a single TV went off the rails And not a single phone collided with a steam locomotive on takeoff sad
            1. 1976AG April 5 2020 16: 53 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: 1976AG
              three of the four ekranoplanes crashed. "
              This is not my quote!
              "
              Not a single TV went off the rail And not a single phone collided with a steam locomotive on takeoff :( "
              So do not leave your house, otherwise you will suddenly fall under a car ..
              1. Ruslan67 April 5 2020 16: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: 1976AG
                This is not my quote!

                Just walked up request
                Quote: 1976AG
                So do not leave your house, otherwise you will suddenly fall under a car ..

                I'm a little about recourse Do not cost such efforts
                1. 1976AG April 5 2020 16: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  "I'm a little off about recourse Not worth the EP of such an effort"
                  Did I say that they are needed?
                  1. Ruslan67 April 5 2020 17: 00 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: 1976AG
                    Did I say that they are needed?

                    Have you ever tried to take quotes from two or more posts and put together in one of your own ?!
                    1. 1976AG April 5 2020 17: 02 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      Next time something
            2. 1976AG April 5 2020 16: 55 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              What has it to do with it? I advised to study the history of the creation of these things. The inventors understood what these things could be beneficial, and not just working at random. And you about to break ...
              1. Aag
                Aag April 5 2020 20: 38 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                In your opinion Alekseev at random created EP?
                With TLF (mobile), too, did not immediately "decide". And you can dig a lot of similar examples.
                1. Fizik M April 5 2020 21: 55 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  To a large extent, yes. Worked at the Central Design Bureau of the SEC about this in the colors
            3. 1976AG April 5 2020 16: 57 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: 1976AG
              three of the four ekranoplanes crashed. "
              This is not my quote!
      3. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 05 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And why the ekranoplan should be used only for military purposes?


        see the truck example from the text of the article.
      4. PSih2097 April 5 2020 14: 18 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
        What damage does hypersonic make? While they talked about achieving speed but did not talk about the power of destruction from him. What economic damage will hypersonic cause? The cost of hyper and brought destruction?

        hypersound reduces the possibility of BB interception on the final trajectory ... And it could be an 8-10 Mt BB - and what will remain of the same Washington after an explosion of such power?
      5. Siberian54 April 5 2020 18: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        because he cannot jump over the ice of the arctic ocean, when he is taught to send ice and hummocks, one can begin to talk about demand.
      6. DrVintorez April 5 2020 18: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
        Does your computer or cell phone bring you money? Why are you buying this?

        Excuse me, did you write this from the iron?
  5. Andrei Nikolaevich April 5 2020 06: 26 New
    • 9
    • 10
    -1
    Interesting car. Given our territory is a must. But given our budget, its time has not come. Hope that comes.
    1. Avior April 5 2020 07: 13 New
      • 11
      • 6
      +5
      Given the territory, just aviation is needed.
      WIG from the Pacific Ocean to the North can not be transferred if necessary
      1. serezhasoldatow April 5 2020 11: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And on every ocean ... ekranoplanes.
        1. Avior April 5 2020 11: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          What will become at least 4 times more expensive - by the number of fleets
    2. Pavel57 April 5 2020 10: 23 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      If you build, then ekranoplan with nuclear power plants.
      1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 06 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        With the possibility of landing on the railway yet. And in some places we simply have nowhere else to sit - just rails in the district, yes pits, and ravines.
    3. bayard April 5 2020 11: 16 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The Su-30SM regiment is much more useful.
      With the range of modern anti-ship missiles and their speed characteristics, sneaking up on an enemy order is not necessary. Moreover, where is he hiding from the Hokai or the over-the-horizon radar? Here the horizon will not save.
      Extremely outdated concept.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Free wind April 5 2020 06: 46 New
    • 13
    • 10
    +3
    Absolutely unnecessary papelats. Great article.
  8. Ross xnumx April 5 2020 07: 14 New
    • 12
    • 9
    +3
    Why ekranoplans are not needed by either the fleet or the aircraft as a whole

    Really ... Why aren't they needed? And does the fleet need aircraft carriers, TAVKRs, destroyers, submarines with VNEU and other auxiliary, but very popular BDKs and ships for other purposes?
    Let's hope that the ekranoplanostroitel will continue to have some failures on the way to the development of budget money. They have much to spend without ekranoplans.

    For instance? For untimely modernization, the elimination of fires and floods, for the accelerated reconstruction of ships that have left the stocks? For what??? To restore the repair base of submarines in the Crimea? Or just “grist” them into some kind of constitutional reform? Shake the world by transferring funds to any Olympiads, World Cups and Universiades? In the end, you can and again shift the tile in Moscow, and let these "rogue" from Saratov and Uryupinsk drown in pits and potholes ...
    Oh! We completely forgot about the combat icebreakers. It is from the North Pole (and not from the West or the southeast) that is gaining strength and the threat from our "potential partners" is puffing up.
    There is a military doctrine of the Russian Federation, but I can’t find anywhere the necessary need of the state of three oceans and 13 seas for the quantitative and qualitative composition of the Navy ... It’s good that right now the absurdity of the presence of ekranoplanes in the fleet ... I want to read about the futility of convertiplanes, self-propelled guns, tanks with armored capsules for the crew, armored personnel carriers for the Marine Corps, and other drones and aircraft made using stealth technologies. It will be very interesting to read a review of the power plants for the ships of the Russian fleet (independent of imports) and their differences in motor resources with foreign analogues. And also, find out on which knees the aircraft engines (this is such a complex structure) are assembled in the second stage and whether country experts (school for their training and education), able to continue this difficult task?
    It’s hard in a country with “effective managers”. In the sense that there are managers, but the sense of them is “0”. And still the country is in dire need of means of protection against coronavirus, in hospitals, competent specialists and methods for diagnosing this and many other diseases, as well as organs of the real fight against corruption and squandering budget funds ...
    1. werke326 April 5 2020 07: 50 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      What tanks didn’t please you with armored capsules? Apparently you want our tank crews to ride on a barrel of gunpowder and almost a ton of fuel? Have you ever seen at least the t-72 powder charge burning? I think not, hence your conclusions, an economical economist. Apparently you forget the proverb that if you do not want to feed your army, you will feed someone else's. Whether it is necessary or not, the above can only be shown by war. And not some calculations and assumptions do not predict the real result. Almost all weapons went through a wave of skepticism and mistrust, and only after being put into practice proved their relevance and effectiveness. No one is able to predict what the modern conflict will look like, not the sluggish one that we have been in Syria longer than the Second World War, but the full-scale one that NATO faces.
      1. Fan-fan April 5 2020 11: 02 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Apparently you forget the proverb that if you do not want to feed your army, you will feed someone else's.

        That is a proverb, but how true is it? Does the Finns have a big army? And whose army are they feeding then?
        1. Senior seaman April 5 2020 12: 46 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          And whose army are they feeding then?

          Most of its history is Swedish. Russian was not fed only because of the rare idiocy of the tsars. Well, in 1939 they could well have fed the Red Army.
          And now, Finland is simply not needed by anyone.
        2. Aag
          Aag April 5 2020 20: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Man simply did not appreciate the irony.
      2. PSih2097 April 5 2020 14: 25 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: werke326
        No one is able to predict what the modern conflict will look like, not the sluggish one that we have been in Syria for longer than the Second World War,

        Syria is practically the same Chechnya CTO, only on the territory of another state, in this case, the ATS, only with the participation of interventionists - Turkey, the United States with mongrel and Israel.
    2. Pavel57 April 5 2020 16: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Rossa 42 for the presidency. Good gutar.
    3. Aag
      Aag April 5 2020 21: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Dear ROSS, you are making a system error: the sense of "effective managers" is far from zero, but with a huge minus! Or does it seem to me alone?
  9. shubin April 5 2020 07: 30 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    There is no tax in the world.
    1. qQQQ April 5 2020 09: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: shubin
      There is no tax in the world.

      It was superfluous, they encroached on the holy.
  10. In a d and m April 5 2020 07: 40 New
    • 7
    • 13
    -6
    The author does not understand or painstakingly hides that the record-carrying capacity of the ekranoplanrv is based on the effect of the boundary layer. If the average is rough, then if the air is three times denser, then with the same energy consumption, you can take three loads more cargo.
    The Ekpanoplan is indispensable for the fast transfer of cargo, landing, etc.
    1. SVD68 April 5 2020 08: 18 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Eaglet and An-12 refute these arguments.
    2. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In fact, the author is simply too lazy to blow up the archives and pull out the real numbers by KM - there are no 200 tons there, in fact. Since the "Eaglet", which with a take-off mass of 120 tons raises 20.
      And the An-12 aircraft with a take-off mass of 56 tons (I don’t remember exactly) lifts the same 20 tons.
      IL-18 in the cargo version at 64 raises 15, although it was generally made as a passenger.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2020 15: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: W a d and m
      If the average is rough, then if the air is three times denser, then with the same energy consumption, you can take three loads more cargo.

      That's exactly what with the same. But they will not be the same, because the ekranoplan needs a lot of power to go on the screen, and as a result, a significant part of the engines does not work on a cruise flight, turning into a dead load. And the aerodynamics of the ekranoplan are a priori worse, and the mass of the hull is larger, because it is amphibian.
      All this is quite obvious - it is enough to compare the empty / maximum masses of the same CM and Mriy, for example.
    4. Fizik M April 5 2020 16: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Before you publicly flog nonsense, google what the screen is and what the boundary layer is.
  11. Gardamir April 5 2020 07: 46 New
    • 7
    • 15
    -8
    Cons for articles unfortunately did not return. The author of those who have learned the truth and are struggling with "pseudoscience"
    1. carstorm 11 April 5 2020 09: 35 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      I've been wanting to ask you for a long time, but who are you by education and specialization? VKS or Navy officer? maybe the designer? Well, to understand that your statements have some kind of professional training and experience?
      1. Gardamir April 5 2020 09: 54 New
        • 5
        • 9
        -4
        I am an engineer of ejection troops and a master of archery.
        Aircraft carriers were very useful for hitting Pearl Harbor. Now why are they? Could it really be time to develop cosmic forces? Or computer, but here, unfortunately, the advantage is on the side of the Yusovites. AT
        Do you seriously think that in our time it is enough to be a narrow specialist?
        For example, the ministers of defense in Russia were a furniture maker and a builder. But you will not ask them about specialization.
        1. carstorm 11 April 5 2020 10: 16 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          the question was more than specific. as I always said, the whole country understands everything. it's not that you have narrow-profile knowledge or not. the fact is that when someone defends a point of view, one wants to understand on what grounds he draws his conclusions.
          1. Gardamir April 5 2020 10: 44 New
            • 4
            • 4
            0
            Not narrow profile. But let's just say relatively recently I had to optionally read including about ekranoplanes. I will not say anything, but I do not agree with the author's categorical assessment. Perhaps the future of ekranoplans.
            As an example, compare the planes of World War 1 and World War II. Or 30 years ago, who could predict the future of smartphones? We were joking then, it would be nice to connect the phone to the wires and walk along the streets.
          2. Caretaker April 5 2020 11: 11 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: carstorm 11
            ... the question was more than specific. as I always said, the whole country understands everything.

            Let me intervene.
            Suppose that the author of the article was related to the design of ekranoplanes?
            Perhaps you are one of the pilots of these aircraft?
            1. LeonidL April 5 2020 18: 34 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Leonid! Are you serious? The author was never a naval officer, and indeed an officer in general. The material is thrown at him - in the style of the Soros training manual, he processes it for a small fraction. we need eranoplans, he and his company of violet clackers do not need him, the main thing in his articles is to bite the authorities and the leadership of the Defense Ministry and Navy. Drive a wave of publicity, a protest ... well, all according to the manuals of old Soros. Compare with Failure and others.
              1. Fizik M April 5 2020 20: 46 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Leonidlo, unlike your hysterical tearing of trampoline and bullshit, Timokhin drowns for a modern and effective Navy of the Russian Federation, the creation of which is impossible without opening and solving existing acute problems
                1. LeonidL April 6 2020 00: 43 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Maksimushka! What is it that I have torn you apart so painfully and bitterly? Timokhin drowns ... Mr. Timokhin cannot drown "for", all of his articles have one subtext - "against." If something is done by people and really done, then only contrary to the hysterical cries of you, Timokhin and others. This is tearing you apart from unsatisfied hatred of all those who have stepped higher and wider than you - amateurs and talkers of the Soros school, pseudo-guardians and pseudo well-wishers.
                  1. Fizik M April 6 2020 04: 56 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Leonidlo, a blazing fillet here is YOUR acc. streams. Only here are the arguments and facts from YOU zero, only a customized screech about Soros. Despite the fact that you were just serving the weed
                    1. LeonidL April 6 2020 19: 49 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Maksimushka! I miss your brkd as always, but did you study disgustingly at school, probably a three-year-old? "Here" is not written through "s" - exceptions are "here, health, health, zgi" - through "z". Take care of the fillet pieces. I wish you health and success in the business of graphomania!
                      1. Fizik M April 7 2020 06: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Leonidlo, so at least some facts and arguments from YOU will be? But it’s useless to ask a nonsense.
                      2. LeonidL April 7 2020 20: 41 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Maksimushka! Are you literate trained? Can you read? Or is the Chukchi not a reader - a Chukchi writer? Take the alphabet and go for knowledge!
                      3. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 21: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        He forgot more in a week than you knew in a lifetime, Leonid L.
                        By the way, I’m watching, spring, you were quite agitated laughing
                      4. LeonidL April 8 2020 05: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The alphabet in his hands! And good luck in your personal life!
                      5. timokhin-aa April 8 2020 15: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        And me, LeonidL did not get more luck in my personal life than I already have. More good luck in my personal life than I already grabbed off does not happen in principle.
                        But I wish you good health, do not be sick, be treated on time.
                        laughing
                      6. LeonidL April 8 2020 17: 33 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Glad, sincerely glad for you, Mr. Timokhin, but I'm afraid you, as always, wishful thinking. In any case, on this article I’m finishing communication with you. I look forward to the next opus. And if there is something rotten - don’t blame me, I’ll trample on you with all my heart. Alas, you have to do the work of your most venerable parents for them, but they did not teach you the rules of decency, honor and other things. For sim - good luck, health, masks, on time received fees from the Misters and Sirs ...
                      7. The comment was deleted.
  • Fan-fan April 5 2020 11: 08 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    For example, the ministers of defense in Russia were a furniture maker and a builder.

    Why were they, the builder and now the main military-political "brain". And the furniture maker "successfully" manages the helicopter industry.
  • timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 10 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    So disprove the author’s claims, here in the comments. What is the problem?
    1. Gardamir April 5 2020 11: 22 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      I do not argue with your point of view, suddenly you are right and the ekranoplanes are not needed. I argue with your categoricalness, suddenly you are wrong and the future is for ekranoplans.
      Nevertheless, when a person doubts, he is more convincing.
      1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 12: 43 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        How to understand "suddenly"? These are specific tangible categories. Five, for example, more than four, and no “suddenly” will ever change this.
        1. Aag
          Aag April 5 2020 21: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          What if the fours and fives have minuses?
          1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 21: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I did not write minus four and minus five.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Bobrick April 7 2020 21: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The specific consumption of 0.8 kg / kgf * h is a very large figure, even taking into account the long-term operation on the take-off mode (This is an indicator of a 1,2-generation jet engine, as an example, 3 AM-1950 has 0,9 kg / kgf * h, and the comparison with the D-18t of almost the 4th generation is not correct).

      The arguments are chosen so that seaplanes are useless, but this does not prevent them from being used in transport, combat, and special tasks.
      And when comparing specifically ekranoplanes with seaplanes, everything will not be so obvious (speed, engines, infrastructure and technologies used are the same or close).
  • Indifferent April 5 2020 07: 52 New
    • 11
    • 7
    +4
    Finally, a normal article about this "Miracle", which is neither a candle for a god nor a damn poker! How many times have I written about this and few listen. They roll their eyes and squeeze their brains into a lump. But the real situation! Thank you for the competent presentation of the topic !!!
  • Free wind April 5 2020 08: 24 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    An ekranoplan, if anyone needs it, a seaplane can very well fly at an altitude of 2-4 meters above the water. And without these ugly launchers on the ridge.
    1. Signore Tomato April 5 2020 10: 09 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      And the carrying capacity?
      Will the tank take your seaplane away?
      And how many tanks?
      1. Fan-fan April 5 2020 11: 11 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        And how will he unload this tank? How will he get ashore? And about accident rate in 75% read?
      2. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 11 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Will the ekranoplan take the tank away? The eaglet was heavier than the IL-76 but somehow dragged 20 tons, and the IL-76 carries up to 50.
    2. U-58 April 5 2020 10: 37 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      And for example, to catch poachers.
      Not those in the Astrakhan floodplains (although they too), but those who have crabbed and rushed to their homes in northern Japan or South Korea?
      Be-200 will send them to detain or SU-57?
      Yes, the mere appearance of a flotilla (or squadron?) Of ekranoplanes in the eastern seas will diminish those who want to profit from a freebie in our economic zone.
      And the “classic” Costa Guard - the military units of the border troops - obviously lacks such things.
      They already have tasks before and more.
      1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 14 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        And for example, to catch poachers.
        Not those in the Astrakhan floodplains (although they too), but those who have crabbed and rushed to their homes in northern Japan or South Korea?
        Be-200 will send them to detain or SU-57?
        Yes, the mere appearance of a flotilla (or squadron?) Of ekranoplanes in the eastern seas will diminish those who want to profit from a freebie in our economic zone.


        It is strange how the An-32P is still coping there. Elementary logic fails you - to find a ship in the sea, you need to rise HIGH to get a large horizon. For this you need a plane.

        At the second stage, the plane of this intruder catches up even faster. Well, that's all, further request to stall, and if not, then first 23 mm, and then rockets. This has happened more than once, the people in Asia are well aware of these methods. And the vessels of poachers used to be drowned in this way.

        Why is there also an ekranoplan?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. PSih2097 April 5 2020 14: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          It is strange how the An-32P is still coping there.

          it's a fire plane ...
          An-32P - aircraft to extinguish fires. It features 2 outdoor pouring units with a total volume of 8000 liters.
          1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 14: 45 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Wrong, An-72P, border plane
            1. PSih2097 April 5 2020 14: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Wrong, An-72P, border plane

              And then I rummaged through the entire Internet, what kind of patrol aircraft based on the An-26 is ...
              1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 19: 02 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I malfunctioned. I repent.
        3. DrVintorez April 5 2020 18: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          and en will delay the poachers sitting on the water ...
          and are you ready to shoot poachers to kill? they say poachers need to be detained and tried, imprisoned. but apparently it’s easier for you right away from the 23 mm. can immediately send a ganship by type as130? and all to dust? But what if there is nothing on board?
          1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 21: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The practice of working in the Far East Military District on the Far East is exactly that now.
      2. Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 51 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Yyyy
        BOHRovtsy at the mention of ekranoplanes for about 5 years they immediately go to the mat
  • U-58 April 5 2020 08: 51 New
    • 10
    • 3
    +7
    Normal calculation of the normal enemy ekranoplanes ...
    Nevertheless, their priority (ekranoplanes, not opponents)))) and on issues of defense, search and rescue.
    The author deliberately “threw him into battle” Lun face to face with the enemy.
    Yes, everything is bad here.
    However, right there he paints high-altitude SU - scout-flashlights and low-flying fighters.
    And what does the hybrid kneading of forces and means prevent?
    On the Black Sea and Baltic theater of operations, the prompt delivery of forces from the DRG to the tactical landing is the ekranoplan's task.
    The rapid advancement and stinging of flotilla and coastal infrastructure is also for them.
    At the same time, for Sushkam and MiGs, here and there she will find quite worthy application.
    Not so many of us.
    Search and salvation is also yes.
    Even with the Be-200 and even the A-42.
    1. SVD68 April 5 2020 09: 17 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: U-58
      And what does the hybrid kneading of forces and means prevent?

      That these funds are not free. And the choice from one ekranoplan and six Su-30s against twelve Su-30s is the same as from one ekranoplanes against six Su-30s.
      1. U-58 April 5 2020 09: 31 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Well, yes, defense issues of the Road.
        And indeed, questions of maintaining the army are always not economically beneficial from the word in any way.
        Until they sing, "Get up, the country is huge .."
        1. SVD68 April 5 2020 09: 36 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          It's not about the high cost, but the choice from the affordable. Those. be funds 100 times more, anyway the choice of 100 ekranoplanes and 600 Su-30s versus 1200 Su-30s will be in favor of 1200 Su-30s.
          1. Pavel57 April 5 2020 10: 28 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Limited use of ekranoplanes with controversial effectiveness.
    2. qQQQ April 5 2020 09: 35 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: U-58
      And what does the hybrid kneading of forces and means prevent?

      The author did everything right, considered two extreme options: one on one and with support, everything else is already an offset between them. At the first, a complete defeat, at the second in terms of costs and opportunities, other carriers are both better and cheaper.
    3. Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 52 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      At whose expense is this banquet, sorry drank ,? YOUR?
    4. Fizik M April 5 2020 16: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Monsieur, Mi8AMT can hang and lift from water at 25 m in s.
      Name at least one flying tool that can at least half this
  • rocket757 April 5 2020 08: 58 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Looks spectacular, a miracle of technology .... let the experts decide where and how, why!
    Even on the Meteor by sea, it was cool !!! On ekranoplan, over the sea !!!!! good
  • bbss April 5 2020 09: 19 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Why did I read this nonsense?
    1. Fan-fan April 5 2020 11: 13 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      To get smarter a little bit.
  • Maks1995 April 5 2020 10: 02 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Good article. And then from time to time lovers of ekranoplanes break through the slogan to build and build ...
  • Signore Tomato April 5 2020 10: 06 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    The author compared the sour with the warm and thoughtfully concluded: "But warm, it is, after all, better!"
  • Georgy Zhukov April 5 2020 10: 33 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    It seems that the author, as well as other opposed ekranoplanes fulfill the order! The order of those who want to slander state money allocated for super super aircraft carriers, the latest nuclear boats! And this, design, development, construction and testing! In 30-40 years, the first copy will be launched, and this is billions of dollars! By the time all these are released super-duper will become morally and technically obsolete! And they will share the money! And to build an ekranoplan of any modification can be built quickly and cheaply! Enough to raise the documentation!
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 15 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      No, the author simply knows about the order "for ekranoplans" and is approximately aware of the economic realities, so she works ahead of the curve.
  • g1v2 April 5 2020 10: 41 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Put a plus. For ekranoplanes stupidly there are no tasks and the need for them. For hitting enemy ships in the BMZ, we have cheap mrk with 8 cr, which can be built a lot. For transportation - the application possibilities are too limited compared to aviation and the carrying capacity is lower than that of ships. For patrolling - patrol ships and planes. For plos, too, the ekranoplan does not give any advantages. request
    Supporters of ekranoplanes must first find the answer to the main question - “why?” If there are no goals, objectives or market for such machines, then what is the point of building them?
  • Doccor18 April 5 2020 10: 41 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    In my opinion, ekranoplans as weapons are too expensive. But to use them as rescuers, tankers, reconnaissance, warfare and civilian passenger transport would be very reasonable. It is a pity that it is not used.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 16 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Aircraft are better for reconnaissance both in passenger and transportation.
      1. adept666 April 6 2020 09: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Aircraft are better for reconnaissance both in passenger and transportation.

        And Baba Yaga is against it! wassat laughing We want a child prodigy! For less do not agree! angry
    2. Winnie76 April 5 2020 18: 24 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Doccor18
      But to use them as rescuers, tankers, reconnaissance, warfare and civilian passenger transport would be very reasonable. It is a pity that it is not used.

      With an accident rate of 75%, these would be great rescuers.
      1. adept666 April 6 2020 09: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        With an accident rate of 75%, these would be great rescuers.

        Yeah, in addition to the ship or ship in distress, they would have to save these rescuers laughing
  • mcqway April 5 2020 10: 47 New
    • 7
    • 6
    +1
    An article from the category: expensive - that means we will not do it. Based on this principle, it was not necessary to build the MIG-31 - a very expensive car. Energy-Buran - also in the bath. What for? Armata - expensive guano, fly to the moon? - what for? insanely expensive. To invent fusion is generally a waste of money. Icebreakers? - into the firebox! You can go "yugami". Floating NPP Lomonosov? Ahhhh .... a waste of folk money. And yes: the Su-30 is also an expensive pleasure. No need to build it! Would fly on the MIG-21 and the rules. And better on the MIG-15. In general, there is only one thought behind a bunch of words and numbers: do not go forward, do not develop. If Che - in the West we will buy everything)))))
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 16 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      WIG is not just expensive. They are also useless. That’s the catch.
      1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 15: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Skegovye MRK, here's a useless thing.
    2. Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 23 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Are you talking about the criterion of efficiency - did you hear something?
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2020 15: 39 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: mcqway
      An article from the category: expensive - that means we will not do it.

      Wrong. An article from the category of those that determines by the criterion of "cost / effectiveness". And the author absolutely correctly comes to the conclusion that everything that the ekranoplan can do, other means existing today can also do better.
  • JD1979 April 5 2020 10: 58 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    The article is a typical rotten ordering, where the logic of conclusions does not even smell. 75% loss? But nothing that the technique is not just new, but essentially experimental and was tested. Yes, and no one had done this before, there was no experience in using such a flight mode. How many planes crashed during the tests? Following your logic, the Su-57 needs to urgently cancel his 100% non-combat losses.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 11: 18 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      But nothing that the technique is not just new, but essentially experimental and was tested. Yes, and no one had done this before, there was no experience in using such a flight mode.


      And why is he needed at all, this mode?

      Following your logic, the Su-57 needs to urgently cancel his 100% non-combat losses.


      That is, all built Su-57 crashed? Drink some water.
      1. JD1979 April 5 2020 11: 23 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        That is, all built Su-57 crashed? Drink some water.

        Crashed 100% serial, drink it yourself.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And why is he needed at all, this mode?

        And why airplanes are needed at all, they are absolutely useless. Do not remember when it was said?
        1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 12: 45 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Crashed 100% serial, drink it yourself.


          You do not pull one accident by the ears. The accident rate of the Su-57 is much lower than that of ekranoplanes.

          And why airplanes are needed at all, they are absolutely useless. Do not remember when it was said?


          About the futility of aircraft? Never said.
          1. JD1979 April 5 2020 23: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            You do not pull one accident by the ears. The accident rate of the Su-57 is much lower than that of ekranoplanes.

            1 serial = 1 loss, what is pulled? this is the statistics that you are trying to, in the case of ekranoplans not just pull, but pull with a sub-twist)).
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            About the futility of aircraft? Never said.

            But you don’t have to lie))), but if you are not lying .... then it’s completely pointless to discuss this topic with you, not knowing the history of aviation, you are still trying to write something about the ekranoplan ... the diagnosis is hopeless.
            1. timokhin-aa April 6 2020 11: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              1 serial = 1 loss, what is pulled?


              This is a statistical fluctuation, non-serial should also be taken into account, they also fly.
              If the ekranoplans perfectly flew off their tests and then one serial one crashed, it would be a different conversation at all.
              But they got pretty much everything; in the case of them, the event was repeated and repetitive in nature.

              It's clear?

              it’s completely pointless to discuss this topic with you,


              It’s pointless to discuss something with you, they said about planes that they would not be commercially viable, but by the first 15 years since the Wright brothers had flown, such skeptics had shut up.

              Ekranoplanes had almost 80 years of development.
              And not one could be made profitable, although there were attempts to get exhausted, and not only in the USSR.
    2. Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 21 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Are you so nervous because YOU have made you nervous in public?
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2020 15: 40 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: JD1979
      Article typical rotten ordering

      No. And here is your comment - it smells
  • Olddetractor April 5 2020 10: 59 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    I read the article and comments as cyberpunk. Fighting ekranoplanes with aircraft carriers ... The reality is more interesting - the flagship of the US Navy, the pride of the nation, the participant in Operation Desert Storm and the Yugoslav war, the nuclear carrier Theodore Roosevelt was blown away. Carrier trough nailed to Guam, the commander fired, the crew in quarantine. The wing of the carrier-based aircraft can not help, the enemy is not visible. AUG is somewhere nearby ...
  • IC
    IC April 5 2020 11: 02 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Very sensible article. The problem has been analyzed from all sides, and most importantly from the economic one. Many people completely forget about this side. In the USSR, money was poorly considered. And many designers completely ignored.
    In terms of commercial use. In the early 90s, after declassifying the topic, there were proposals from Alekseev's design bureau. In one of the conversations, I asked a question on the legal aspect. And they did not know about it at all. The functioning of aviation and the fleet is implemented on the basis of international regulatory documents.
    But for ekronoplan this is not and really will not be. In addition, everything must be insured. And who will ekranoplans insure? Lack of appropriate port infrastructure. How to pass straits, for example, the Bosphorus. And much more.
  • alstr April 5 2020 11: 24 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    About the article. Everything seems to be true, but there are nuances.
    Comparison is not correct.
    Firstly, about strengthening the hull of aircraft and ekranoplanes. There is one thing but. If the reinforcement is done on an already designed airplane, then yes - the gain = this is overweight. But if you design the gain as part of the supporting structure, then these are completely different parameters. The increase will be, but not so serious.

    Secondly, ekranoplans (and ekranopleta we will call them all EPs below) have never been conceived as an alternative to airplanes. Initially, they were the development of hydrofoil and hovercraft.
    Accordingly, you need to compare with them.
    And then a picture looms.
    When compared with SVP (Jeyran as a peer), EPs in the plus have 3-4 times higher speed (400 vs 100) and range (500 vs 1500) and a smaller crew (6-9 vs 21), but in the same 2-3 times less payload (20 vs 50). Moreover, they are approximately equal in cost.

    Question: Is the need for SVP recognized? Admitted.
    So why not use them in the same quality? Moreover, EP do not exclude SVP. They can be used in combination.

    Now we take the shock version. Compare with missile boats. Compare again with a peer. Project boat 1239 and. 1240
    With approximately the same armament (6 vs. 4 and 8), the EP has a higher speed (400 vs. 70-80), again, the range at maximum speed is higher than about 1,5-3 times (1500 against 500 and 900).
    The crew also has a smaller EP (10 vs. 60).
    Seaworthiness is about the same (5-6 points). But at the same time, this seaworthiness is only for takeoff and landing. Actually, the flight can take place in a stronger storm, but at the same time, the range will decrease. It should also be noted that the flight will have less impact on weapons control than swimming (well, there will be less “shake and jump” platform). TsU that EP, that the boats still basically should be external.
    The cost of ES is most likely higher.

    Then in the mid-80s the need for small missile ships was not questioned. And here EP before boats had one advantage - speed. He will arrive at the calculated launch point earlier than the missile boat.
    Now, of course, the need for missile boats is less obvious.

    Now about the lifeguard version.
    The fact is that with a certain pilot skill, the EP exceeded the landing and take-off scores. Testers told about this in their memoirs. There is nothing about this in official documents, but there were more than 6 points in a couple of landings in a storm (there are also serious storms in the Caspian).
    Accordingly, the EP will be able to get into the storm, because in rescue aircraft, pilots have higher qualifications.
    Not always, because for such a landing, some conditions are required (more precisely, for the waves to go from one side), but it is possible.

    As for transport opportunities. It should be noted that Mriya took off only in '87. Almost 30 years after KM and 7 years of his death.
    Now compared engines. If you take the NK-87 and DT-18, then the difference in fuel consumption is 0,54 versus 0,34. At the same time, Mriya has 6 engines, and KM only 2 in flight mode. Moreover, with modern redesigning of engines it would be less, since experience just appeared. And then just put a little redundancy.

    And now for the most interesting snack. Somehow I came across a training manual of the Alekseev Institute for the design of ekranoplanes.
    So, all built ekranoplanes / ekranoleta use an airplane scheme, which .... is not effective for the EP. And the effective “flying wing” scheme itself ... does not have sufficient theoretical development.


    Now, with regard to accident rate and reliability. First about reliability. Question: which plane can fly without a tail? EP Alekseev may, as was proved by one of the accidents.
    In addition, no accidents - no tests. Just see how many accidents and losses at that time.

    That's it.

    As a result, we have that at present, ES can actually be used in at least two versions: transport (as an alternative to SVP) and in the rescue version.

    Another option - shock - is a moot point, but quite real (as a replacement for an RTO with Caliber, it’s quite suitable for itself).

    This is for the military.

    And in civilian life - this is a replacement for the SEC. Moreover, such projects were already in the early 80's, but again the death of Alekseev buried these plans.


    As a result, we can state that, unfortunately, many promising areas of research in our country are very dependent on the personality of the creator and their relationship with the government.
    1. SVD68 April 5 2020 13: 02 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Comparison with SVP. SVP mainly remained in the landing version. And here the SVP has the advantage that they can actually go through the shallow water without fear of running into pitfalls or engineering structures. SVPs can actually go ashore and go back to the water, and so many times. The amphibianity of ekranoplanes is doubtful.

      Comparison with SPK. Yes, here the ekranoplanes can replace the SEC at greater distances. And this is the only real niche.

      Participation in rescue operations. Here the ability of ekranoplanes to land and take off at 5 points is declared. But is this possibility provided by the fact that the ekranoplan flies on the screen?
      1. alstr April 5 2020 20: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yeah. and EP is generally above water. The same hedgehogs for SVP will be an obstacle.
        About going ashore - easy and not forced. Eaglet is proof of this.
        1. SVD68 April 5 2020 22: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: alstr
          Yeah. and EP is generally above water

          No, not over water. EP sits on the water and in the displacement mode goes to the shore.
          Quote: alstr
          About going ashore - easy and not forced. Eaglet is proof of this.

          The eaglet is not proof. To shore this coast was specially prepared for him. And in the case when Orlyonok lost its tail, the state commission called the reason for insufficient structural strength - the day before Orlyonok sat on the rocks and microcracks went along the hull.
          1. alstr April 6 2020 08: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Not this way. In the case of Eaglet, two front engines act as an air cushion.
            In general, EP can be considered as SVP, but with a different type of air cushion creation.

            About the disaster Orlyonka. Nevertheless, a rare aircraft can fly without a tail and a marching engine. And after that the alloy from which the Eaglet was made was modified.
    2. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 27 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      But if you design the gain as part of the supporting structure, then these are completely different parameters. The increase will be, but not so serious.


      Practice contradicts your statement - Orlyonok has the same payload as the Mi-26 or An-12, and the mass is 120 tons. Here is the gain.

      When compared with SVP (Jeyran as a peer), EPs in the plus have 3-4 times higher speed (400 vs 100) and range (500 vs 1500) and a smaller crew (6-9 vs 21), but in the same 2-3 times less payload (20 vs 50).


      Well, Dzheyran can land an airborne detachment and ekranoplan too. Where will the landing be more numerous and stronger? And can an ekranoplane slip through a flood meadow?
      And let's go, it turns out that his superiority in speed over KVP is a thing in itself, and requires an exorbitant price - reducing the strength of the landing force at times and narrowing the possibilities for its landing.

      They can be used in combination.


      What for? Why is it impossible to set up DKVP for the same money?

      Now we take the shock version. Compare with missile boats. Compare again with a peer. Project boat 1239 and. 1240


      1239 and 1240 are RTOs and not boats. Okay.
      There is a way to carry out a quick massive attack - an air strike from airplanes.
      There are forces that can hold the water area and not allow any enemy forces to go there without a fight - these are ships.

      What does an ekranoplan give such a thing that neither planes nor ships can? What does it do more efficiently? Quick attack? No, planes are more efficient, that’s obvious.
      Water retention? Here, too, by, and also obvious.

      Now about the lifeguard version.
      The fact is that with a certain pilot skill, the EP exceeded the landing and take-off scores. Testers told about this in their memoirs. There is nothing about this in official documents, but there were more than 6 points in a couple of landings in a storm (there are also serious storms in the Caspian).
      Accordingly, the EP will be able to get into the storm, because in rescue aircraft, pilots have higher qualifications.


      At six points, a ship of 5000 tons flies several meters up and down.

      Now compared engines. If you take the NK-87 and DT-18, then the difference in fuel consumption is 0,54 versus 0,34. At the same time, Mriya has 6 engines, and KM only 2 in flight mode. Moreover, with modern redesigning of engines it would be less, since experience just appeared.


      You do not confuse KM with the moon. This KM had two marching engines, Lun - another aerodynamics and another thing. And yes, in fact, the range of Lun is 2000 km. What about Mriya?
      This is a direct comparison - a loaded ekranoplan against a loaded aircraft with engines of the same era and similar years of construction.

      As a result, we have that at present, ES can actually be used in at least two versions: transport (as an alternative to SVP) and in the rescue version.


      Despite the fact that airplanes can also, and better.
      So why roll money into ekranoplans?
    3. prodi April 5 2020 20: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      since the interest in the topic of ekranoplanes has cooled down enough, maybe you just need to reduce the “theoretical” Wishlist and make it more like a ship, taking as a basis not the airplane, but the skeg scheme of the SVP?
      1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 21: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This is another.
        Well and yes, the question "why" in any case must be answered.
        1. prodi April 6 2020 08: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          if I have a question, then who knows these warriors ... Perhaps they would be interested in a landing craft capable of slowly maneuvering and getting ashore as a SVP, but not as energy-intensive at full speed and with a displacement mode in reserve
    4. Aag
      Aag April 5 2020 21: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Bravo! The most argumentated review of the article.
      I agree with the author of the article in the sense that there are no specific, urgent tasks that could not be solved by the available means. That it is now unacceptable to spend money on the creation (reconstruction) of electronic programs.
      But the argument did not convince about TTX (LTX). Especially about the accident rate.
    5. Santa Fe April 12 2020 03: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      [quote] Question: which plane can fly without a tail? [/
      Which plane can tear its tail in flight with one awkward helm movement
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK April 5 2020 11: 36 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    These are the ones with their calculations and formulas that ruined Russia! Effective managers! Why do we need a factory why ekranoplans.?! Sell minerals. Why should workers pay, why pay pensions? We will sell the resources and we have enough! So they think in the Duma and the Kremlin. The article is worthless. They are not, because the Americans introduced ekranoplans into the arms reduction program. And he just can sink the aircraft carrier.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 30 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      These are the ones with their calculations and formulas that ruined Russia!


      Wrong, the Russian Federation since 1991 has only grown in territories, nobody has ruined it.
      The USSR collapsed, where billions of people's money was being fired for all sorts of projects without an account.

      And he just can sink the aircraft carrier.


      How?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 14: 33 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          And you, presumably a professional, not an amateur? laughing
          But you don’t get into the buttons.

          So what can an ekranoplan do to an aircraft carrier? Amuse the interceptor crews?
          Well, please tell me, it’s all possible to measure with numbers, the launch line is such and such an issuance of a central control unit ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • iouris April 5 2020 11: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the “special period”, simply “fake news” is no longer enough; you have to get the “imperishable” from the case.
  • Victor Dubrovsky April 5 2020 11: 49 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I was glad to see an analysis of the applicability of ekranoplanes. For his part, he wrote more than once about the fundamental non-propulsion of ekranoplanes. If Alekseev himself indicated a maximum wave intensity of 500 points for a 3-ton apparatus, this means that such a vehicle cannot be let out further than rivers and lakes, and even then with restrictions on waves.
    1. alstr April 5 2020 12: 05 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Where infa. Takeoff / landing seaworthiness 5 points - officially. In flight more.
      According to the memoirs of the testers, you can sit down with more excitement, but you need some experience.
      1. Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 07 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        5 points are fairy tales about a gray bull
    2. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 59 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      It’s also impossible to rivers, the turn radius is 3 kilometers.
      1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 15: 52 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        turn radius 3 kilometers
        Could it be a 180 turn at speed?
    3. Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 11 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Greetings!
      Give a link to just a "masterpiece" and killer discussion with your participation in the ship and ekranoplanschimi. RU
  • Alexander Bezpalchev April 5 2020 11: 55 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    A lot of letters and a purely bookkeeping approach. The scope of ekranoplanes is extensive, and it’s time to stop public discussion of military aspects, especially since most of the comments, including this one, look professional with all the effort, in fact they are amateurish. I affirm that there are compelling arguments “FOR” for the development of the subject, but with regard to military aspects, this is not a matter of sucking on the Internet.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 28 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Here are just objections to the merits you do not have.

      I affirm that there are compelling arguments “FOR” for the development of the subject, but with regard to military aspects, this is not a matter of sucking on the Internet.


      It's a lie. There are no arguments and you cannot give them.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2020 15: 44 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Alexander Bezpalchev
      I affirm that there are compelling arguments "FOR"

      There is. For a limited circle of people who will receive funding for ekranoplans. For the Russian Navy there is not the slightest
      1. Fizik M April 5 2020 19: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        their lafa ended, as the iPhone was removed
        1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 21: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So, even GDP can give the go-ahead for innovation - if you take it where you need to and put everything up well.
          1. Fizik M April 6 2020 18: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            it was all shoved not through Putin’s man, but on Medvedev’s man
            1. timokhin-aa April 6 2020 18: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              A matter of time. GDP favors all innovators.
  • tivivlat April 5 2020 12: 00 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    ekranoplan-ekranolet- "planted" on the retractable, own-air cushion-has no flaws-aviation and sea ships!
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 29 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      He does not have their merits, it’s more correct. With flaws there is a complete order.
  • Mavrikiy April 5 2020 12: 06 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Why ekranoplans are not needed by either the fleet or the aircraft as a whole
    I have not read the article, for the very formulation of the question is stupid. Wing is not needed, and wretched hovercraft, just do not live? It’s not for nothing that the Americans have ruined this area. By analogy with the strike complex, a ship is a projectile, an airplane is a rocket, an ekranoplan is a cruise missile.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 29 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Wing is not needed, and wretched hovercraft, just do not live?


      You just need to think a little and everything will become obvious.
  • Mikhail3 April 5 2020 12: 28 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Allegedly, with a maximum take-off mass of 544000 kg, the KM had a payload of 304000 kg, which is a record ratio between the weight of the aircraft and the payload.

    Count. If you believe in these figures, the proportion of the equipped weight of the ekranoplan in the maximum take-off mass is a little more than 44%. This is incomparably better than that of modern passenger airplanes, with a significant share of modern composites in the design and the lack of aircraft fuselage reinforcements necessary for landing on water and flying in dense air near the ground. For comparison, the same parameter:

    Embraer ERJ175LR - 56,2%.
    Embraer ERJ190LR - 55,8%.
    Embraer ERJ195LR - 57%.

    Thus, 44% are absolutely unrealistic numbers. Even with modern technology. The best aircraft from the same years as KM had a ratio of 69-70%. At the same time, they should not land on the water and did not have corresponding glider amplifications. In addition, KM enthusiasts have forgotten the fuel, and it should be considered a plus to the mass of an empty airplane or ekranoplan.

    Are we now such "experts" on the site mainstream went ?! Charming This gentleman rejects the high ratio of equipped curb mass. On what basis? Based on the fact that Embraer aircraft do not reach this ratio! That is, in fact, it says the following - I can load no more than 200 kg into my cart. On this basis, it becomes clear to everyone that your BelAZ is impossible! Ugh, Christmas tree! Here is the argument!
    Further, this titan of the mind claims that when calculating the mass, “KM enthusiasts forgot the fuel.” We look up quotes -
    with a maximum take-off weight of 544000 kg, the KM had a payload of 304000 kg
    Does a wise expert have a concept of what is MAXIMUM take-off weight?
    Is it possible to introduce some kind of most elementary verification of materials on the site? And then this is material at the 7th grade level of an extremely high school, and the author clearly remained there for the second year. Or did the battle between one lobby and another move here? Well, let its members pay their mercenaries more! Or they will stop imprisoning their granddaughters for writing "reasoned" articles in order to steal the money allocated for their production! Shame ...
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 50 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Orlyonok has a maximum take-off mass of 120000 tons, and a maximum load capacity of 20 tons. Unlike the mythical CM, these are very real numbers.
      Please comment on them.
      1. Mavrikiy April 5 2020 16: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Orlyonok has a maximum take-off weight 120000 tons, maximum load capacity of 20 tons.
        Che drank? repeat Weight 100 - 140 tons.
        WIKI:
        Cargo capacity: up to 200 infantrymen or up to 28 kg of cargo or 000-1 armored personnel carriers.
        1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 21: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Error. 120 tons take-off and 20 payload. Compare with the Mi-26 and An-12 which have the same load capacity.
    2. Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 15 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Monsieur, YOU do not just burn, but blaze!
    3. EvilLion April 6 2020 10: 20 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Do you understand that BELAZ is made of steel, and the cart is made of wood? Wing is the same aluminum as on airplanes, despite the fact that BELAZ travels on the ground, and the aircraft must be lifted into the air.
  • Oh and a lot of words! Words, like a smoke screen ...
    Deeds are more important than words. The Union produced ekranoplans, and did not discuss ,, concepts ,,. A serious state, the USSR, could afford to have unique models of military equipment in service. As it is now, for example, the United States can afford to have convertiplanes, which, according to the logic of the author of the article, are worse than planes and helicopters.
    The Union could afford it. The stupid, impoverished and dependent quasi-state ,, Capitalist Russia ,, (,, RK ,,,) these types of weapons are not available. As we see now, it can hardly reproduce samples of Soviet aircraft 50 years ago.
    RK, for example, cannot currently produce combat vehicles with vertical take-off and landing, lagging behind the USSR in the 70s of the last century, and not from modern developed states.
    No money? Where are they? After all, the state machine is working. Millions of people work daily and hourly in good faith. Where is the money earned? It’s not time to ask this cunning, effective manager’s question? It’s not time to think about: ,, Why is a thieving and deceitful state functioning on the territory of Russia ,, the Republic of Kazakhstan ?,
    Indeed, in the case of force majeure, with the participation of aggressive neighbors, managers will try in quiet, quietly. And in the old tanks (BMP, BTR, MTLB ...) burn ,, dear Russians ,,. Falling with torches from heaven, and not seeing the enemy in the sight. Choking in ,, noisy ,, steel coffins in the Atlantic.
    But let it be fattening? ,, choke ,, earning income of a million a day? Do we really need such a sacrifice?
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 13: 51 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Breathe deeply, drink some water, you will feel better, do not hesitate.
    2. EvilLion April 6 2020 10: 03 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      And for the managers to respond weakly? In wartime, such alarmists are shot.
      1. Just for the sake of coronavirus). I do not like, comment on comments on your comments ,,.
        Are you strong, look, in the showdown, Evilion? Maybe we’ll shoot the arrow, In Donetsk, May 2? Will you come up if there is no quarantine?
        More accurately with ,, pathos ,,. And then you get into some kind of sad story.
        About ,, wartime ,, do you KNOW something or just HEARED? In order to speak confidently about executions, one must hold at least some significant time in the hands of military weapons. Have you ever held a weapon? This, you see, isn’t a mouse to keep sweaty hands
        1. EvilLion April 6 2020 14: 42 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          "Ahhh! The generals betrayed!" This was even shouted in the spring of the 45th.
  • DrVintorez April 5 2020 13: 54 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    the feeling that the winged author took the girl away.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 14: 35 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -3
      I’ve been taken away all my life for a girl once, and only because I didn’t love her, I kept her close for sexual discharge and nothing more.

      I don’t like the ekranoplane because I feel sorry for the people's (that is, including mine) money for it.
  • rudolff April 5 2020 14: 23 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    I look at the problems of ekranoplanes a little differently and do not even try to seriously analyze all these figures: speed, flight altitude, range, load capacity, fuel consumption, etc.
    Alekseev was certainly the leading specialist in the world in this type of vehicle. He had an absolute carte blanche for construction from a superpower, which then was the Soviet Union. All the achievements of domestic science and industry were at his disposal. Unlimited financing. Unlimited in time. Many, many years of labor, research, experimentation, a breakthrough of money and the way out ... yes, in principle, nothing. WIG and could not occupy any of its niche. Neither here nor abroad. And even if we assume that with new technologies, materials we could now achieve better results, it should be remembered that we do not have either Alekseev himself or the power of the Soviet Union. In the best case, these will be small and highly specialized machines without any special prospects for their wide distribution.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 14: 34 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Many, many years of labor, research, experimentation, a breakthrough of money and the way out ... yes, in principle, nothing. WIG and could not occupy any of its niche. Neither here nor abroad.


      What are we talking about.

      And even if we assume that with new technologies, materials we could now achieve better results, it should be remembered that we do not have either Alekseev himself or the power of the Soviet Union.


      With new technologies and materials, airplanes will also switch to a new quality and the gap between them and ekranoplanes will remain or worsen in effectiveness.
  • Old26 April 5 2020 15: 06 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Dead Day
    and everything seems to be correct, and the arguments are valid ... but I, if I choose, would prefer to be at the moment of impact ... on the ekranoplan.

    To die heroically? After all, the cat cried for the same “Lunya” means of protection, EMNIP 1 or 2 pairs of 23 mm. How will you defend yourself against the same rocket from an airplane?

    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    The author compares EFs with airplanes, but does not mention hovercraft and hydrofoils, and here EFs are a direct competitor to them, and surpasses them both in speed and economy (SVP), even with the parameters that the author cited. (it is clear that we are not talking about the landing options, although ETs and how to drop them should not be discarded). These are three.

    WIG can be competitive only SVP and SEC in the transport option. Yes, and that only in terms of "range" and "speed". Especially SVP. I haven’t seen ships on a PC in the landing version, so there’s nothing to say about competition.
    But even with regard to landing ships on the airspace, the ekranoplane has no advantages with regard to landing unloading. If the coast is not equipped, the DKVP will go ashore, land an assault, again "stand on the pillow" and return to the base point. And now explain how the ekranoplan landing on the birch trees (the same "Eaglet" for example). He will be able to go ashore, the chassis will allow, if the soil is not very weak. Then he threw aside the "bow", landed and ...? What's next?? Will he be able to return to the water if the coast is not a flat surface, but a chaotic pile of stones? Further, having entered the water, will he be able to move along the same sandy shore? Will he sit on the ground at the full height of the landing gears?

    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    For some reason, the author strictly ties EP to seaports, but why is this? Ships with a large draft of several meters are tied to the ports, what draft can a short plane have?

    And where do you plan to base such ekranoplanes? If in the Black Sea Fleet then where? In the Caspian? On rivers, on lakes or Tsimlyansk reservoir?
    Where in the Baltic, or in the North? In the Far East? Only on the coast, it is best in the port, as in the most secure point with ready-made infrastructure. Or the same infrastructure will have to be done for ES.

    Quote: Sergey S.
    He contacted quite a bit with experts on ekranoplanes from a past life.
    They convinced the usefulness of ekranoplanes.

    Find a specialist in any industry from a past life who will be against their products? For example, find a rocket launcher who will say about his technique that she’s a fig, even if her performance characteristics are not outstanding

    Quote: Sergey S.
    Who is against a plane with a triple load at an extremely low altitude ...

    Orlenka, EMNIP, had a load of about 20 tons with a range of 1500–2000 km. Any transport aircraft of the IL-76 class will take away payload more than the "Eaglet". So there is no need to talk about a triple load.

    Quote: Sergey S.
    And if necessary, "Eaglet" took off at 3400 m.

    "Fawn" ekranoplan, not ekranolet. The ekranolet can fly up to a height of several kilometers. The ekranoplan is rigidly attached to the earth.

    Quote: Sergey S.
    A beach instead of a landing strip ...

    Beach? Try to get out of the water on a sandy beach. Especially if you have a weight of 100 kilograms. Feet get stuck in the sand. And then the "fool" weighing 80-90 tons will go to the beach ???? Oh well

    Quote: ROSS 42
    How to tell you? Quickly, inconspicuously for radars, at a distance of the launch range of the anti-ship missiles, releasing which are also discreet and retire.

    The radius of patrol aircraft DRLO aircraft carrier - about 400 km. The detection range of such a target from a height of 9-10 km gives another 400 km. Now tell me, how, having been detected at a distance of 800 km, the ekranoplan will quietly launch missiles in which the range is about the same as the detection limit? After all, simply violating the integrity of the wing and flow around it will be asymmetric. So the ekranoplan is likely to turn into an underwater one.

    Quote: ROSS 42
    Have you heard about the S-400 shot down by an “enemy”? But!!! No one questions their relevance and the need for production. Why is there such a bias towards ekranoplans?

    The difference is that the S-400 is nothing revolutionary. This is an evolutionary path of development. And although he, like the S-300, didn’t shoot down a single aircraft, it doesn’t mean at all that he will not bring them down. That is, the air defense system will fulfill its functionality, good or bad = second thing. EP - no.
    It is not better than a surface ship or aircraft (although it has only one plus compared to the NK - its speed). For the most part, he will not fulfill the tasks assigned to him. The question is - why is it needed then?

    Quote: Genry
    The starting range is not a constant value. Caliber has already shown this

    Do not confuse "God's gift with fried eggs." The launch range of the Caliber itself is the launch range of a missile designed to strike along the coast. And if the overwhelming majority of the people are not able to listen to what they say to her, these are their problems. But the commander of the Caspian flotilla, almost 2 years before the launch of the Caliber in Syria from the Caspian, spoke about the exercises and said that the entire distance of 375 km was hit by the anti-ship, and the ground distance was more than 1000 km. But we have the majority of “writers,” not “readers.” For many, this info passed by and they stubbornly continued to think about the performance characteristics of Caliber based on the export modification ...

    Quote: Genry
    The presence of combat ekranoplanes will force the enemy to patrol vast territories, with very short time intervals, which is not absolutely effective and requires huge costs (cost-effectiveness of the war).

    Check out how AWACS patrols from an aircraft carrier. About their number, radius and patrol pattern
    1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 15: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Cool you drove through us! laughing As soon as I stumbled upon it by accident, I did not even read it. Do not know how to respond to comments?
    2. Aag
      Aag April 5 2020 22: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Try to get out of the water on a sandy beach. Especially if you have a weight of 100 kilograms. Feet get stuck in the sand.
      Sorry, I remembered:
      "If a bird cuts its wings,
      And if you cut off your legs too,
      The bird will die of boredom.
      Because she won’t be able to sit. "
      A. Ivanov.
    3. EvilLion April 6 2020 10: 02 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      S-300 and S-400 shot down a lot of things. They were sort of tested on targets, and missiles flew where they needed to. There is reason to expect that it will get into the F-16, even older models fall.
  • Fizik M April 5 2020 15: 06 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Weakly.
    It was necessary to embed stronger on this sawed crap
  • Dmitry Grinyuk April 5 2020 15: 16 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    "A dangerous moment -" Eaglet "is turning. In a straight line, this car flew much safer "

    To begin with, this once again stolen photo with unspecified authorship and / or the exact address from which it was stolen is a “mirror” with retouched (Photoshop deleted!) Number “26”.
    You second - do not need to build “guesses” to prove the truth of your theories: “Eaglet” did not turn anywhere, flew in a straight line and demonstrated its ability to roll.
    This is me, as the author of a photo story stolen by you somewhere, I say
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 16: 23 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Photos from the Internet, sorry if offended. I can replace it with another or indicate authorship at the end of the article, if you want.
      1. Dmitry Grinyuk April 6 2020 09: 17 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        You did not offend me, you, excuse me, yourself offended!
        You, I believe, know that when driving a car on the road, you must know and comply with traffic rules. Otherwise, you will be punished with fines and disqualifications.
        When “going” to the Internet with your texts, you are also required to comply with the laws on the protection of copyright and related rights set forth in Chapter IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. But you, as well as the moderators / editors of VO, spit on these “Internet traffic rules” and even, in the person of Roman Skomorokhov, develop theories to justify your dense nature and legal nihilism.
        For reference: you can absolutely absolutely free use other people's illustrations (and other fruits of the creative activity of third authors) if it is a non-commercial and / or educational purpose, but under one indispensable condition: in each specific case (under each publication), authorship must be indicated or , as a last resort (if you cannot establish the author objectively) indicate a direct link to the source from which you borrowed the illustration.
        This is a requirement of the law of the Russian Federation!
        In case of violation of the Law, and you violated it, using my work without specifying the author’s FI, THERE HAS FORTESTED YOURSELF ALLOWED NAME RIGHT!
        In this case, you will face prosecution, and the punishment guaranteed by modern domestic judicial practice is compensation for damage and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 10000 + 1000 for each case of copyright infringement. Plus, your reimbursement of the plaintiff's legal expenses - salaries of lawyers, state duty, notarial expenses, etc.
        1. timokhin-aa April 6 2020 12: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, that is, if I indicate "Photo: Dmitry Grinyuk" under the photo, will this suit you? Or run to court anyway?
          1. Dmitry Grinyuk April 6 2020 16: 04 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Judging by the ironic style and the meaning of your “proposal” - you did not understand anything. It's a pity.
            The following will suit me:
            1. You generally delete this photo-fake, for the production of which my original photo was used. You can put the original indicating authorship in the form of © Dmitry Grinyuk, 1993
            2. Here in the comment, apologize for the violation of my copyrights, preferably sincerely.
            And then I will not "run to court", I will regret you ...
            1. Fizik M April 6 2020 18: 14 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I think it’s worth clarifying in what status you took this photo? By a private person or working under a contract acc. organizations?
            2. timokhin-aa April 6 2020 18: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I can put the original photo with copyright. Give a link to it. And of course, with evidence that it is yours. And that's enough for that, I think.
              1. Dmitry Grinyuk April 6 2020 20: 27 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                You, Timokhin, are not in the position to define something and dictate something! )))
                1. Fizik M April 7 2020 06: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The fact of public and baseless insult to YOUR (on YOUR side)
                  Including legal perspectives
                2. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 12: 42 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  No, I'm in that position. I respect copyrights - give the original unfrozen photo, some evidence that it is yours, and I will replace the illustration and put your copyright under it.
                  You do not want?
                  As you wish.
                  After all, how can I be sure that you are writing the truth? You may well be one of the countless psychopaths in Runet.
                  1. Dmitry Grinyuk April 7 2020 14: 54 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    In order to dispel your type of doubt, you don’t even have to leave your home site “VO”, and in the search built into it, it’s enough to type my F.I. and do not forget to press the ENTER button - and you will be happy!
                    However, you persuaded me with your obstinacy: if a person does not understand the words, will only a few thinner own wallet help him?
                    1. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 17: 28 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      In general, since you refuse a constructive dialogue, I deleted the controversial photo. In this article, there could be an original photo with a signature about who made it and when.
                      But you decided to leave the show. No problem.
                      1. Dmitry Grinyuk April 7 2020 18: 29 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        We will not have a constructive dialogue here and not now, and all the requested evidence will be presented at the hearing.
                      2. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 19: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In Sportloto, do not forget to write more.
                      3. Dmitry Grinyuk April 7 2020 21: 40 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        I have long understood, Mr. Timokhin, that you are not a reader, you are exclusively a writer. Like that Chukchi from a joke.
  • Fizik M April 5 2020 16: 30 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Monsieur, watch the speech. And extinguish your burning poop with a fire extinguisher
    1. Dmitry Grinyuk April 6 2020 09: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      A physicist with the letter M ... it says a lot, if not everything! )))
      1. Fizik M April 6 2020 18: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, it says a lot, Physicist M is a new torpedo, and it will be.
        Thanks to me.
      2. Fizik M April 6 2020 18: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And about a lot, if not about everything, it says that there were no objections to Timokhin’s amateurish article from YOU.
        I myself am familiar with the subject more than, in particular, because I worked closely with those who did this at TsKBSPK and provided (covering a significant part of the Caspian Sea) flights
  • onix757 April 5 2020 15: 21 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Why ekranoplans are not needed by either the fleet or the aircraft as a whole

    Because the state of the Russian Federation is not able to build them.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 16: 28 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Do they need to be built?
      1. Aag
        Aag April 5 2020 22: 23 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Let's agree, I will not build a digital signature, and you will cease to say that this is complete crap? hi
  • Old26 April 5 2020 15: 26 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Orlyonok has a maximum take-off mass of 120000 tons, and a maximum load capacity of 20 tons. Unlike the mythical CM, these are very real numbers.
    Please comment on them.

    Aleksandr1 Olenka has a take-off of 120 tons, not 120 tons
  • petr-32005 April 5 2020 15: 38 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Thanks to the author, I put everything on the shelves. I agree with every word. He dealt with this topic on diploma design. I had to prove the necessity and exclusivity of electric power, while the cat itself scratched its soul. Sea-based - this is already a huge minus in aerodynamic perfection + the need to carry starting engines with you + the need for developed infrastructure - nothing remains beyond the ambition. Dead end branch of aviation development.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 16: 23 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      For sure. And there is.
  • depressant April 5 2020 16: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I remember that in my Chukchi childhood there was a flying boat "Catalina". Adults constantly mentioned her. Apparently, the life of the Katalina military village, lost among the hills, was of great importance.
    1. Fizik M April 5 2020 16: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, a good seaplane
    2. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 17: 36 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      This is some very old childhood was visible. An-24, An-26 and Mi-8 flew to my Chukchi village
      1. depressant April 5 2020 17: 43 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes, dear Author, a very early childhood)) I learned to speak))) Apparently, other planes flew, but does a child at such a tender age remember the abbreviations? And the beautiful word "Catalina" was imprinted in memory forever))
        1. Aag
          Aag April 5 2020 22: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Probably, like “Calypso” - thanks to F And Cousteau! hi
      2. rudolff April 5 2020 18: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Alex, what Chukotka village, if not secret?
        1. depressant April 5 2020 22: 50 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Rudolph, Alex did not answer you, but my village was Ureliki))
          1. rudolff April 5 2020 23: 43 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            He replied, they wrote off in PM. I lived in Shakhtar, right next to the runway of the Anadyr Airport. In childhood. My father was a military man.
  • timokhin-aa April 5 2020 16: 27 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    By reference - http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=744&p=11#p1002160

    the epic discussion about ekranoplanes that took place in the professional community is copied, which makes it especially valuable.
    The ekranoplanes' place is quite clearly defined.
  • U-58 April 5 2020 16: 36 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Yes, in the end, look at the photo "Lunya" or "Luni"))))))
    6 launcher anti-ship missile launcher "Mosquito", and under them is the thick belly of the fuselage (or body). It’s empty. Or place additional there. tanks.
    But right now it's not about that.
    Let the new "Lun" will have 8 places under the PU.
    Yes, EPRO even more.
    But each pair of PU has a removable design, that is, a modular principle.
    We remove the "mosquito" cases and put the air defense unit.
    Well, if they write about the N1 board that they have their own anti-aircraft defense, then here you can trick.
    And so, we have 6 launchers "Mosquito" or Caliber or .... Bramos or .... Dagger and missile defense system plus plus "Shell". Or maybe there’s still some thread Peresvet with Chelubey ....
    Is it not promising to have in the arsenal of the Baltic Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, and the Caspian Flotilla a pair of such ships?
    They will certainly be cooler than any rocket boat.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 17: 33 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      For the money that is needed for this, you can build a regiment of Su-30SM upgraded to Onyx and, in the future, Zircon.
      So compare.
      1. U-58 April 6 2020 04: 00 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        What am I snowing
        What do i know
        What do I rain
        Torrential ......
        Not convinced
        WIG is not a nuclear submarine.
        For the factory, this is also an airplane, only a little more ...
        But in the snow and torrential rain your SS will carry out the combat mission, but they won’t return home. Amen
  • serge siberian April 5 2020 16: 56 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Over a hundred years, a myriad of aircraft has been produced; therefore, they have been studied and are economically viable. And how many serial EPs, t. Did you count Timokhin? And, I apologize, for what period?
    They mentioned hydrofoil vessels. Maybe there were a lot of them in the European part, but in Siberia there are not many. There you had roads and then, and in Siberia there are still two lanes on the highway. It was, I emphasized, beautiful and fast transport. They ruined. And ekranoplanes will also be ruined. Without studying and not building new ones, I’ll bite. There was nothing good in the USSR. But this country was the first to go into space. And it created the same Mriya. soldier
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 17: 34 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      So what kind of serial can we talk about if they have an efficiency lower than the engine and 75% accident rate?
      This was a dead end from the very beginning, so the direction was crushed even under the USSR.
      And they did it right.
    2. ser56 April 5 2020 17: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Serge Siberian
      and there were many, but few in Siberia

      missiles went along the Ob, but the problem is that because of the wings they need great depths at the pier, and even at night you can’t walk because of the marshes request
    3. Fizik M April 5 2020 19: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Just a trash with ekranoplanes in the Central Design Bureau for the SEC and poheril our SEC
      There was an excellent article in Shipbuilding with a lot of technical details.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 18: 57 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      author of the article paid flurodros.


      That's just with the justification for this rotten statement you did not ask.

      The undoubted advantages of ekranoplanes are

      1) effective load capacity (mass of cargo / mass of delivery vehicle ... cargo price / price of delivery vehicle. No one has yet canceled the sea protest, if the author generally approached the subject of maritime logistics a kilometer away)


      We look at Orlyonka - the maximum take-off weight is 120 tons, the carrying capacity is 20 tons. The most disadvantageous transport in the world is coming out. How so?

      2) Speed ​​- the ability to solve many operational and strategic tasks, previously inaccessible.


      With airplanes comparable in speed?

      3) The inability to hit the ekranoplan with modern means. The WaterWater, EarthWater complexes will not be able to work out due to speed, the complexes of AirEarth, AirWater, AirAir and Air will not be able to work out due to design reasons.


      This is simply not true - any modern naval air defense system affects such targets in the entire range of heights. URVV will also take it completely, the ekranoplan has not so small EPR that it could not be detected from an airplane against the background of water.
      You are just lying.

      b) to catch in the landing zone .... for the board there is no problem swirling for 10-20 minutes in the detection area and to remove the radio signals. Carrying capacity allows rape radio in any range to any depth. And if you simply equip an additional vehicle with an electronic vehicle, then you can jam a quarter of the map.


      And what of this cannot be done without an ekranoplan?
      1. Dmitry V. April 6 2020 12: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        We look at Orlyonka - the maximum take-off weight is 120 tons, the carrying capacity is 20 tons. The most disadvantageous transport in the world is coming out. How so?


        Let us not forget the strength standards for hydroaviation, above.
        For example, IL-76 (takeoff weight 195 tons), carrying capacity 28-60 tons at a range of 4200 - 3600 km.
        MDE Orlyonok (take-off weight 140 tons), load capacity 28 tons at a range of 1500 km.

        IL-76 transports 225 fighters or 4 BMD-2s landing method (3 landing),
        MDE type Orlyonok - 200 fighters or 2 armored personnel carriers or 2 infantry fighting vehicles - on an un-equipped coast - I’m sure that 3 BMDs in Orlyonok will fit in loading and size in terms of weight and weight - they go into the cargo compartment ..

        That is, as the amphibious assault — IL-76 and the MDE Orlyonok — are comparable in composition of the transported assault forces.
        The difference in range, speed. And the possibilities of landing. The price of the MDE Orlyonok is 2-2,5 times cheaper than the IL-76

        By redesigning the "Eaglet" under the carrier of 6 anti-ship missiles weighing 4500 kg each or 6-8 sea-based missiles, it is quite possible to get an inexpensive mobile carrier platform.
        1. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 17: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          MDE type Orlyonok - 200 fighters or 2 armored personnel carriers or 2 infantry fighting vehicles - on an un-equipped coast - I’m sure that 3 BMDs in Orlyonok will fit in loading and size in terms of weight and weight - they go into the cargo compartment ..


          And now deliver them from Pskov to Murmansk.
          1. Bobrick April 7 2020 22: 17 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And then in a day manage to land IL-76 on the Midway Atoll (the length of the strip on the largest of the islands is 1200 meters).

            In conditions of war in the Pacific Ocean, the south of the Indian Ocean, ekranoplanes can be very good (landing near a small atoll, organizing a defense point on the atoll with air defense and anti-ship missiles, and, as a result, protecting or controlling a large ocean area with a minimum of fleet costs).
            1. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 22: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And then in a day manage to land IL-76 on the Midway Atoll (the length of the strip on the largest of the islands is 1200 meters).


              1. Do you understand that the delivery of goods from Pskov to Murmansk is much more likely than to Midway?
              2. No ekranoplan will fly from Russia to Midway. Aircraft - only with refueling in the air (which our VTA basically does not have) or one way.
              3. During the war for the islands of the Pacific Ocean, various HYDROPLANES will be needed. But not ekranoplans.
              Here are examples from the past



              About this size, with the possibility of landing l / s and equipment ashore.
              But I cannot politically imagine a situation in which we would have to wage a Pacific war in Oceania, Papua New Guinea and around.
              And without this, even seaplanes are not needed. About ekranoplans and no speech.
              1. Bobrick April 7 2020 23: 10 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Do you understand that the delivery of cargo from Pskov to Murmansk is much more likely than to Midway?

                In this situation, transport aircraft are not needed, and even in the reach of fighters from Sweden and Norway. Railway transport is cheaper (up to 10 times or more) and simpler and more reliable.

                No ekranoplan will fly from Russia to Midway. Aircraft - only with refueling in the air (which our VTA basically does not have) or one way.

                There are such bases in the Far East, and 5-7 thousand km is already a very real distance.
                And in this form the system will work for conditional Japan very much (10 thousand islands and large areas for control)


                During the war for the islands of the Pacific, various HYDROPLANES will be needed. But not ekranoplans.

                And here the most interesting lies. The ekranoplanes outperform the payload of seaplanes (and significantly, the proportion of the payload of seaplanes does not exceed 30%, 22-25% approximately, if more precisely, and ekranoplanes up to 40%, judging by your own article), while in other parameters they identical (from the conditions required for take-off - flight, through the required materials and technologies to the infrastructure)
                1. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 23: 25 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  In this situation, transport aircraft are not needed, and even in the reach of fighters from Sweden and Norway. Railway transport is cheaper (up to 10 times or more) and simpler and more reliable.


                  It happens that it is necessary quickly. There is peace time, but it is necessary quickly. It happens that we have air supremacy and need to quickly.
                  It happens from Chelyabinsk to AB Kant to Kyrgyzstan - and quickly.
                  It happens in Bergamo doctors throw.
                  It happens that you need to deliver the S-400 battery to Hmeimim.
                  QUICKLY.
                  So understandable? How to do it all ekranoplan?

                  There are such bases in the Far East, and 5-7 thousand km is already a very real distance.


                  For an airplane, such a distance is real with air refueling. But it is absolutely unrealistic for ekranoplanes at the current level of technical development, or a project like the American Pelican is needed. Even in the dimensions of the KM it is not possible to build such an ekranoplane, engines with a specific consumption of somewhere in 0,2 kg / kgf * h and a thrust of 12-15 thousand kgs are needed. This is unrealistic

                  Plus, the wave factor here - the Pacific Ocean is actually not Pacific, and the ekranoplan there will most of the year simply dig into the wave and break.

                  And here the most interesting lies. The ekranoplanes outperform the payload of seaplanes (and significantly, the proportion of the payload of seaplanes does not exceed 30%, 22-25% approximately, if more precisely, and in ekranoplanes up to 40%, judging by your article)


                  in my article, the order of figures was determined by the presence of fuel on board the CM for a flight of 1500 km - hundreds of tons. This was not an accurate calculation, and this was stated in the article.

                  The exact data is for Orlyonok - 120 tons max take-off weight and 20 tons payload. One of the most inefficient vehicles in the world.

                  Well, traditionally for lovers of linear thinking (this is when we have planes, if they fly, then only as in the example from Pskov to Murmansk, and then no, the reality is over, the world map too) is a tactical task.

                  The MP battalion is surrounded by the enemy on one of the volcanic (and therefore rocky) islands, a battle is underway so that the troops do not die before the deblockade operation (this is several hours), they must throw ammunition on them by parachute.

                  How to do it on ekranoplane?
                  I look forward to hearing.
                  1. Bobrick April 8 2020 01: 38 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Anything larger than the battalion will still require a transfer, either on landing / transport ships, or an entire BTA division.
                    It happens that it is necessary quickly. There is peace time, but it is necessary quickly. It happens that we have air supremacy and need to quickly.
                    It happens from Chelyabinsk to AB Kant to Kyrgyzstan - and quickly.
                    It happens in Bergamo doctors throw.
                    It happens that you need to deliver the S-400 battery to Hmeimim.
                    QUICKLY.
                    So understandable? How to do it all ekranoplan?

                    ALL of the above particular cases, which can be solved by requisition / order from a private company.

                    The second point is contrary to the H8K World War II flying boat. And why is ekranoplana forbidden to refuel?

                    Plus, the wave factor here - the Pacific Ocean is actually not Pacific, and the ekranoplan there will most of the year simply dig into the wave and break.

                    The screen effect is present at a distance of up to half the wing span, i.e. with a wingspan of 40 meters, the screen effect will be present at a flight height of up to 20 meters.
                    Already a 20 meter wave can even flood an aircraft carrier, and aircraft will not be able to fly in weather corresponding to this storm (this is a tropical hurricane, note).

                    in my article, the order of figures was determined by the presence of fuel on board the CM for a flight of 1500 km - hundreds of tons. This was not an accurate calculation, and this was stated in the article.

                    If so, then this is a completely inaccurate calculation, on cruise mode, the engine thrust in flight is usually 1/3 of the maximum on the ground (this is for an airplane), for KM this will be a thrust of 20-26 tons (2 engines out of 10, at rated power, and not in cruising mode, 0,7 kg / kgf * h, http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/km1.html, http://aviaros.narod.ru/rd-7 .htm) and the take-off mode is already considered separately (5-10 minutes of full operation of all engines).
                    And already by this technique, with the old VD-7 engines (1957), the CM is eating 70 tons for 1500 km (of which 14 tons for take-off, 56 tons for flight in 4 hours), and not hundreds at all. And this is on engines not designed for cruising speeds of 400-500 km / h.
                    And with this approach, the AN-124 can even be voracious.

                    Exact data is for Orlyonok - 120 tons max take-off weight
                    this is already wrong - 140 tons of maximum take-off weight, and with an empty mass of 100 tons, it is already better than the Be-200 (by weight of an empty plane to take-off).

                    How to do it on ekranoplane?

                    A towed glider, for example (with a simple autopilot).
                    Since the VTA somehow resets supplies (or somehow they resets supplies under the air defense fire, this means that this action is supported by military aviation and it will be in any scenario), then there is almost no opposition from the enemy air defense, then the glider on the hill will jump the ridge and land on the position of the battalion (rather than scattering half of the supplies to the enemy).
                    1. timokhin-aa April 8 2020 15: 03 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      ALL of the above particular cases, which can be solved by requisition / order from a private company.


                      That is, you so much want ekranoplanes that you are ready to slam military transports for their sake? What makes you think that civilians will be able to requisition something? In a threatened period, they can overtake planes abroad and change registration, for example. In what condition their Air Force planes do not know, their pilots are not trained to fight, there are no electronic warfare equipment on planes. This is some kind of sectarianism, dear.
                      Well, okay - the airborne assault must be dropped.
                      Will you take the next step “I want ekranoplanes so much that I’m ready to finish not only the BTA, but also the Airborne Forces”?

                      The screen effect is present at a distance of up to half the wing span, i.e. with a wingspan of 40 meters, the screen effect will be present at a flight height of up to 20 meters.


                      At an altitude of 10 kilometers, any large plane flies quietly without risking anything due to weather near the earth or water, with maximum fuel efficiency, almost without shaking, and without the risk of hitting the water.

                      If so, then this is a completely inaccurate calculation, cruising


                      This is a minimum calculation - this is how the minimum numbers are determined. In order to state what you state, you must at least EXACTLY know the aerodynamic quality of the KM, on which all these figures depend.

                      this is already wrong - 140 tons of maximum take-off weight, and with an empty mass of 100 tons, it is already better than the Be-200 (by weight of an empty plane to take-off).


                      Let's compare the comparable. We have a task - to transfer 20 tons of cargo.
                      There is an An-12 aircraft - it can solve this problem.
                      There is a Mi-26 helicopter - it can also solve this problem.
                      There is an ekranoplan Eaglet - he can also solve this problem.
                      We have enough money for one thing. Well, or two aircraft, for example.
                      So compare, choose.

                      But keep in mind that for errors you have to pay for lost wars. For example, after 10 years we needed to fight in the desert and we need to deliver the goods there. Or in the mountains.
                      And we have ekranoplanes instead of airplanes.

                      A towed glider, for example (with a simple autopilot).


                      That is, in order to have ekranoplanes, you also need to build landing gliders, and aircraft towing for them, right? Isn’t it easier to send an airplane?

                      Pure sectarianism, citizen.
                      1. Bobrick April 8 2020 18: 25 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Does the case have anything to say? All this is a transition to personalities and special cases, and even the denial of physical phenomena (the aerodynamic quality of an ekranoplan is worse than that of an airplane - this is real sectarianism).

                        Mob the plan provides for the confiscation of vehicles from the public and companies (in WWII this was done even in the United States with its airlines, but now this will not work, explain why?). The army has 200 LA VTA, in GA 2–3 thousand, which also bring profit in peacetime (this is the promise in the whole article - ekranoplans are not profitable, and army without war is not profitable - capitalism), it’s cheaper to organize a once-in-a-month monthly military training course for pilots (the flight and experience with a GA pilot are ten times more than with a military pilot) than maintaining a BTA fleet (EW containers are installed in a couple of hours).

                        For information, tropical hurricanes can disturb the lower layers of the stratosphere (up to 30 km), which is why weather radars are put on airplanes, and even with a side wind of 10 m / s, takeoff can not be done under not ideal conditions (the band is slightly shorter, the engine at + 35 C does not give out all thrust, etc.), in short, planes do not fly in bad weather either.

                        Where does it say that you need to finish off the VTA and the Airborne Forces? It was about the niche of small landing ships for ekranoplanes, as a cheap and independent replacement (the fleet for support is minimal - operational capabilities are higher).

                        Do not bear criticism - do not answer, or else answer questions such as: an ekranoplane is worse than a helicopter (because it can land on unprepared sites of 100 sq.m.) and an airplane (it does not take off for 10 km) and cannot replace both options at once bored ...

                        Also called a sectarian ...
                      2. timokhin-aa April 8 2020 22: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Where does it say that you need to finish off the VTA and the Airborne Forces?


                        And what you have to choose is VTA, Airborne Forces, fighter aircraft, or ekranoplanes. The budget is not rubber.
                        So the question arises - what is the interchangeability of ekranoplanes? What is there that cannot be done without them, or at least not done a little better than ekranoplans?
                        And it turns out that nothing - airplanes and helicopters can do anything that ekranoplanes are better, cheaper, and with less restrictions (land, mountains, etc.).
                        Well, the conclusion is that you have to buy planes and helicopters.
                        This is simple logic.
                        And the sectarians have a different logic - at any cost an ekranoplane, do not care if they are really needed or without them easier, no difference, you need an ekranoplan anyway. Look, in the thread below, the opponent suggested for the sake of ekranoplanes to dig multi-kilometer pools on the ground. In all seriousness.
                        Well, how do I think about you after that?
                      3. Bobrick April 8 2020 23: 50 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        So I wrote that everything is not so obvious, and there are things that he can do better within reasonable limits, as an example, amphibious assault forces: as a replacement for small amphibious assault ships due to better speed, while there is a helicopter gain in range, in front of BTA aircraft in the possibility of landing on water (the Airborne Forces simply cannot be thrown into the ocean), refueling afloat (ejecting a tank with a beacon, without needing to understand the tanker) and access to the coast, and before seaplanes in terms of economic and cargo characteristics during operation.

                        This is not a replacement for conventional aviation, but an addition to the navy.

                        In current conditions, if there is a need for a large number of small landing ships, the option may turn out to be more profitable (the aviation industry has large capacities and a tendency to execute orders on time, unlike the Russian marine industry, that the order will not be pulled or overpowered)
              2. Dmitry V. April 8 2020 09: 59 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Even in the dimensions of the KM it is not possible to build such an ekranoplane, engines with a specific consumption of somewhere in 0,2 kg / kgf * h and a thrust of 12-15 thousand kgs are needed. This is unrealistic


                You compare the incomparable - the heights of transport aircraft always give an advantage in air resistance compared to ekranoplanes, correspondingly lower fuel consumption and high speed.
                Ekranoplanes have higher payloads with comparable power of the propulsion system, and fuel consumption at low altitudes is a priori higher.

                But your logic is vicious in that, based on it, heavy transport helicopters are not needed - is there an IL-76?
                However, there are quite parallel transport helicopters, transport planes and, respectively, ekranoplanes can occupy their niche - a transport component with a meager cost-based infrastructure based on water spaces (lakes, rivers, bays).

                As well as combat platforms for supporting the littoral fleet or transport and landing ships for landing on unequipped coasts - due to the high reaction speed and good carrying capacity, they may well occupy their niche.

                Even South Korea commissioned the WSH-500 passenger ekranoplan.


                In the framework of the program of South Korea, over the past 5-7 years, 4 variants of the types of ekranoplanes have been experimentally investigated on flight samples:
                HAENARAE X1, ARON-7, SEA RIDER, WSH-500.


                three types of models showed a rather weak binding
                to the screen (low security - the ARON-7 ekranoplane crashed on July 8, 2012), they were tested mainly like ordinary seaplanes. As a result, a variant of the WSH-500 type is adopted for commercial purposes.


                https://sites.google.com/site/hoverwingwigcraft/curriculum-vitae

                1. The aerodynamic design of the HW-20 (without VP) is close to ideal in aerodynamic quality and geared to the screen.

                2. The low specific wing load (1,5-2 times less than the airplane) and high aerodynamic quality in flight allow reducing the electric power ratio of the EA to the level of 0,15 hp / kg and, due to this, guarantee class “A” (without flying off screen).

                Base Model WHS-500 (November 2011)
                Weight = 17,0 tons, engines = 2 x 1400 hp (diesel), pass. places = 47.
                http://home.sinn.ru/~wew/Korea20.htm

                1. timokhin-aa April 8 2020 15: 06 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The South Korean ekranoplan is not certified for passenger traffic so far. And not just like that.
                  For the rest.
                  A simple question - what is better to spend 100 billion on - the revival of ekranoplanostroeniya and the construction of the lead ekranoplan in a series of (one) or the purchase of 50 Su-30SM, modernized for war at sea?
                  Or one transport ekranoplan against 15-20 brand new IL-76?
                  This is a very simple question.
                  1. Dmitry V. April 8 2020 15: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    A simple question - what is better to spend 100 billion on - the revival of ekranoplanostroeniya and the construction of the lead ekranoplan in a series of (one) or the purchase of 50 Su-30SM, modernized for war at sea?


                    Well, in fact, there are no “simple questions" - it's not so simple.
                    Of course, developing one to the detriment of the aviation program is a mistake.
                    But to conduct research and development on ekranoplanes - it is necessary to continue.
                    Now, too, I see a “bias” in the old developments, but with the handling in the old models it was not good enough.
                    The ekranoplanes obviously need front-controlled aerodynamic panels, to control the pitch when making maneuvers on the course, an automatic altitude hold system, since a person is not able to manage to compensate for gusts and blows under the wing during maneuvers, you may need to think about some wing mechanization.
                    Existing "fuselage" schemes are not stable enough during maneuvers and gusts of wind.

                    Now I see no reason to delve into the technical part.
                    But it makes sense to work according to two or three promising schemes. Of course, start not with 500 tons of ocean, but with an average of 50-150 tons.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The South Korean ekranoplan is not certified for passenger traffic so far.


                    I saw the filming of the Korean EP with passengers in commercial operation - I doubt that they would be allowed without a certificate of airworthiness.
  • Fizik M April 5 2020 19: 25 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Do not smack nonsense, it hurts
  • ser56 April 5 2020 17: 55 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Good and evidential article! Alas, some interesting inventions are unnecessary for various reasons .... request
    As I recall, ekranoplanes became a link in Ustinov’s strategy for an asymmetric answer - hence the aircraft carrier aircraft, VTOL, etc. Experience has shown that a lot of money has been spent, and the result is alas ... request
  • LeonidL April 5 2020 18: 11 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    "And the task of society is to make sure that all this remains. "Indeed - the technology and combat use of ekranoplanes, even at the peak of their" popularity ", raised doubts. There were even no discussions about building them in the near future, why drive a wave? And as always then, in order to arouse the enthusiasm of the common-world hackers, neither Canadian Mr. Timokhin nor Kaptsov is the ultimate truth, but it really hurts to become a rower with the bulkheads at the head of the "public."
    Further - as always with the professional all-crawler and guardian of the all-Russian Mr. Timokhin -
    “Today, the Navy as a whole and the naval aviation have monstrous gaps in the most important directions. So, we don’t have any anti-submarine helicopters or anti-submarine aircraft. There are few anti-submarine ships. One is an old collapsing aircraft carrier that has nowhere to be docked. Collapse in mine forces, terrible terms for repair and modernization of ships, a catastrophe in marine underwater weapons, a dead end in the doctrines of the development of the fleet as a type of aircraft. Or, more simply, we are full of problems that it’s time to finance in priority order for a long time. »Projects requiring redirecting money from solving urgent problems to technical projection should be crushed in the bud.
    "In modern conditions, one does not have to hope for large infusions of budget money in the coming years. It is strange that Mr. Timokhin does not understand such a simple truth. Then what are weeping and moaning for? To once again bite the leadership for clackers to the public? No one is building Caspian monsters yet He’s not going to. And, I’ll remind the townsfolk of a note - a person who considers himself an expert in everything and everything — from Vietnamese affairs — through ICE — light fighters — to managing naval affairs, does not really understand anything and is not a professional. Russian “well-wishers” throw up, and he only adds vivacity in the form of “biting” those who hold power. And this is for the Russian layman and intellectual, especially as the author himself has never served, but because of the complex of insolvency, who thinks he is the sovereign of thoughts and the Russian admiral, there is highest degree of self-satisfaction.
    1. timokhin-aa April 5 2020 18: 58 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      About the construction of them in the near future there was not even talk, why drive a wave?


      Then, that lobbyists continue to push this topic through the command of naval aviation and contrary to decisions of the command of the Navy.
    2. Fizik M April 5 2020 19: 28 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Monsieur, the topic, or rather a scam, from ekranoplans was open.
      This is an officer. info from Army 15
    3. Fizik M April 5 2020 20: 53 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      You forgot that Timokhin caught YOU on a nonsense
      1. LeonidL April 6 2020 00: 36 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Maksimushka! That you dear confused a little. It was me who caught Mr. Timokhin in a lie. He cheated you too. but you in all your might have said that this Mr. Honored Naval Officer. And the honored himself stood like an Ilfa-Petrovsky angel with his eyes down and ... gave you that you called him names, but he himself never said that he was an officer, especially a naval officer. Was it? It was on the Internet that everyone remembers ... I can kindly tell you about you, so to speak, a psychological portrait. You most likely had a relationship with the fleet, went into a reserve in small ranks, took part in the design of the equipment, but by no means in title roles, with scientific degrees or were not burdened, or at most ctn, your developments didn’t go that you the world was terribly offended and pissed off, which is why you speak at VO, and not in really serious publications. And the invention is also not going smoothly ... probably mostly “black triangles”, and the nerves of that, therefore, can’t fight for our own ... But in everything, as is customary in Russia, the authorities, the stripes are to blame, and we are all generals together. .. I sincerely sympathize with you.
        1. Fizik M April 6 2020 04: 44 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Leonidlo, Timokhin’s facts on YOU were given. From you only a dumb screech and nonsense.
          Speaking of me, YOU are also bubbling out of a puddle. Acc. colors
          1. LeonidL April 6 2020 19: 57 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Thymohin protection is the sacred work of the clacker. But you can’t get the words out of the song, right, my dear and most gracious Maximushka! ... Thank you, your couple gave me many opportunities to laugh and brighten up a well-deserved retirement vacation. Maksimushka, for my long - long years of service as a sovereign man, I had to have many, many different people under command and control. Including met "maximushki" and "timokhiny", balabol and trepach, all-knowing ignoramuses and fixated losers. Here, in communication with you, I remembered ... I laughed a lot from you. Thank you dearest.
            1. Fizik M April 7 2020 06: 11 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Goluba Leonidlo, you were mistaken with the address.
              I do not digest an audience like YOU.
              By the way with the facts at YOU how? How is it usually liquid?
              1. LeonidL April 7 2020 20: 39 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Maksimushka! You have a little fluidity with the facts - I only clearly and correctly list the "achievements" and suggestions of your dear friend. It was he who framed you, calling himself an officer, and then admitting to the contrary, these are the facts from his biography in his dubbing, these are his suggestions. Remember Maksimushka my golden rule is "better with a smart to lose than a fool to find." You have a small pension, the apartment is so-so, and therefore the bitterness is with people who have taken place ... My advice to you is to master a worthy profession, well, there will be an auto repairman, taxi driver, rider, painter, and you’ll have extra income, and you’ll take time . Good luck, dear, in your endeavors!
                1. timokhin-aa April 7 2020 21: 32 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  It was he who set you up, calling himself an officer


                  Is this when I did this? Can I link to the comment?
                  1. LeonidL April 8 2020 05: 04 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Mr. Timokhin's Anemia? Well, then heal yourself. Or write proudly - I'm supposed to be a real officer, preferably "marine".
                    1. timokhin-aa April 8 2020 15: 10 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      No, I never lied to myself. To nobody.
                      It was you, as a psychologist, who came up with this nonsense and began your "struggle" with Military Review.
                      Because it is necessary to consult a doctor in time, LeonidL, then mania will not pursue you, and enemies around the corner will not imagine.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. timokhin-aa April 8 2020 18: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        You are sick, Leonid L.
                      3. LeonidL April 13 2020 19: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        You are boring and boring, Mr. Timokhin, my friend. Are you better off than repeating a hackneyed record, would you tell the public about your achievements in jumping, running, bodybuilding, where does such vast knowledge give you advice from, who are these well-wishers, where does such aplomb and omniscience come from? And you are all about me and about me ... But I am just the truth about you uterus. only loving, dearly, carefully ... You are an amateur, not a professional and a graphomaniac. Admit it will be easier.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                    3. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
  • Iris April 5 2020 18: 45 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    A convincing detailed article that seems to cover the topic of using ekranoplanes in the military / transport / search and rescue areas. But what if .. the "specific" niche of an ekranoplane / ekranoleta is civil shipping in accordance with the seaport - seaport scheme, like a ferry? I remember that in Soviet times, the Kerch railway ferry ferry "Crimea - the Caucasus" worked. The carriages of the trains were disengaged, loaded onto a ferry, transported by sea through the strait, connected again there, and the train moved on. This is not a quick, complicated and unsafe business - to load wagons, properly fix them and transport a load of such weight; and in a storm, even a faint, and completely impossible. And all this for the sake of 5 kilometers! The ekranoplan could cover distances of several hundred kilometers between seaports with passenger terminals. On the ekranoplan could provide a much higher level of comfort (which is important for passenger commercial vehicles); he would save passengers considerable time on the road from / to the airport. Well and yes, infrastructure: as the author rightly noted, for the location of the ekranoplanes, almost everything is the same as for the airport, EXCEPT for the runway. A runway, by the way, complete with peron, long-distance parking and taxiing - this is a large part of the airport construction area and a significant (comparable to the terminal) part of its cost. It’s not cheap at all - to level such an area, to make structurally correct preparation of high-quality concrete, to create an even, high-quality coating and equip it with everything you need, from special equipment to parking lights. All this is completely unnecessary at the waterport.