Likbez. Aerodrome-free and dispersed air base


For the deployment of aircraft need a dirt pad and some equipment. And all


Around aviation and ekranoplanes, a number of myths have been created that openly distort the capabilities of aircraft and create distorted ideas among the population interested in the issue. Alas, sometimes people who are professionally obligated to understand the issue also become victims of these myths.

One of these myths is that to ensure the basing of some specific aircraft, a simpler infrastructure is needed than for normal aircraft, which supposedly expands their capabilities for dispersed or non-aerodrome basing.

It is worth analyzing these myths in more detail. To begin with, we will determine the list of myths themselves and the list of aircraft around which they grew.

Competitive aircraft and boundary conditions


We will deal with the following statements:

1. The capabilities of seaplanes based outperform the capabilities of conventional aircraft.

I must say that this is partly and sometimes true, but with a number of reservations that change everything very much.

2. Aircraft with vertical / short take-off and landing are very well suited to ensure dispersed basing of combat aircraft — better than conventional combat aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing.

3. P. 1. Allegedly, for the basing of ekranoplanes, a minimum infrastructure is required in comparison with airplanes and therefore they are less limited in choosing places for basing. At first glance, this point could be combined with seaplanes, but this particular myth did not arise on its own, it has creators who have made some reservations to it. They will also be disassembled.

4. Aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing and a wheeled chassis, not amphibians - the most “problematic” class of aircraft from the point of view of basing, requiring the most expensive infrastructure, especially for large multi-engine aircraft.

We will check all these statements for their veracity, we will designate what real restrictions on basing these or those aircraft have and define the most universal of them, those that have the least restrictions and the most demanding basing, those whose use is possible only in the narrowest range of conditions.

Immediately worth identifying three points.

Firstly, the radio navigation equipment will be left out of consideration, simply because at any airport or at any temporary aerodrome it will have to be, as well as on the basis of seaplanes. This is a separate issue, and in this, almost all aircraft are equal.

Secondly, absolute champions capable of being based literally anywhere — helicopters — will remain outside the ratings. Their capabilities are already understandable, and are known to everyone, and the need does not raise any doubts.

Thirdly, all sorts of exotic and off-stage aircraft, which are used today in minimal quantities and are in fact exotic, primarily airships and gyroplanes, and other exotic aircraft. In theory, ekranoplans should also be in this group, but they have a lobby, which means that their real capabilities need to be prepared along with hydroplanes and vertical lines.

Debriefing Myth 1: Seaplane abilities outweigh conventional planes


First you need to decide on the terminology. Seaplanes can conditionally be divided into several large groups. The first and one of the most common in the world is a float plane. This is an airplane mounted on floats instead of wheels. Such aircraft have been and are different.

The largest float aircraft in stories was the Italian CANT Z.511 - a delivery aircraft for subversive mini-submarines. It was a really big and, in general, a good car for its time. During World War II, there were reconnaissance planes and even fighters.

Likbez. Aerodrome-free and dispersed air base
The largest float aircraft in history

Now, however, such large float planes are not manufactured, and they are represented by single and twin-engine modifications of conventional wheeled aircraft. Basically, float planes are “clean” hydroplanes, they can only land on water and be based on it, but there are floats equipped with wheels — such planes can be pulled onto a flat and hard surface and rolled on the ground.


Modern float aircraft in Canada.

Some models of such aircraft, equipped with so-called amphibious floats, can land on the ground, but the strength of their chassis is lower than that of wheeled aircraft and the restrictions on the airfield used can be slightly higher and the stability on wheels is frankly poor.


Amphibious float plane

The second type of seaplane is a flying boat. The specificity of flying boats is that they completely lack a wheeled chassis, at best there are attached wheels that can be mounted on a plane lying in a drift to pull it ashore. During the Second World War, flying boats were used by almost all the belligerents, and after the war they were also armed for some time, for example, in the USSR, Be-6 and Be-10 flying boats were in service with naval aviation.


Be-6 Naval Aviation of the USSR Navy

The third type of seaplane is an amphibious aircraft. This aircraft has both the ability to land on water, and the ability to land on a regular airfield using a full wheel chassis. In this case, usually amphibious aircraft have a heavily weighted body and poor takeoff and landing characteristics, at least worse than a conventional aircraft in the same weight, dimensions and with the same engines.


Amphibious aircraft Be-200

Thus, we can safely divide seaplanes into two large groups: those that can take off only from the water (float planes and flying boats) and those that can take off from the water and from the ground (amphibians and float planes with amphibious floats) .

What are the conditions and limitations for using seaplanes? You can immediately say the following: for amphibious aircraft when flying from the ground, the same restrictions apply as for ordinary "land" wheeled aircraft. Additional limiting factors are the need for a slightly longer runway and better quality of its coverage (this will become apparent when analyzing the capabilities of conventional aircraft). When flying from water, the restrictions on the use of these machines are as follows:

1. The need to have an ice-free ice-free water area. Ice is an important caveat. Formally, Russia has 14 ice-free ports through which year-round navigation is possible without or almost no icebreaking support. In fact, this applies mainly to vessels with a strong displacement hull. The reason is simple: open water is not so "clean" and it can have drifting ice floes, sometimes quite large, namely the so-called grated ice (ice floes up to 2 meters across), frost, sludge, and other ice formations. For a vessel with a displacement hull, they do not pose a threat to a certain size, but an aluminum plane landing on water at a speed of 100-200 km / h is a completely different matter.


Suga. Such water is considered to be "open", displacement vessels calmly go through it. Sludge often happens around non-freezing ports too. Photo: Brocken Inaglory

The hull of an amphibian or a flying boat will be badly damaged by these formations, and a float plane can simply roll over. The specificity of the sea is that the wind can quite quickly drive the ice into a previously clean reservoir.

Thus, the climate itself in Russia does not allow much to disperse with seaplanes. It is simply too cold in our country, and the number of places on the seas where such machines can be used year-round is less than the number of fingers on the hands of a healthy, uninjured person.

A separate reservation should be made for float airplanes: it is technically possible to make a removable landing gear when the floats change to skis or floats and there are skis with a small rotary skate at the bottom. The technical feasibility of such a float ski in the 80s was proved by the Soviet inventor Fedor Palyamar, who manufactured such float skis and tested on high-speed snowmobiles of his own design. Such ski-floats will make it possible to use a float plane in winter for landing on flat snowy fields. But this is only possible for very small single-engine cars.

In addition, such aircraft will not be able to fly from icy sea waters - the ice on the sea is uneven, and there is such a thing as hummocks, a collision with which no ski plane can survive. That is, we are talking more about a ground or lake ice airfield with a smooth, prepared surface.

2. The need for minimal excitement. Already a 4-point storm makes it impossible to take off or land any seaplane in the world, 3 points either will not let it land at all (for most existing cars) or it will make take-off and landing extremely dangerous, with a high risk of catastrophe or accident. At the same time, in our northern latitudes, storms are not uncommon even in ice-free waters.

3. The need to check and clean the water surface from floating objects: logs, barrels and the like, before each take-off and landing. In the USSR, where military seaplanes and flying boats were operated, this was usually neglected. Sometimes the results were seaplane collisions with these objects. This cannot be said to be very common, but it did happen from time to time. In this case, the aircraft was seriously destroyed and could no longer fly, at least without a long and expensive repair, and sometimes in general.

4. The need to have a concrete parking lot near the water. In fact, this is the same airfield, only without a runway. It must also be built, unless, of course, the goal is to rot the planes faster. If technically a seaplane cannot reach this platform (for example, there is not enough traction), then devices are needed to pull it onto it.

In general, it can be said that the combination of these restrictions made the operation of seaplanes in our country extremely difficult and most often simply impossible. Not being able to defeat nature, the Ministry of Defense of the USSR and later the Russian Federation sequentially first abandoned flying boats in favor of exclusively amphibians with a wheeled chassis, then, at the next stage of evolution, it provided aviation units on seaplanes with reserve ground airfields, after which they generally transferred them to permanent base to the ground, leaving the possibility of landing on water as an additional opportunity, after which it formulated in the regulatory documents the requirement to always have a reserve aerodrome with concrete for seaplanes the runway, and then abandoned the seaplane in general, ordering only a few search and rescue Be-200s for some extreme, unique case, when landing on the water will be needed and possible at the same time. I must say that it was a completely sound and correct decision. Before us, Americans ran along the same path, with the same result - and this is in their warm climate!

Alas, there are lobbyists in naval aviation who want amphibians to return to the detriment of normal aircraft. We wish them all bad luck.

When and where are seaplanes needed? These are “niche” cars. Somewhere in sparsely populated lake regions with a warm climate and the presence of large, never-freezing ponds, they can be useful and even massively used. Examples in warm countries are available. But this is not about Russia with its climate and size. In Russia, in the summer, seaplanes are of interest as firefighters - and as such are used.

Of interest is the concept of a small amphibious passenger-and-freight aircraft with the possibility of installing a ski landing gear. Such an aircraft could serve areas of the Far North, Eastern Siberia and other similar places, taking off in summer from the runway, on wheels and landing on water at settlements, and in winter using a ski chassis. Such a machine could replace helicopters in many cases. But even she would have a seasonality of application: in the spring, when the soil is sour, and on the rivers ice, even such a versatile aircraft is not applicable. It's Russia.

However, he could still find his place, but again, as a “niche” machine for specific tasks and conditions and with a lot of restrictions.

And in the world, flying boats were a mass phenomenon only until a sufficient number of concrete runways were built - and after that their sunset began.

We make the final conclusion.

The use of “clean” seaplanes in Russia on a regular and mass basis is impossible: the climate is in the way. At the same time, amphibious seaplanes can be used in the same way as land wheeled planes, and even sometimes, when there is a possibility and need, to land on water and take off from it. When flying from ground airfields (and most traffic, even military, at least civilian, requires just that) amphibians are significantly inferior to conventional aircraft in terms of efficiency.

In general, seaplanes have no advantages in the simplicity of basing over normal airplanes, since due to the climate their flights from the water are seasonal and practically meaningless in most territories in Russia, while conventional airplanes are more efficient when flying from ground airfields.

When the mass construction of various types of seaplanes may be necessary for Russia? Only with some unrealistic events, for example, if Russia conquers Oceania in a non-nuclear war and it will be necessary to quickly transfer troops between the atolls through the air. Or if, due to global warming, winter disappears in Russia and some new lakes are formed by some miracle, the Siberian rivers will become much more full, etc. That is, seriously, never. We will never conquer Oceania and we will never have a tropical humid climate, therefore Russia will never need mass seaplanes ever - the climate will not allow them to be used normally, it imposes too many restrictions on their base.

Live with it now.

Analysis of myth 2: vertical / short take-off and landing airplanes are very suitable for ensuring dispersed basing of combat aircraft


From time to time, information pops up in Russia about ongoing research work to determine the possible shape of the future Russian aircraft with short take-off and vertical landing. Moreover, project proponents often point out that, firstly, Russia, having such aircraft, it will be much easier to acquire a large-sized carrier-based aircraft and aircraft carriers of a simpler design than a normal full-fledged aircraft carrier.

Concerning deck aviation, for now we will confine ourselves to a simple statement that this is simply not true, but the topic of vertical aircraft and light aircraft carriers is too voluminous and requires separate consideration.

But the dispersed and supposedly aerodrome-free basing should be disassembled.

The specifics of the “vertical line” is that when taking off, this aircraft uses not only horizontal thrust for acceleration, but also vertical to give the aircraft additional lift. Of course, there is an effect from this method of take-off: for example, the AV-8B and F-35B rise from the decks of American landing ships, having a little more than 200 meters to disperse. True, with an incomplete combat load.

With full combat load, these aircraft were used by the British and Americans in Afghanistan. Typically, the short run distance was within 600-700 meters, sometimes reaching 800-900. At the same time, which is important, all flights of these machines in a real ground war were carried out only from concrete airfields, often just from dilapidated ones (hence the limitation on the take-off run).

And what about the Soviet experience? The Soviet experience was specific: the Yak-38 was used in hostilities only once - in 1980 during Operation Rhombus in Afghanistan. Those who wish today can find a lot of information about these sorties, but we are interested in the fact that the domestic verticals also flew from the airfield in the ground war, just from a collapsible steel - by the way, it was worth the Yak lost in the war - our only vertical ", crashed in a real war, and not in military service. As you know, when landing a jet stream knocked out soil from under the steel plates of the runway, and the plane, together with the airfield coating, fell into the resulting pit.

The British, who massively used their Harriers in the Air Force, also did not fly from the ground - for each Harrier base, it was necessary and necessary to equip a field airfield with take-off and landing areas made of steel strips and slabs, and "aircraft landing mats." Such an airfield, of course, is much simpler and cheaper than a capital one, but the question is that without cover these planes cannot fly regularly.

Here's what Harrier’s take-off from these mats looks like:



It is important to understand that for laying mats on the ground, you first need, in fact, to perform the same amount of work with the soil as for an unpaved runway - level it and tamp in places. And only then lay the flooring.

Any "Harrier" can come off a short run from the "bare" soil. But - once. Then at this place there will be a ditch formed by a jet of jet exhaust, and it will be necessary to look for a new place for take-off. Vertical sediment on open ground will lead to the same thing - the formation of a hole under the plane.

This is what the very first public vertical landing of the Harrier looked like on an unequipped site - we pay attention to the dust, and this is not the ground.


London, 1969, landing on a paved ground - just not hard enough

We note: SKVVP or “pure” VTOL aircraft cannot be based outside airfields. They need special coverage in order to take off and land.

In the USSR, there were a lot of attempts to organize an aerodrome-free basing of "Jacob". All failed. The vertical exhaust, even at ordinary airfields, destroyed the asphalt, tearing it out of the airdrome cover in huge pieces, and even the open ground did not hold the exhaust at all.

As a result, the Soviet Union seemed to find a way: a folding platform on a car trailer, raised high above the ground, made it possible to sit on it and take off from it an unlimited number of times. Unlimited in theory, in practice, an airplane needs inter-flight maintenance, and sometimes repairs on this site were extremely difficult.

In addition, this Soviet specificity in the future will be a thing in itself: the old Yaks could not only land vertically, but also take off with full combat load, albeit at a very short combat radius. The SKVVP currently being studied will not be able to, just like the F-35B cannot: they will need at least a short, but an acceleration. So, the slabs are temporary steel or permanent concrete.

What about ordinary airplanes? And ordinary planes do not need flooring. We give a simple example: Su-25 with a quantity weapons on board, comparable to that with which the Harrier flies from a concrete 600 meter track, it can fly into the air from the ground! Just from rammed land, from an ordinary field airfield, not very different from those that were the norm during the Great Patriotic War. And with the same "about 600" meters!



As can be seen from the video, a certain flooring was nevertheless made under the Su-25 parking lot, but this can not be compared with what it takes to take off the SKVVP, and besides, you could do without it.

And here is shown the landing on the highway section of an already full-fledged fighter, which is incomparable in its performance characteristics with the air defense system.



And if flying from unreinforced conventional asphalt using vertical traction is fraught with destruction of the coating, then normal fighters calmly land on road sections and take off from them. "Vertical" can only do this almost without the use of lifting motors, which makes the idea completely meaningless.

We summarize.

Aircraft with vertical or short take-off and vertical landing have no advantages when dispersed or non-aerodrome based over conventional combat aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing. Reason: conventional aircraft can take off from unpaved runways or sections of roads, while SKVVP needs special flooring or a full-fledged concrete runway, albeit a short one.

In this case, the combat load of a normal airplane taking off from the ground will be almost the same or just the same as the “vertical” on concrete, which is going for a short take-off. Thus, the requirements for basing conventional planes are lower, and they have fewer restrictions.

Why such aircraft may be necessary? Without diving into the topic too deeply, let us say briefly: for naval warfare, and in a very specific form. SKVVP - naval weapons, and highly specialized, not able to replace normal aircraft even on the decks of aircraft carriersbut able to supplement them if the country has a lot of money. However, this is a topic for a separate article.

Analysis of myth 3: the capabilities of ekranoplanes based on superior capabilities of conventional aircraft


In the case of ekranoplans, we have the most severe restrictions: they are affected by the same limiting factors that affect flying boats. But there are reservations.

Firstly, there is information that the open data on the masses and loads of KM are incorrect, since supposedly its body was mainly made of steel to provide the necessary strength and due to the fact that Alekseev’s design bureau was not able to obtain aluminum.

In this case, the same frost will not be dangerous for the take-off and landing of such a device, but then the question arises of its meaningfulness in terms of carrying capacity. If the data on the mass use of steel in the hull structure is correct, then the KM could hardly lift more than 100-120 tons of payload, which is 544 tons for the device and huge fuel consumption, to put it mildly, a little.

On the other hand, in the construction of future ekranoplanes, it is technically possible to ensure, by pressurization of the air under the hull, its separation from the surface and exit to the screen at low speed and acceleration already on the screen. This makes the ekranoplan even more ineffective in terms of fuel consumption, but since the support of ekranoplanes is popularly religious in nature, economic issues in these circles do not bother anyone, but the adherents of ekranoplanostroenie use this feature of takeoff ekranoplan as a proof of its universality.

The essence of the thesis is this: ice is a problem for a seaplane, but no for an ekranoplan, it will first fly up with ice, and then it will gain speed.

Actually, of course, this is not so. Any person imagining what a cold sea is, remembers the ice hummock mentioned earlier. Toros is the boundary of the collision of large masses of ice, on which extensive and erratic uplifts of ice blocks are formed, sometimes to a great height. Sometimes the hummock can be covered with snow, it will not be visible from afar, even snow can conceal the elevation difference. Moreover, snow in the Arctic reflects almost all the sunlight and in clear weather it blinds very much - even to the detriment of vision. As a result, an ekranoplane accelerating on the screen over small irregularities simply crashes into a hummock. It will not be completely destroyed after this will be, but it can hardly be considered a regular flight mode.

In the case of a heel in open water, an ekranoplan can easily catch a winged ice cap, which in cold latitudes is full of open water, moreover, they often hardly rise above it and are not visible from afar.


Not the highest hummocks off the coast in the warm Gulf of Finland. In colder latitudes it is much worse

It can be stated that when basing an ekranoplane is subject to the same limitations as a seaplane, although sometimes it can really take off under conditions in which the seaplane will no longer fly, but this difference is at the level of statistical error.

However, ekranoplanes have one more, specific problem: any ekranoplan capable of bearing a more or less significant load is huge and heavy. For example, the "Eaglet", which could lift the same load as the Mi-26, had a maximum take-off mass that was more than double that of the Mi-26.

One of the solutions that can somehow improve the weight return of the ekranoplan is to abandon the chassis that the Eaglet had. Then the payload really grows. For example, the Lun had no chassis and carried six heavy missiles.

But then the question arises of lifting the ekranoplan from the water and pulling it into the parking lot for drying and repair, if necessary. To an aircraft of 50 or 60 tons, you can come up with an attached landing gear that divers will mount and then pull it out of the water into the parking lot with powerful winches.

But what to do with an ekranoplane of 400 tons without a chassis? The answer, alas, is one: you need a floating dock.

Thus, to those four points restricting the use of seaplanes (which in themselves do not sense the amphibious seaplanes themselves, but the amphibious ones turn into a “niche” aircraft), one more basing restriction is added: you need flooding, without it the basing will only be temporary. Or you have to put up with a low weight return is no better than the "Eaglet". A good level of versatility!

The fact that they cannot fly normally above the ground, at least in the same way as seaplanes, is already unnecessary to speak. And the height differences between ordinary glaciers, icebergs, fast ice, etc. in the northern latitudes, their flights over the sea are made impossible in principle, but this does not apply to basing issues.


The Arctic is not a flat ice desert

We conclude: restrictions on the basis of ekranoplanes are no less than the same for flying boats and float airplanes, and for ekranoplanes without a wheeled landing gear, you also need a float. Thus, the most severe restrictions are imposed on the basis of ekranoplanes by nature itself in Russia, such as make them practically inapplicable.

Analysis of myth 4: airplanes with horizontal take-off and landing and a wheeled chassis, not amphibians, are the most “problematic” class of aircraft from the point of view of basing, requiring the most expensive infrastructure, especially for large multi-engine aircraft


Immediately approach the problem from the end: it is not. The opposite is true. Everyone who has seen the airport, imagines how large and complex infrastructure is needed for basing airplanes. But this is for permanent basing, repairs, long-term storage, rest and meals of passengers and so on. And for temporary dispersal or temporary use away from populated areas?


Antarctic station "Molodezhnaya", one of the most remote and dangerous places in the world, but there are no problems with basing normal planes

And there - no. Conventional wheeled land-based aircraft - one of the most unpretentious types of air transport. Aircraft can be based on unpaved airfields, where there is no asphalt at all, and this applies to heavy aircraft. To prepare for take-off, aircraft need several special vehicles and a tanker with fuel. In winter, they can land on ice airfields, while ensuring the absence of extraneous and dangerous objects on temporary runways is much easier than on water.

Normal aircraft do not need any steel plates, like "vertical lines". Climate is not so important to them as seaplanes or ekranoplanes.

All the airplane needs is a compacted strip of soil or snow, or a section of the highway. And that’s it.

See examples.

Example 1. The Guatemalan Air Force is surpassing the Hacker-Siddle 125 business jet, which was beaten off by the drug mafia. As you can see, just a clearing in the forest is used as a runway, in fact, an ordinary forest road.



In fairness, let’s say: SKVVP would have taken off from here too, but it would have plowed the strip very seriously, that is, the “airfield” would have turned out to be one-time. And so, while there is no rain, you can fly on it and from it regularly.

In fact, there is nothing special in such flights.

Still alive are people from that era when any normal pilot of an aircraft - even a large multi-engine one, such as TB-3, should have been able to find a glade suitable for landing from the air. But then the planes retained their universal qualities.

From history, we know that La-11 fighters, Tu-4 bombers, and Il-14 and An-12 transport planes made flights from airfields on drifting ice floes in the Arctic Ocean. A Tu-16 successfully landed on such an ice floe, however, due to an error during take-off, it hooked another plane, but this accident was not a foregone conclusion. Once, giant Tu-95s made a successful landing at such an airfield. And they successfully took off.


Polar station SP-6 on a drifting ice floe. Visible long-range bomber Tu-4 and transport IL-14

The Americans put the four-engine Hercules on the ship and then without any catapults and accelerators understood it into the air. About landing on ice airfields in Antarctica and talk too much.

Example 2. Flights of a twin-engine aircraft L-410 from the highway to the Congo. An aircraft in such conditions usually carries up to 2,5 tons of cargo.


Even from the same road, but a little different section.



As you can see, the plane literally in automobile mode travels along a curve and a broken road until it comes off the ground. Of course, this is not a big plane. But what are the big ones? And here is what.



And so:



On the ice in Antarctica:



Of course, there are landings on pre-prepared unpaved airfields, but there aren’t any steel plates, prefabricated runways needed for vertical lines, and non-freezing lakes nearby, like for seaplanes. Simply level and compact the earth or ice, equip a gas station, trenches or trailers for personnel, a mobile command and control tower, and that’s all.

But there are other examples.

In 1980, during the operation "Eagle Claw", which failed in general, in Iran, the US C-130 landed just in the desert. Prior to this, a CIA agent single-handedly collected soil samples from this site to determine if the sand would support the weight of the Hercules. And, although the operation failed, the planes both landed and took off.

Below is a video: Hercules sits on a platform in the desert. Apparently, once it was nevertheless leveled, but judging by the coating - for a long time.



But the landing on the ground of a huge and heavy S-17, and take off from there:



Can passenger heavy airplanes do this? May:



So much for the attachment to airfields, right? The second episode in the video, by the way, answers all the questions about the runway bombed by the enemy.

It is also worth noting that all the aircraft shown are not planes that were SPECIALLY designed for regular takeoffs and landings anywhere (and there are also such examples, for example, the legendary DHC-4 Caribou in the west).



In a modernized form, with turboprop engines and modern electronics, this machine was produced until 1974, and still continues to be relevant in its characteristics.

Well, of course, we remember the absolute champion in basing anywhere - this is our An-2.

What can be compared with a normal aircraft in terms of versatility in terms of basing? Only an amphibian with a chassis, which in summer can sit on a lake or in a calm bay, closed from the storm, and the rest of the time - in the same place as a wheeled plane. But the amphibian does not have the ability to provide the same flight performance, and the same sturdy landing gear as a conventional aircraft is not always possible because of the requirement to provide good weight return with a heavy body. Amphibian with multi-wheeled chassis, allowing you to sit on soft ground and not burrow into it, no. Thus, their superiority over conventional aircraft in terms of the breadth of available basing conditions is not obvious - it will at least appear very rarely when there is open water and there is no flat piece of land. And the only class of aircraft that are guaranteed to surpass normal aircraft in terms of available locations, are helicopters. And that is a fact.

The only aircraft that are really attached to concrete runways are heavy vehicles, such as the Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-142, the presidential Il-96, and the like giants. But in the end, we have a lot of concrete runways.

The final conclusion is that ordinary planes with horizontal take-off and landing are the most versatile aircraft in terms of possible basing conditions after helicopters. In addition to helicopters, nothing can be compared to them in universality. And if seaplanes (amphibians) in narrow and rare conditions can still be useful even against the background of normal airplanes, then everything else (SCVVP, flying boats, float seaplanes) are just highly specialized aircraft, applicable once and somewhere there, where we are not and never will be. And the fact that this flying exotic is “more universal” than planes with horizontal take-off and landing are just myths.

These are the realities.


A little glamor "in the curtain": a business jet Pilatus PC24 sits on a grassy field. You can do it if you really want to!
Author:
Photos used:
Alamy.com, Lev Fedoseev / TASS, cbc.ca, United Aircraft Corporation, VikingAir, Wikipedia commons, zab.ru, topspbtv.ru, helpiks.org, Aviation Stack Exchange
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tlauicol April 13 2020 05: 55 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5

    Hercules beach.
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Thought to insert it or not. Decided the desert with a dried crust.
      1. Vladimir_2U April 13 2020 19: 25 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        . Personally, I agree with the author about the great versatility of classic aircraft. But then much is debatable.
        And the fact that this flying exotic is “more universal” than planes with horizontal take-off and landing are just myths.

        The author himself seems to have come up with a myth, and he himself exposed it.
        In the USSR, where military seaplanes and flying boats were operated, this was usually neglected. Sometimes the results were seaplane collisions with these objects.
        Not bad, i.e. in the rest of the world aviation security was treated unmatched better? And in modern history, such collisions did NOT occur at hydrodromes.
        The need to have a concrete parking lot near the water
        In no comparison does parking come with GDP either in value or in size.
        It is also worth noting that all the aircraft shown are not planes that were SPECIALLY designed for regular take-offs and landings anywhere
        All airplanes VTA, shown by the author and specifically designed for regular take-offs and landings “anywhere” on unpaved strips, they will simply write them off the more often such “regularity”))) As for large civilian airliners, either advertising tricks or as with IL-62 (it seems) emergency landing. And you can empty any shed into the sky, almost from anywhere.
        Well and further, the complete impression is that the article was written purely in order to maximally discredit the idea of ​​large ekranoplanes. Not at all disputing the author’s opinions on the great universality of classical aircraft, I do not agree with him in refusing the right to exist heavy ekranoplanes.
        First, the author stubbornly contrasts the ekranoplanes with aircraft. But what about SVP, especially skeg, hovercraft (ships)?
        Second:
        If the data on the mass use of steel in the hull structure is correct, then the KM could hardly lift more than 100-120 tons of payload, which is 544 tons for the apparatus and huge fuel consumption, to put it mildly, a little.
        The author stubbornly refuses ekranoplanes in much better aerodynamic quality, on the screen by itself, than in aircraft of comparable mass.
        Thirdly:
        For example, the "Eaglet", which could lift the same load as the Mi-26, had a maximum take-off mass more than double that of the Mi-26.
        Eaglet raised 28 tons or planted 200 equipped fighters or 1-2 armored personnel carriers, had a range of 1500 km and was equipped with a 12,7 mm dome installation. Mi-26, respectively 20 tons, not more than 100 people, max. 1 armored personnel carrier (ogr. In length). range 800 unarmed and harmless. ))) And the speed was 100 km. below. As the author strongly characterizes the "Eaglet" downplayed.
        In the fourth:
        But what to do with an ekranoplane of 400 tons without a chassis? The answer, alas, is one: you need a floating dock.
        Frankly surprised, the author is not aware of the slips?
        A slip is necessary for coastal maintenance of ships, repairs, as well as conservation of ships for long-term winter storage.
        And it has such a slip carrying capacity of up to 8 (eight thousand tons). And by itself, it’s not worth a penny, but many times, perhaps an order of magnitude, cheaper than a dock, so maybe a penny. ))) And do not invent anything. So it turns out that the difficulties and the cost of basing heavy ekranoplanes by the author are greatly exaggerated, it is possible that the aerodynamic quality of ekranoplanes on the screen itself is more than underestimated.
        I believe that a large ekranoplan, being a niche (100%), seasonal (not everywhere, even having in mind operation only in the waters of Russia) will be useful both to the Navy and the Russian economy.
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 19: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          In no comparison does parking come with GDP either in value or in size.


          It just freezes.
          A bit.
          Well, this also applies to the rest.
          1. Vladimir_2U April 13 2020 20: 04 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            It just freezes.
            A bit.

            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            I believe that a large ekranoplan, being a niche (100%), seasonal (not everywhere, even having in mind operation only in the waters of Russia) will be useful both to the Navy and the Russian economy.
            1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 24 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              It will be useful only to the economy of the manufacturer.
          2. Vladimir_2U April 13 2020 20: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            What, and slips also freeze? What about SVPs and ships on a PC? I do not deny niche, but a rather large niche comes out.
            1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 37 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              SVP slow obstacles can get around that, before the PC, then we had RTOs and IPC hydrofoils. And where are they?

              On the other hand, the wing there was folding, with icebreaking support, the ship slowly crawled out into the open water, with all its disadvantages.
              WIG that too many kilometers to crawl behind the icebreaker?
              1. Vladimir_2U April 13 2020 21: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                WIG that also crawl many kilometers behind the icebreaker

                On the Black and Caspian Seas, a few of these kilometers will be typed))) If you have bases in the warm seas, hello Kamrani, Tartus and Cuba, you can have an icebreaker in the database)).
                1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 22: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Are you going to fly from Cuba to Moscow on an ekranoplane?
                  1. Vladimir_2U April 14 2020 09: 17 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Are you going to fly from Cuba to Moscow on an ekranoplane?

                    It's funny, yes, although this is definitely a better idea than on, for example, the Mi-26, was it mentioned in the article? Well, if Moscow is a coastal city, then why not. )))
                    1. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 11: 07 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Well, from Cuba to Moscow, the plane flies without problems with the same amount of fuel on which the KM could cover 1500 km in total.
                      But I remember that the ekranoplaners supporters do not give a damn about these things.
                      1. Vladimir_2U April 14 2020 11: 21 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And where does the plane, I'm talking about the Mi-26, you are not even a KM with it, but you were comparing Orlyonka.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        But I remember that the ekranoplaners supporters do not give a damn about these things.
                        As well, and you do not care about the aerodynamic quality of ekranoplanes.
                      2. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 16: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        And where does the plane, I'm talking about the Mi-26, you are not even a KM with it, but you were comparing Orlyonka.


                        My thesis was voiced in a previous article - ekranoplanes are useless, they have no niche. Yes, I previously compared the ekranoplan "Eaglet" with the Mi-26, but before that I compared it with the An-12. And KM compared with the An-22 and the An-225.
                        You are in Cuba ekranoplan what tasks do you want to solve? Delivery of goods from Russia? Well, it’s also necessary to compare it with an airplane.
                        Do you fundamentally compare the ekranoplan (any) with the Mi-26 and in Cuba?
                        No question - emergency delivery of a mobile laboratory from San Cristobal to the Vinales Valley.
                        Come on, tell us how to do this on the "Eaglet".

                        As well, and you do not care about the aerodynamic quality of ekranoplanes.


                        Well, let's confirm the data, we will discuss.
                      3. Vladimir_2U April 14 2020 16: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Delivery of goods from Russia? Well, it’s also necessary to compare it with an airplane.
                        Military targets, like Lun or Eaglet
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Do you fundamentally compare the ekranoplan (any) with the Mi-26 and in Cuba?
                        Do not distort, it was about moving from Cuba to Moscow. Mi-26 will be able to patrol near the US coast with 6 missiles of 4 tons each? And this is talking about the already created EP.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Well, let's confirm the data, we will discuss.
                        Haha, 25-30 to 50 (theoretically) versus your 16 (also from nowhere taken).
                      4. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 18: 33 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Military targets, like Lun or Eaglet


                        Disassembled in a previous article.

                        Mi-26 will be able to patrol near the US coast with 6 missiles of 4 tons each?


                        So the ekranoplan cannot - the radio horizon is small, the survivability is zero

                        Haha, 25-30 to 50 (theoretically) versus your 16 (also from nowhere taken).


                        I took the figures from the current project of a cargo ekranoplan. And you?
                      5. Vladimir_2U April 14 2020 19: 23 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        military targets, like that of Lun or Eaglet
                        Disassembled in a previous article.
                        Incidentally, by the way, plus the emphasis was on the economic component.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Mi-26 will be able to patrol near the US coast with 6 missiles of 4 tons each?
                        So the ekranoplan cannot - the radio horizon is small, the survivability is zero
                        For example, RTOs RG much more? And about survivability, how to hit the ekranoplan on the screen? This is not understood in your article, but I’ll try whether it can hit the anti-ship missile target at a speed of 400 km? It is doubtful. That RTOs is easy. Can a fighter hit an air-to-air rocket with an ultra-low-speed steel machine? No less doubtful, much less tenacious passenger airliners did not immediately fall off V-V missiles.
                        Without diminishing the capabilities of aviation, the ekranoplane is not inferior in terms of shock capabilities to RTOs, clearly surpassing it, and perhaps the average corvette, in combat survivability, is an order of magnitude faster in reaching the launch line and evading a retaliatory strike. The perfect car for an island nation! So you can sell at least to any Indonesia. Yes, and use it yourself, wisely, quite.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        I took the figures from the current project of a cargo ekranoplan. And you?

                        aerodynamic quality 16 (accepted for today's ekranoplanes projects
                        Words from your article, where is a certain “relevant project” indicated here? I took from a generalizing (popular) article.
                      6. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 21: 39 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Incidentally, by the way, plus the emphasis was on the economic component.


                        The military was also mentioned. In general, how do you like to give a link to a radio horizon calculator?

                        And about survivability, how to hit the ekranoplan on the screen?


                        From an airplane - UR explosives, from a ship - missiles within the radio horizon.

                        Can a fighter hit an air-to-air rocket with an ultra-low-speed steel machine? No less doubtful, much less tenacious passenger airliners did not immediately fall off V-V missiles.


                        Come on. All the airliners for which they worked off the BB explosives either simply fell (most) or, with extreme luck, went to emergency. Where will the ekranoplan go, which a pair of AMRAAMs flew into the wing?

                        And most importantly - instead of five or six ekranoplanes, you can get two Su-30SM regiments with Onyxes. Are you able to appreciate the difference in combat power?

                        Without diminishing the capabilities of aviation, the ekranoplane is not inferior in terms of the strike capabilities of the RTOs, clearly superior to it,


                        RTOs pr. 1234 - 6 anti-ship missiles with multispectral (important difference!) GOS, SAM "Osa", 76-mm gun.
                        MRK ave. 22800 - 8 CR "Caliber" 3m14 or RCC 3m54, ZRAK Shell-M, 76-mm gun.
                        Famously compare?

                        Regarding comparisons with MRK and aviation.
                        Ships are a means of retaining the area, they can stay there for months and sometimes beat off air strikes (not RTOs).
                        Aviation - a means of sudden fast massive attacks with high speed.
                        Where is the place for ekranoplanes?

                        Words from your article, where is a certain “relevant project” indicated here? I took from a generalizing (popular) article.


                        Well, at least.
                        https://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/mozhno_no_ne_nuzhno.html
                      7. Vladimir_2U April 15 2020 09: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        In general, how do you like to give a link to a radio horizon calculator?
                        Thanks, I basically check what I'm writing, so I already looked. I proceeded from the height of flight, plus the height of the keel "Moon". Not much less than the RTG MRK.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Come on. All the airliners for which they worked off the BB explosives either simply fell (most) or, with extreme luck, went to emergency. Where will the ekranoplan go, which a pair of AMRAAMs flew into the wing?
                        Oh well, there are only two such cases (both Koreans) with comparable in weight aircraft, and one was able to land. They were shot / knocked out with 40 kg warheads. Comparable in weight to the ekranoplan, at least the Eaglet, but not in design, and without any special means of counteraction or. The AMRAAM example is just ridiculous, a missile with warheads of 20 (+ -) kg, against the most powerful stabilizers and equally powerful and wide wings, and this is not counting the means of struggle and very likely measures to increase survivability. I think there is no need for a photo to compare the planes of a Boeing and Orlyonok or Lun.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        And most importantly, instead of five or six ekranoplanes, you can get two Su-30SM regiments with Onyxes
                        Why confidence in the aviation cost of EP? They were built at shipyards in general.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        RTOs pr. 1234 - 6 anti-ship missiles with multispectral (important difference!) GOS, SAM "Osa", 76-mm gun.
                        MRK ave. 22800 - 8 CR "Caliber" 3m14 or RCC 3m54, ZRAK Shell-M, 76-mm gun.
                        That's strange, why mention the GOS? An outdated GOS is an indispensable attribute of an ekranoplan?))) I did not in vain mention a 4-ton rocket, all missiles to modern RTOs are about 2 tons (I can be wrong, I’m reluctant to look), but it’s very interesting how much the notorious Zircon weighs Do you understand what I mean? ))) Shell-M is good, but Lun also had two 23 mm turrets. And since even you do not deny the low vulnerability of heavy ES from RCC, it is not worth bothering with missile defense, although it is possible. The 76 mm cannon is simply ridiculous to mention as an argument of impact. So again it turns out that the same Lun’s striking power is not inferior to the MRC at least, surpassing it in vitality and an order of magnitude in speed. Notice, I generally mention already developed time-delayed EPs.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Ships are a means of retaining the area, they can stay there for months and sometimes beat off air strikes (not RTOs)
                        A heavy ekranoplan, it’s a shitty ship, but its autonomy is on the water, in some picturesque bay, I think there will be five days. And in general, the elementary tactics of the interaction of the naval group with the EP directly begs. Rendezvous with a squadron, refueling (if you still need to), and a sudden blow to external target designation.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Aviation - a means of sudden fast massive attacks with high speed.
                        Impact ES - a means of sudden fast massive attacks with high speed. One EP, already developed and even outdated, is 6 heavy missiles.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Well, at least.
                        https://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/mozhno_no_ne_nuzhno.html

                        Thank you, the level of the article is not higher than the popular ones, only for electronic content. But I just observe a wild contradiction in the aerodynamic quality assessment table, for Lun the quality is estimated at 14,6, and for Orlyonok at 13,6, is this with monstrous (though I really like) Lun forms ?! The capacity of the Eaglet is indicated in 20 tons, and it is 28. And there are enough such shortcomings (or distortions). You can safely specifically this article as an argument to ignore.
                      8. Angelo Provolone 5 June 2020 15: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        A heavy ekranoplan, it’s a shitty ship, but its autonomy is on the water, in some picturesque bay, I think there will be five days. And in general, the elementary tactics of the interaction of the naval group with the EP directly begs. Rendezvous with a squadron, refueling (if you still need to), and a sudden blow to external target designation.

                        Yes! They explained everything, everything became clear now.
                  2. your1970 April 20 2020 00: 30 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    The perfect car for an island nation! So you can sell at least to any Indonesia.

                    That's just WHY nobody wants to launch ekranoplans ...
                    Nobody in the world wants to sell such a "cool" product ....
                  3. Vladimir_2U April 21 2020 05: 21 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: your1970
                    Nobody in the world wants to sell such a "cool" product

                    Is it because no one has such a product?
                  4. your1970 April 21 2020 11: 45 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    Quote: your1970
                    Nobody in the world wants to sell such a "cool" product

                    Is it because no one has such a product?
                    "What was the problem of buying with giblets? Was there not enough money from the USA or Germany? Or would you not have sold a Boriska friend? Which sold ALL what did you want? !! Then so many secrets flowed in all directions ...

                    Would the USA have 2/3 of the coast that meets all the conditions for using ekranoplanes and wouldn’t overpower it? Would the USA have the opportunity to deploy troops from its shore in faster ways - but no ... Apparently we had enough of our experiments, calculated and understood, it makes no sense ...
                    If it were ECONOMICALLY expediently, they would have had ekranoplanes. Not with them - like China, not China, like France, not France - like Australia (via Great Brit)
                    No ... no economic or military expediency in ekranoplans ...

                    A banal example, if helicopters were interesting and needed - then they began to rivet all and sundry
                    There will be a similar interest in ekranoplanes - and they will begin to rivet everything in a row. They are not much more complicated than ordinary planes / helicopters / space rockets
                  5. Vladimir_2U April 21 2020 12: 03 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: your1970
                    If it were ECONOMICALLY expedient

                    Let me remind you that we are talking mainly about Fighting ships, the Americans do not need any strike or landing Soviet ES in range, and they have not mastered their transoceanic transport.
                    Quote: your1970
                    The United States would be able to transfer troops from its shore in faster ways
                    Transoceanic airborne ES is really not needed; there will be no one to support them stupidly.
                    Not with them - like China, not China, like France, not France - like Australia (via Great Brit)
                    And yet none of these countries have ships on their PC, their design.
                  6. your1970 April 21 2020 12: 37 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    And yet none of these countries have ships on their PC, their design.
                    -and so? well, no and? So it’s none of them not interested? Or do you doubt the ability of the United States or China to buy or steal everything?
                    I repeat here if helicopters or drones are interesting, EVERYONE (to whom they are interested) began to produce them, and this is uninteresting and does not need anyone: neither in combat, nor in economic sense
                    Do you propose the path of Kurchevsky? So the only joy from his fortels is that he was plopped .. and the mountains of guns went down the drain ... but how he broadcast, as promised, almost like the current .....
                    and the lost time, resources and bad image of any military inventor in those years? How to compensate them?
                  7. Vladimir_2U April 21 2020 12: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Not only would I urge to drop everything and rivet the EP, but I could not miss gross flaws, or even distortions in the article.
                    Quote: your1970
                    and lost time, resources
                    These same resources are immeasurably greater in Courchevel.
  • Errr April 13 2020 06: 31 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    In order not to be sad after reading the article, it is advisable to smile.
    The photo below captures just a reference sample of aero-aerodrome-based aircraft. No noise to you, no dust. Live and be happy. smile
    Well, if it’s curious, then this most aerodrome-free basing is elementary nonsense. An aerodrome (hydroaerodrome) is always needed for an airplane (seaplane).
    Such an educational program turns out.
  • LeonidL April 13 2020 06: 34 New
    • 14
    • 10
    +4
    What about fire fighting aircraft, dear Mr. Timokhin? Also pick up water on wheels? And rescue operations on the seas and oceans, also wheeled? And the convertiplanes, by the way about the birds, why did they bypass this way elegantly? And in general, where does such peremptory judgment and categorical conclusions come from? After all, you’re kind of “special” in ekranoletov, aircraft carriers, single-engine destroyers, theories of war at sea, Vietnam, ICE, cheap fleet and so on and so forth? Maybe it’s not worth it for the know-it-alls to get into a rage of clicks, but just express their opinion? Perhaps you, dear, are trolling the Berieva firm, trying to squeeze their orders for a small share? .... However, progress is on the face! Not a single insult to the authorities and command. Well done, Mr. Timokhin, sincerely glad for you.
    1. Avior April 13 2020 07: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      differently.
      It happens, and not water, it happens with wheels
      https://topwar.ru/94054-pozharnaya-aviaciya-ssha-i-kanady.html
    2. Lopatov April 13 2020 09: 52 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: LeonidL
      What about fire fighting aircraft, dear Mr. Timokhin? Also pick up water on wheels?

      Here, yes, seaplanes are better. If there are large ponds or wide rivers. In other cases, an ordinary plane or helicopter.

      Quote: LeonidL
      And rescue operations on the seas and oceans, also wheeled?

      Definitely.
      The plane with the landing was saved. the boat is an order of magnitude more universal
      Because the worse the weather, the higher the likelihood that you have to save. At the same time, the probability that the seaplane can land is lower.
      Here it’s better to do helicopter refueling systems in the air
      1. Fizik M April 13 2020 10: 20 New
        • 7
        • 4
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        Here it’s better to do helicopter refueling systems in the air

        verb golden words!
        that document was also discussed in that document, namely for helicopters https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/55595
    3. Fizik M April 13 2020 10: 17 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Monsieur Leonidlo, in YOUR treatment notable progress is being made - not a single mention of Soros.
      However, YOUR rotten inclinations have not disappeared, as well as illiteracy - categorically written through the letter O, and not "like YOU"
      On the limited rescue capabilities of seaplanes with numbers, it was said in a previous discussion (despite the fact that Be200 is not close to Shin Maywei and the new Chinese by seaworthiness)
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. LeonidL April 13 2020 22: 10 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      The author completely ignores even the WWII experience - for example, the use of Katalin in the Northern Fleet, even the "barracks" of the ICBMs have found their niche in the Northern Fleet, the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet. Not to mention the allies. Amphibians and Germans and allies made extensive use (I do not go into the intricacies of history). Shavrushki worked throughout the war as far as the forces in the rear. .... This is the author -> author -> the author completely ignores.
      But the use of "rescue bots" dropped from TUShek, advertised here by some, is doubtful - this happened successfully in a feature film, but in real life, I don’t remember. If everything was so beautiful, why didn’t they save the Komsomolets crew, did they “bomb” them with rafts to no avail?
      In general, the article also causes bewilderment upon the appearance of: who, when in his right mind, was going to cancel ground aviation? Where are the screams, moaning, and clash of dishes? Where are the news from? From word of mouth "OBS"?
      Amphibious and float hydroaviation has its own niche both in the civilian sphere, and in the Ministry of Emergencies, and in the Navy, and do not confuse cucumbers with bananas and oranges with apples.
      The author, in my opinion, is trying to raise a wave of public anger against the Beriev firm, that is, I consider the article to be purely custom-made. Another question - who always rolls up the "information array" to the author and pays for the work?
      Many readers take everything written at face value, for the opinion of a professional expert. Let me remind you that this is a mistake. This is a private opinion of a layman. But why then such an inappropriateness to foreign opinion, such a demanding recognition of one's absolute truth?
    6. victor50 April 15 2020 08: 03 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: LeonidL
      What about fire fighting aircraft,

      Didn't he mention niche ones?
  • Free wind April 13 2020 06: 56 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The author, of course, is a breaker, dreamed about Cesna -172 amphibians, now I don’t even know what to dream about. laughing About Angelina Jolie? So she is about to die of anerexia.
    1. Avior April 13 2020 08: 17 New
      • 17
      • 2
      +15
      About Angelina Jolie?

      Well I do not know.
      1975 release, a large mileage in Hollywood, repainted many times, three owners only officially, but how many by proxy, who knows?
      It’s more logical to think about something fresher, with less mileage smile
      1. tlauicol April 13 2020 09: 40 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        Quote: Avior
        About Angelina Jolie?

        Well I do not know.
        1975 release, a large mileage in Hollywood, repainted many times, three owners only officially, but how many by proxy, who knows?
        It’s more logical to think about something fresher, with less mileage smile

        Five more trailers
        1. Avior April 13 2020 09: 44 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          If only five, six!
          and maybe, on occasion, she’ll pick up a couple on the African side of the road, not the first time smile .
      2. your1970 April 20 2020 01: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yeah, taking into account incompleteness (one of the two is not), and even with a major overhaul ... no, let yourself, yourself ....
    2. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 48 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well for personal use, Cessna is buzzing.
      You just have to fly only in the summer, and only from the lakes.
      Почему нет?
  • Amateur April 13 2020 07: 06 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Alas, there are lobbyists in naval aviation who want amphibians to return to the detriment of normal aircraft. We wish them all bad luck.


    The thinker, however. what
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 14: 24 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      You are as usual, however.
  • Avior April 13 2020 07: 46 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Interesting article
    But regarding the VTOL, I disagree with the author.
    It was worth the "Yak" lost in the war - our only "vertical line" that crashed in a real war, and not in military service. As you know, when landing a jet stream knocked out soil from under the steel plates of the runway, and the plane, together with the airfield coating, fell into the resulting hole.

    The problem was not in the plane, but in the unsuccessful design of a hastily made runway 150 meters long, which was done by adding sand under the slabs that had been blown out. A similar problem would be with horizontal planes.
    There was also the usual runway of the airfield, and the Yak-38 flew from it.
    They flew mainly from the concrete runway, because after five SRS and one vertical take-off, the metal strip became unusable.

    The plane did not fall into the pit, but from a height of 10 meters after takeoff, it is difficult to say, and here it takes off. Did not pick up speed?
    This happened due to the insecurity of the impromptu “take-off”. Colonel Nikolai Kozlov during take-off suddenly fell from a height of about 10 meters, and take-off was carried out with full ammunition and therefore rockets began to burst and fly in all directions. This flight was observed by a representative of the General Staff, Army General Leonid Sokolov, who had to hide. Surprisingly, no one (including the pilot) was injured.

    this incident was described in his diary by the Afghan Air Force adviser Ablazov V.I .: "... an airplane with a vertical take-off Yak-38, the tests of which were carried out here, crashed into the runway after an unsuccessful attempt to take off. The plane pulled away land, but, fortunately, didn’t manage to gain altitude and when the pilot fell, he suffered a spinal injury, but remained alive. He lay on a stretcher and, together with all those present, watched the bustle near his plane. The plane was lifted by a powerful crane. It hung in the air on "Fuel was flowing from damaged tanks directly onto the hot concrete strip. First, the front pillar and then the main landing gear were fired by the engineers. They rolled in different directions - the damaged plane was towed to the hangar, and the injured pilot went to the hospital for an ambulance."

    It is unlikely that any conclusions can be drawn from this case. Moreover, an experimental vehicle was sent to Afghanistan at that time and was mastered in the process of sorties, most of which were actually carried out by a civilian test pilot, although there were also combat pilots.
    Moreover, there is a positive experience of using English Harriers in Afghanistan.
    Despite the characteristic problems of Afghanistan’s hot alpine climate, Harrier in these conditions virgin almost daily all year round. Moreover, these are mainly day departures with a combat load of about a ton and two fuel tanks, when the air temperature at the airport in the summer months reaches +50 degrees Celsius.

    Therefore, along with vertical landings, if necessary, landings in hot weather with unused combat load and overhead (in the container) sighting and navigation systems practiced the so-called "vertical landing with mileage" at a landing speed of about 170 km / h (in Europe such landings Harrier produce at speeds of about 90 km / h).

    Initially, the Harrier squadron was sent on a business trip in a general manner for a specified period (9 months), and when this period expired, it was supposed to return to Europe. However, the peacekeeping contingent command, seeing in reality the outstanding qualities of VTOL aircraft, especially important in Afghan conditions (unpretentiousness in basing, quick response to a call when on duty at advanced operational sites, a large combat load and the ability to act from short runways), achieved the decision of the military leadership (and such a decision is approved by the British Parliament) to extend the terms of the trip for this squadron. The next such extension was valid from June 30, 2006 to March 31, 2007.

    http://military-informant.com/airforca/harrier-sp-241666027.html
    British vertical takeoff and landing aircraft Harrier GR.9A from the 1st squadron of the British Air Force returned from Afghanistan, reports Flight International.
    Eight aircraft returned to Cottesmore Air Base in Rutland on July 1, completing their mission. In Afghanistan, aircraft operated from the airfield in Kandahar. There they spent almost five years, completing 8500 sorties, and flying 22 thousand hours.

    Three aircraft were damaged, two of which as a result of shelling of the airfield, one crashed after takeoff, the cause is unknown.
    https://vpk.name/news/29600_britanskie_shturmoviki_harrier_vernulis_iz_afganistana.html
    As for me, the result is more than good, especially considering the basing and use in high altitude conditions.

    I think the topic of the VTOL warrants requires more serious study.
    It is clear that they will not replace completely ordinary planes, but undoubtedly, they have their own niche.
    hi
    1. prodi April 13 2020 08: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I support, I remember, when leaving the ZPR our battery (R-12) had a set of mounting plates for installing the launch pad on the ground. I don’t remember the time, but it took less than a day
    2. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 49 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Well, comparable to the Su-25, which with a pair of PTBs and a pair of bombs or blocks of NAR or UR will rise from an unpaved runway with a length of 700 meters.
      And for starting from taxiing with bombed concrete runways, there are boosters.
      You can start along the runway along the grass and yes, and the funnels per day can be repaired.
      1. Avior April 13 2020 14: 05 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        finding a site 100-200 meters is much easier than 700.
        they haven’t started with accelerators for a long time, they haven’t taken root, but they will not help in principle
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 14: 16 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Well, 100 meters, this is optimism, 250 minimum, to take at least a couple of bombs with you.
          The question is how much fuss with this site.

          Finding 700 meters of flat ground may be more difficult, but a little more difficult.
          1. Avior April 13 2020 15: 41 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            700 minimum
            and not easy to find
            but in the case of VTOL, you can 100, you can 200, you can 300, which one will turn up, it will take off in all cases, the radius will only decrease, but we are talking about advanced areas, which means that everything will come down to increased fuel consumption.
            1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 16: 38 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Not easy to find? Open google maps near your n.p. take a look at the area.
  • EvilLion April 13 2020 09: 18 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    In general, in this case, the people manifest themselves on a massive scale in the level of the illiterate peasant of the 19th century, when a huge number of organizational and technical problems understandable to the professional are ignored, but a certain primitive trait is highlighted. "If it sits on water, then it will sit down everywhere." It can manifest itself in a more complex form, as, for example, manifested itself in the Swedish Air Force, which gathered in case of war to fly from the roads. It’s easy to fly from highways, if the Su-27 gets on the motorway, then the small flu will sit down, it’s impossible to carry out combat work since all roads will be clogged during wartime and can also be damaged quickly, and it’s not clear how to organize the supply and interaction between individual planes scattered along the freeways.

    But in general, in the USSR they built 3.5 invalid ekranoplan, having spent a lot of folk money, and let us do it. The Americans have aircraft carriers, and not very clear combat effectiveness in the event of a collision with the ground forces with more numerous and better aircraft, we also need. Vertical? Well, then, the “Harriers” over there even brought down something! Yeah, without intercepting a single enemy before the attack, and only shooting after the Argentines leaving after using the TSA, who already had a shortage of fuel and the need to adjust the ANN, for which it was necessary to fly into the definition. location. But do not care. Let's score on the Su-57, which are needed without question, and will do the VTOL aircraft, which are needed, for ... but FIG knows what for.
  • Aviator_ April 13 2020 09: 18 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The need for GDP aircraft was not so much that it supposedly had to take off and land from unprepared sites, but that it could be used from damaged airfields, where the use of conventional aircraft was completely eliminated.
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 50 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      What kind of damage should such be? MiG-15 accelerators launched from a truck. Such a take-off, of course, is not an option, but on accelerators, almost any aircraft will rise from the taxiway.
      1. Aviator_ April 13 2020 13: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And how many such systems were there in the troops? And how many pilots owned such a start? And where does the plane land after completing the task - again on the truck?
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 14: 06 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The truck is an example.
          But from solid-fuel boosters with a short take-off, combatant pilots can fly, sometimes you just need to maintain these skills.
          1. Aviator_ April 13 2020 18: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, combat pilots in some countries and with aircraft carriers fly regularly, and air refueling is also regularly done. And yet: where to sit after a short start with accelerators, if the runway is broken?
            1. Fizik M April 13 2020 19: 20 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              to the barrier or hook ground ground finisher
              on the whole site
            2. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 19: 49 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              To another airdrome
    2. EvilLion April 13 2020 13: 53 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The use of aircraft bombed at the airport is all the more excluded. Your strip has surrendered to someone, which will be patched the next day, when you can take out the equipment.
  • Fitter65 April 13 2020 09: 19 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    And if flying from unreinforced conventional asphalt using vertical traction is fraught with destruction of the coating, then normal fighters calmly land on the road sections and take off from them
    I’ll disappoint the author’s friend. Aircraft land on specially equipped sections of the motorway, where exactly not asphalt pavement is located, plus the very base of the route section, which is prepared under the runway, is different from a simple section of the road.
    1. Simple April 13 2020 11: 36 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      If you are driving along a section of an autobahn covered with concrete slabs, in a straight line of at least 3 km and with a minimum slope, you can keep in mind that it is intended for
      repeated
      (but still as a backup) use as a runway for jet aircraft.

      1. Simple April 13 2020 11: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0


        This object has already been "scored".
    2. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 52 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      AUD.
      But in an emergency, the MiG-29 can be planted not on a reinforced area, or even on the ground, and then raise it.

      You can recall how the Vietnamese used their MiG-17 and MiG-21 against the United States, for example.
      1. Fitter65 April 13 2020 17: 36 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But in an emergency, the MiG-29 can be planted not on a reinforced area, or even on the ground, and then raise it.

        It is possible to plant, though it will most likely be raised by a crane and separately. The fuselage in one tractor, wings in another ... So between us "experts", in 2007 in KDVO (even then he was called) the exercises "Wing-2007 (or as we called" Snout-2007) were held. One of the phases of this exercise was an imitation of aircraft landing on the Khabarovsk-Komsomolsk-on-Amur highway section (the so-called "Aerodrome" among motorists). airplanes did not land for a simple reason for many years this section of the route was not kept in proper condition and therefore it was dangerous to land airplanes there. Another phase of these exercises was the arrival and landing — take-off to Padali, where there was an old airfield on which various rear units of the Air Force were deployed, up to the field bakery. Preparations on the Padalah began already in early March, but before the start it was decided that the helicopter should not be planted there, it would just make a landing simulation at a certain height. It’s Fallen a month before day X (ha ha)
        I took a picture from the roof of my R-409MA

        , and this is the south side
        . So about the fact that the MiG-29 can once land on any unpaved airfield or section of the highway, I agree 100%.
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 19: 47 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          You to some extreme winds. There are pre-prepared airfield road sections.
          There are crappy trashy roads where even under the Gazelle the asphalt floats in the heat.
          So, there are a lot of things between these two extremes.
          MiG-29 was specially created with the possibility of landing on the ground.
          The fact that unpaved airdromes need to be prepared is obvious, no one is arguing, but you don’t have to deal with tameness either.
      2. Simple April 13 2020 18: 18 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        For a jet aircraft, you need a “concrete” asphalt in all of its aliases - it will simply be knocked out by a jet stream of the aircraft.
        And then, even in Germany, the asphalt cloth is usually just patched. These latches will fly off first of all. Below, Fitter65 (Alexander) explained that singly or immediately a pair can be planted (or take off) from an asphalt road, but then you need to comb it all over for potholes. The primer for repeated take-offs and landings (even modified by shields) is a crap. My opinion.
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 19: 48 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Below, Fitter65 (Alexander) explained that singly or immediately a pair can be planted (or take off) from an asphalt road, but then you need to comb it all over for potholes.


          Even a normal concrete runway must be constantly checked for foreign objects and cleaned. Well, what’s the question, why do the airfield units exist?
        2. alipes April 15 2020 08: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          On Uti, the Mig-15 and Mig-17 perfectly flew to the school from the ground.
        3. Cyril G ... April 17 2020 21: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In Chukotka, to this day, for example, aviation mainly flies from the ground except Anadyr and Cape Schmidt, and under Providence there is a second abandoned strip from which the MiG-17 flew, so far despite all the past half century, there’s nothing to itself except one place where the creek eroded
    3. EvilLion April 13 2020 13: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Which is not easy? Super asphalt? Asphalt, it is asphalt, there are 50 tons of wagons there, all kinds of Su-27s can withstand the road and even more so, where the trees next to the road and possible turns with slopes are a big problem, you need a direct open area of ​​several kilometers.
      1. Fitter65 April 13 2020 17: 51 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        Asphalt, it is asphalt, there are 50 tons of wagons driving there,

        Only trucks have ground pressure which goes to each wheel? and why on the roads are weight control points, and signs for weight limitation, and axle loads? And so, for fun, look through a physics textbook so that you can roughly imagine what kind of loads affect the stretch of road on which an airplane weighing 18000 kg lands at a speed of 225-240 km / h. And you can roughly calculate who has a pressure 1 square centimeter more with an airplane with a take-off weight of 27,5 tons
        or a truck weighing 50t
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 42 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Only trucks have ground pressure which goes to each wheel?


          3,25 tons per standard. On the wheel.

          They walk from 4-5 where there are no weights.

          The MiG-29 just when landing somewhere around 5 will be.
  • common man April 13 2020 09: 32 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    There was a feeling that the author collected only “white” on “ordinary” airplanes, and purely black on the rest (hydroaviation, VTOL, ekranoplanes). And this does not happen.
    As for the seasonality of use in our country due to cold weather, it’s possible to agree that cars cannot be used because the roads will be covered with snow.
    As for ice airfields, you ask the polar explorers what kind of "bloody corns" is the organization and maintenance of airfields in the Arctic and Antarctica.
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 53 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      No, the author just gave an objective picture. And the way the number of normal planes in the world correlates with all the others is quite an indicator.

      As for ice airfields, you ask the polar explorers what kind of "bloody corns" is the organization and maintenance of airfields in the Arctic and Antarctica.


      Well, then they need to add vertical jet exhaust there, it will become much easier for them to maintain the quality of the coating, right?
    2. LeonidL April 13 2020 19: 46 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      The author, as always, considers himself beloved by the Lord God and indisputable authority in everything from the engines of the internal combustion engine, Vietnam, the Navy ... now now, to the problems of aviation. How dare you even stutter across him? Where does such an arrogant all-knowingness come from among the aphthor, a man of military education who has neither in the Navy, nor in the Air Force, nor in the Army?
      1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 50 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Write to Sportloto
  • bk0010 April 13 2020 10: 00 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    I do not agree with the author regarding VTOL: he only considers take-off, but does not take into account landing. The ability to use aircraft "on a helicopter", from hastily equipped points, not far from the front line, which could be relocated from place to place, instead of being on air, would open up new tactical opportunities and, possibly, would complement the army aviation with verticals. The problem is that no one has yet done the normal vertical.
    1. EvilLion April 13 2020 13: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There are helicopters for this.
    2. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 54 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The ability to use aircraft "by helicopter", from hastily equipped points, not far from the front line,


      Completely absent - steel plates are needed. This is not a helicopter even once.
    3. LeonidL April 14 2020 20: 38 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The author does not take into account the UDCs that are going to be built on the Gulf in Kerch. I think that the possibility of basing vertical take-off aircraft will be considered. Will such an opportunity be realized? Not sure about that.
  • Fizik M April 13 2020 10: 24 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    FSUE “Spetsstroyengineering at Spetsstroy Russia” announced a tender for the implementation ofproject survey work on the object: “Construction of the Zavoyko hydroaerodrome”, Zavoyko settlement, Kamchatka Territory (object code P-34/13) ”, in the amount of 79 046 837,00 (seventy nine million forty six thousand eight hundred thirty seven) rubles 00 kopecksto, including 18% VAT on the procurement website.
    The sole executor of the order on November 28, 2014 was the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Main Directorate of Special Construction on the Territory of the Southern Federal District under the Federal Agency for Special Construction” (short name - FSUE GUSST No. 4 under Special Construction of Russia).
    The deadline for the submission of documentation (urban planning documentation, surveys, engineering surveys, design documentation) is set 30.06.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX.
  • Fitter65 April 13 2020 10: 50 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Su-25 with a quantity of weapons on board comparable to that with which the Harrier flies from a concrete 600 meter track,
    Well, Harrier has almost the maximum load, but for the Su-25, again, there are a number of restrictions for flying from the ground. Read the RLE. Here are some restrictions for the IL-76
    RLE excerpt

    4.2.15. GROUND RUN FLIGHTS

    Regular operation of the aircraft at unpaved airfields is permitted with

    soil content 8 kg / cm2

    and more. On unpaved BPP with soil strength 6-7

    individual flights are allowed.

    For those who are really interested in this topic, read the real document, which really describes where, what and how. https://pikabu.ru/story/posadka_il76_na_gruntovuyu_polosu_3608848, and it will become clear about the universality of basing ordinary aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing,
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 13: 59 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The fact that the unpaved airfield must be prepared is obvious.
      The fact that the VTOL aircraft cannot fail to land does not take off unless DGG of metal plates and synthetic fabric is laid on top of the prepared and compacted earth, too.

      So who is more universal?
      1. Avior April 13 2020 14: 10 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        can and land and take off, if we are not talking about long flights from one point
        Harriers in Afghanistan with a standard runway and advanced ground in the mountains have been flying for years.
        Yak-38 also flew.
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 14: 13 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          They did not fly from the ground. Harrier was lifted from the ground when he was still Kestrel, everything was already clear then - once you can fly up, leaving a furrow in the ground, you can’t sit down without the risk of an accident.
          1. Avior April 13 2020 14: 34 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            used sites in the mountains as temporary advanced
            no furrows, at least several times.
            they also flew from concrete.
            there was no furrow there
            it may crack during prolonged use in some modes, but we are talking about temporary sites, anyway, without service, he will not be able to use the site for a long time
            normal horizontal, when it flies in, the jet stream at the moment of take-off is also directed into concrete
            on avishows of different people often take off at abrupt angles for the sake of entertainment, the jet hits concrete
            1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 16: 37 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              About concrete, I did not say that it was destroyed by Harrier, but about flying from the ground, I think you have the wrong information.
              1. Avior April 15 2020 00: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                but I didn’t write about the ground
                I wrote that the Harriers really used from the sites, there is a link about it
                maybe there are rocky areas in the mountains, maybe they found concrete, maybe the metal was laid quickly, maybe they often moved to another site
                The fact that they used and were quite satisfied, considering this opportunity an advantage
                1. timokhin-aa April 15 2020 00: 32 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  They flew from dilapidated airfields. Therefore, a short take-off was needed. Usually they found 800-900 meters, periodically flew from 600. At the same time, Harrier was fully loaded, to the maximum.

                  This is what they liked him.

                  Our soldiers with shovels, cement and water would be sent and in three to four days they would have raised the Su-24 from there.
                  1. Avior April 15 2020 00: 42 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    I have never seen the source of your allegations.
                    in those that I brought, it is written that they flew from the foregrounds
                    perhaps from such, for example
                    http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/folkl/harrier/harrier.html
                    On the northern shore of the Bay of San Carlos, an advanced field airfield was built, which was the 40th strip lined with aluminum plates. At one end of the strip were parking lots and loop-shaped waiting areas. Fueling was carried out from flexible tanks, which were constantly replenished from soft floating tanks, and those were regularly delivered in tow to tankers anchored in the bay. This FOB * was immediately assigned to the GR.3 Harriers of the 1st AE, but the Sea Harriers also used it to refuel to continue patrolling, as well as helicopters.

                    The GR.3 Harriers were expecting calls from ground forces on the FOB [FOB (forward operating base)). Having received such a call, the pilots on duty couples planned a flight right in the cockpits and immediately took off. As a rule, they were over the target within 20-25 minutes after setting the task, which clearly demonstrated the advantage of the Harrier over other front-line aircraft.
                    1. timokhin-aa April 15 2020 12: 09 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      This is San Carlos FOB. An example that proves my point of view, not yours.

                      Here it is



                      Domestic authors are mistaken, there is never 40 meters, the soil had to be leveled with the help of the only surviving bulldozer, that is, to do the same work that should have been done for the unpaved airfield too, and then do the flooring from above. It was built 2 weeks from the second day of disembarkation. Harrier could only lift two NAR units or two air-to-air missiles from it. Basically, it was necessary to land planes from aircraft carriers for refueling, because the praised vertical lines could not be in the air even for 1,5 hours. Not enough fuel. Once Harrier left this strip, heaped the entire flooring, he had to repair it.

                      A bad example is real. She did not contribute to the war at sea, she did as a refueling point to land operations, but the trick is that normal aircraft would not need this refueling point.
                2. Liam April 15 2020 00: 34 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Avior
                  the metal was laid fast, maybe

                  After the main landing forces landed on the northern shore of San Carlos Bay, an advanced field airfield was built, which was the 40th strip lined with aluminum plates. At one end of the strip were parking lots and loop-shaped waiting areas. Fueling was carried out from flexible tanks, which were constantly replenished from soft floating tanks, and they were regularly delivered in tow to tankers anchored in the bay. This FOB * was immediately assigned to the GR.3 Harriers from the 1st AE, but the Sea Harriers also used it to refuel to continue patrolling, as well as helicopters. The planes only refueled and were on duty there, and were sent to aircraft carriers to replenish ammunition. Only once, when a helicopter damaged an aluminum coating as a result of a flight accident, they flew for refueling on the helicopter decks of the landing ships, the docks “Firless” and “Inter-pid”, which were nearby
                  1. timokhin-aa April 15 2020 12: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Unwind up a comment.
        2. iouris April 14 2020 22: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Exactly: "too." This is generally a dead end branch of Soviet aviation. The USSR was not ready to create VTOL. It could be by the year, around 1999, and they could create a working system based on the Yak-141, but ...
          Now the discussion of this issue does not make sense.
      2. Fitter65 April 13 2020 17: 13 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The fact that the unpaved airfield must be prepared is obvious.

        Moreover, the unpaved airfield serves less, the cost of its maintenance is not small, and very dependent on the weather, especially in rainy summers.
        1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 19: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But for SKVVP it is necessary ALSO THE MOST PLUS OF WORK FOR MAINTENANCE OF PLATES, FROM WHICH THEY FLY.
  • alstr April 13 2020 11: 16 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    A few comments.
    Firstly, the climate is not decisive when abandoning hydroaviation.
    Example Canada and Alaska. Climatic conditions are very similar. But at the same time, light hydroaviation is actively used there. And often with a removable chassis (skis / floats) or floats / chassis.
    The use of heavier equipment is not necessary there because of the size of traffic (1-2 maxim 10 people with cargo). It completely covers light aircraft.
    But we have light aircraft banned (hello to the military). And here ekranoplanes / ekranopleta can completely replace light aircraft.
    There is another thing that EP can replace water transport, which in our conditions of the North has been joking for six months, and even when it is not, it requires icebreaking support.

    Secondly, for any aircraft requires a place for maintenance. Therefore, the costs here will be comparable. If we talk about docks for ES, then it was simply a requirement for secrecy. In the same way as any new plane is not left on the street, but put in a hangar. Moreover, if we talk about ships, here is the news - they also require docks.

    Thirdly, landing on an unequipped site is still a reserve mode for airplanes. It requires minimal reconnaissance coverage. And this applies to ALL types of aircraft and EP. You yourself gave an example that the agent took soil samples, but I think that not only the soil, but also checked the site (and most likely not one).
    In addition, landing for many aircraft requires extensive maintenance (especially for jet aircraft).
    For EP, working with poorly equipped aerodromes is a regular mode.

    As for landing on ice, the example is not correct, because multi-meter ice is almost concrete. Plus, ice rinks are always maintained and selected in advance (especially for heavy aircraft).

    If we talk about modern ekranoplans, then the same Petrel-24 quietly sits down and takes off on water and on ice. And it may well sit on the ground.

    So, the question of setting the terms of reference.

    Fourthly, there is no problem with navigation dangers either. All protruding objects are easily dispensed with radar (right now even put on a car). And failures just fly over. And if they are covered with snow, then this is no longer essential.

    In the end, everything seems to be the same, but the devil is in the details. And in these little things, EPs can win.
    For example, if a small hole for an airplane is almost a true accident (since the landing gear may break), then for the EC it does not matter at all (it simply slides over it).
    But hemp is equally dangerous for everyone.

    Threat already wrote that all built ekranoplans in Soviet times had an OPTIMUM scheme, because OPTIMAL DIAGRAM (flying wing) still does not have a significant theoretical study.
    Moreover, the Alekseev Bureau designed the replacement of the SEC - Rocket-2. But with the death of the author, it was all over.

    ZYY And as I wrote already. Unfortunately, the role of personality plays a huge role in us. OK EP, here we have manned astronautics in TWO years, got up after the death of the Queen. And that was at that time the most important direction with a political connotation. What can I say about the directions financed by the residual principle.

    ZYYYP about KM. Indeed, it was made of steel, as there were no aviation alloys and engines allocated to it (as usual used what was at hand). And while all the flight characteristics are real. Therefore, if you use modern materials, then the characteristics will increase.
    1. EvilLion April 13 2020 13: 50 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Optimal aircraft - one that flies as far from the earth as possible. Less air resistance, longer reaction time during an emergency. The ekranoplane crashes instantly, it is worth at least something hurt.
  • iouris April 13 2020 11: 20 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    “Winning in power - losing in the distance” (and vice versa). “Pull the nose out - the tail will bog down” (and vice versa). "I have a desire to buy a cow, but I have no opportunity ..."
  • xomaNN April 13 2020 13: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The aircraft of the bygone era of the USSR mentioned in the article can now be seen only at air museums. In Zhulyany, in Kiev, this is a couple of representatives of naval aviation: Be 12 amphibian and Yak38 aircraft carrier-based VTOL.
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 14: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      We still have the Be-12 in service, the Be-200 in service in the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Emergencies, and there is a lobby for the revival of hydroaviation in MA.
  • Kostadinov April 13 2020 15: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The Yak-38 will be able to start and land directly from ukritium or directly to ukritiy, and common fighters must be steered, then take off and the same when landing, but this takes time.
  • Alexey RA April 13 2020 16: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    4. The need to have a concrete parking lot near the water. In fact, this is the same airfield, only without a runway. It must also be built, unless, of course, the goal is to rot the planes faster. If technically a seaplane cannot reach this platform (for example, there is not enough traction), then devices are needed to pull it onto it.

    Point 5 is forgotten: The need to have a full runway with a length of at least 3 km in case landing still on the water would be impossible for any reason.
    At least, when recently the Ministry of Defense placed a competition for the design of hydroaerodromes, the presence of a concrete runway was mandatory. That is, a hydroaerodrome is an ordinary airfield, plus a "water infrastructure".
    So a normal hydroaerodrome costs like one and a half to two ordinary airfields. And even more - given the fact that the land runway and infrastructure will have to be located not at the most suitable place for it, but exclusively side by side with the harbor of the hydroaerodrome.
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 11 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Point 5 is forgotten: The need to have a full runway with a length of at least 3 km in case landing still on the water turns out to be impossible for any reason.


      I decided to get by with a minimum.
    2. Dmitry V. April 15 2020 14: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      So a normal hydroaerodrome costs like one and a half to two ordinary airfields. And even more - given the fact that the land runway and infrastructure will have to be located not at the most suitable place for it, but exclusively side by side with the harbor of the hydroaerodrome.


      Given that airfields with concreted runways are the primary goals, amphibious aircraft can be based on any water bodies: bays, lakes, river spaces of sufficient size, depth and excitement.
  • exo
    exo April 13 2020 17: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Nikolai-1970
    Question about landing weight and quality of sand. Structure.
    In general, this is a unique aircraft.
    I had the opportunity to climb, shoot, chat with the navigator.
    They sat in Melitopol, which they brought for the ATO.
    Particularly struck by the reverse engines. A minute and he rides his tail forward.

    Yes, this is his advantage over the An-12. And the main advantage: a sealed cargo compartment.
    1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 10 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Yes, this is his advantage over the An-12. And the main advantage: a sealed cargo compartment.


      And also the dimensions of the cockpit - I had to do a calculation of the capacity of equipment in Hercules once - the difference with our An-12 is simply enormous in applicability. Due to the height of the cab.
  • Bobrick April 13 2020 17: 12 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I want to clarify one point: the use of aircraft from an unpaved runway requires the use of special technical tricks, especially large-sized aircraft, as an example, you can consider the same photos and videos from the article:

    On this aircraft, the engines are located in the rear of the fuselage (IL-62, Tu-154) including to prevent particles of soil from entering the engine’s air path (with poor balance of the aircraft, it is not used on modern short-medium-long-haul passenger airplanes).
    For the Su-25, this is the removal of the air intake closer to the nose fairing (which leads to an elongation of the flow part and an increase in aerodynamic losses).
    For most large military transport aircraft, this is an upper wing, like those of An, Il-76, S-130 and others (which requires a radical redesign of the aircraft chassis and increases the complexity of engine maintenance).
    For army aircraft (MiG-29, Su-27) this is a hotel air intake in the upper part of the fuselage.

    In addition, it is worthwhile to clarify that modern aircraft engines, according to ICAO standards, must withstand a flock of small birds in an amount of up to 30 pieces (mass of a large sparrow - 40 grams) while maintaining operability, which already prohibits take-off into the city.
    For passenger aircraft (from Tu-204 to Boeing 767)

    Tu-204

    Boeing - 767
    the presence of this requirement and design features (monoplanes with a low wing and engines suspended from below) do not guarantee safe take-off from unpaved, old concrete, old, low-quality asphalt roads and strips, as well as from unprepared ice strips (despite the low density, large pieces of snow are dangerous for blades, a fan, especially made of composite materials, due to their low stiffness / delamination of the composite blade after a collision).

    PS I ask you to take this article very critically.
  • exo
    exo April 13 2020 17: 14 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Fizik M
    FSUE “Spetsstroyengineering at Spetsstroy Russia” announced a tender for the implementation ofproject survey work on the object: “Construction of the Zavoyko hydroaerodrome”, Zavoyko settlement, Kamchatka Territory (object code P-34/13) ”, in the amount of 79 046 837,00 (seventy nine million forty six thousand eight hundred thirty seven) rubles 00 kopecksto, including 18% VAT on the procurement website.
    The sole executor of the order on November 28, 2014 was the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Main Directorate of Special Construction on the Territory of the Southern Federal District under the Federal Agency for Special Construction” (short name - FSUE GUSST No. 4 under Special Construction of Russia).
    The deadline for the submission of documentation (urban planning documentation, surveys, engineering surveys, design documentation) is set 30.06.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX.

    He, in the village of Rybachy, was in the 60s. As a reminder of those times, there for a long time on the coast of the Be-6 skeleton lay. I loved climbing on it.
    Still, as a search and rescue, amphibious aircraft have the right to life.
    1. Fizik M April 13 2020 18: 27 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: exo
      He, in the village of Rybachy, in the 60s was

      he was in a different place than they wanted now - in B. Yagodnaya (part of B. Krasheninnikov) - closed
      and now they wanted in the old Zavoyko
    2. Fizik M April 13 2020 18: 28 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: exo
      Still, as a search and rescue, amphibious aircraft have the right to life.

      I agree, but for this we need our own "Shin Maiva" and not Be200
  • exo
    exo April 13 2020 18: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Nikolai-1970
    Was.
    My relative then served there, from the crew of Kobzar, K-129. I told the kid about them.

    Father and mother knew some officers of this crew.
  • exo
    exo April 13 2020 18: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Fizik M
    Quote: exo
    Still, as a search and rescue, amphibious aircraft have the right to life.

    I agree, but for this we need our own "Shin Maiva" and not Be200

    A-40, larger and more navigable than the Be-200. Could occupy a niche. With the good fortune of PD-14 and PD-16.
    1. Fizik M April 13 2020 19: 18 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: exo
      A-40, larger and more navigable than the Be-200.

      Shin Maeve is inferior and significantly
      they just didn’t chase the LTX on it (as on the A-40 and Be-200)

      this does not mean that seaplanes can’t be used at all, I personally searched for where to put them so that the crippled crews could be pulled out to the KShU, but ... our seaplanes "went" in the wrong direction ...
      1. Cyril G ... April 16 2020 15: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Patam that first you need to make a seaworthy hull, and then teach him how to fly, and not vice versa
        1. Fizik M April 16 2020 15: 50 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          you must first make a seaworthy hull, and then teach him how to fly, and not vice versa

          agree
  • Old26 April 13 2020 18: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    One of the solutions that can somehow improve the weight return of the ekranoplan is to abandon the chassis that the Eaglet had. Then the payload really grows. For example, the Lun had no chassis and carried six heavy missiles.

    True, these 6 heavy missiles in total (together with launch containers) yielded about 30 tons of payload. Compared to Orlyonok, which had a load of 120 tons during a take-off of 20 tons - 16,7% of the take-off weight. The "moon" with its 384 tons of take-off payload (6 missiles in containers) -7,8%
    So that the weight gain of the wheelless Lun turns out to be almost half as much as that of the wheeled Eaglet

    And by the way, Alexander! The BE-10 had a full-fledged chassis (like the BE-12) and it was able to be based on airfields.

    Quote: knn54
    In February 1945, German intelligence for a very long time could not clarify the location of the airfield, from which Pokryshkin’s air division aircraft operated. The Germans simply could not imagine that a kilometer stretch of highway, sandwiched in a forest, can be used as a runway, and concentrated on a large open area, searching in vain for a secret airfield.

    Strange, because the Germans, as I recall, at the end of the war themselves often used the autobahns as a runway
    1. agond April 13 2020 19: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And on the other hand, if the thrust of the engines of the Su-35 afterburner is 28 tons, and the take-off weight is 26 tons, then in principle it could take off vertically, for example, moving along vertical guides
    2. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 09 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In the Be-10, the first instance went like a boat, then the second by order was supposed to be made as an amphibian, but the EMNIP series went in the form of boats, with rolling chassis for pulling them out of the water into the parking lot.
    3. alstr April 13 2020 21: 21 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      About the payload. Not the fact that the payload has been fully utilized.
      Here we take a favorite example here - MI-26. It seems that by weight he can take two armored personnel carriers, but he cannot by weight, i.e. will not fit inside.
      So here, Just physically did not stick it in anymore. And so they occupy half the body.
      According to data from the Alekseev Institute, the payload of the Moon is approximately 26,5% of its own weight (maximum), i.e. about 100 tons

      Those. theoretically, it can carry 3 times more missiles (for example, 30 caliber pieces - they really won't fit in there, but 16 can be crammed into it). Or the same amount, but heavier (for example, P-1000). If you fantasize, then in Lun you could cram 8 P-1000s (i.e. half the cruiser salvo).
      not bad, really. Also, the place will remain on the SAM / short-range missiles.
      And the sizes will be less than two times.
    4. your1970 April 20 2020 01: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      used autobahns as a runway

      In Berlin (!!!!), H. Reich sat in 1945 ...
      That's where the runway was definitely lol
  • Glory1974 April 13 2020 19: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Then at this place there will be a ditch formed by a jet of jet exhaust, and it will be necessary to look for a new place for take-off. Vertical sediment on open ground will lead to the same thing - the formation of a hole under the plane.

    Is there such a strong jet stream? A little off topic, but when landing on the moon, the lunar dust did not move, and here the jet stream of the furrow cuts through. It is not clear to whom to believe?
    1. Avior April 13 2020 20: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is a film with a Schwarzenegger, there is a landing and take-off of the Harriers :)
      But really, at least one such ditch to see
      1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 20: 48 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        So they are never planted on the ground, how do you see this ditch?
        1. Avior April 13 2020 21: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I don’t see it in the picture and there is no reason for it either
          Well, sand will blow out, maybe.
          A hard landing site for Harriers is much easier to find than a long strip
          Concrete, of course, from a jet stream will be damaged over time, but we are talking about temporary-based sites, aren't we.
          The helicopter lands, also does not form holes, only dust raises
          1. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 22: 48 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            In the picture - a diagram with explanations of why you can not land on the ground - a powerful erosion of the soil under the plane and throwing soil into the engine air intake.
            Therefore, the same Britons under the narrow "paths" of steel strips from which Harrier takes off, lay the fabric.
            1. Avior April 14 2020 07: 53 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              For loose it’s clear, it can blow part from the surface
              But if it can withstand the weight of the aircraft (and they won’t use it otherwise), then you need to protect only a small landing and launch site, where the effects of languor are prolonged
              But this is not a problem, it is easy to mount
              In any case, there is many years of experience in operating the FIS from a variety of sites, and no one is going to abandon them, which means that the problem is solved
              1. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 11: 05 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                But if it can withstand the weight of the aircraft (and they won’t use it otherwise), then you need to protect only a small landing and launch site, where the effects of languor are prolonged


                Because of the F-35B, it was necessary to strengthen the decking on all Wosps - the exhaust quickly destroyed it. And there is STEEL. You underestimate this question.
                It will take seconds to form a dust cloud of tens of meters and to throw soil into the air intakes, and to take tens of seconds to form a hole under the ground.

                Yak-38 with its three engines destroyed the asphalt.

                Therefore, SKVVP never flew / do not fly from the open ground.
                1. Avior April 14 2020 11: 22 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Because of the F-35B, it was necessary to strengthen the decking on all Wosps - the exhaust quickly destroyed it. And there is STEEL. You underestimate this question.

                  I know metal warps, it was not calculated. Where initially designed for jet engines, there is no problem. And about the asphalt in the know. But do not forget, the Yak 38 had 3 engines and the main problems were due to lifting.
                  Your conversation always jumps to open ground and strictly vertical take-off and landing.
                  In fact, it’s much easier to find a surface with a hard surface of 20 meters even for a purely vertical take-off and landing than to provide more than 700 meters of a suitable take-off from the ground, even with limitations, even for a subsonic Su-25.
                  Moreover, it is easier to provide such a take-off for VTOL all the same, if you do not use vertical take-off and landing, and take-off even with short mileage and landing with slippage, which the British did in Afghanistan, the problem completely disappears, read the link.
                  Take-off and landing will be similar to horizontal, but with a very flexible choice of the length of the site. Found 400 meters? Fine!
                  200-250 meters? Good too.
                  100 meters? worse, but such an extreme case will do.
                  hi
                  1. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 16: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Well, firstly, let’s drop the vertical take-off, this will not happen anymore. And the fact that finding 400 meters of concrete is easier than 700 meters of soil is not obvious to me personally. How did the Britons fly and where did I carefully study, right up to counting missiles in combat load.
                    1. Avior April 15 2020 00: 31 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Well, firstly, let’s drop the vertical take-off, this will not happen anymore.

                      and where will it go?
                      as it was and remained
                      not with
                      full 9 tons of combat load of course
                      it’s easier to find 400 or 100, which will turn up than to look strictly for more than 700.
  • voyaka uh April 13 2020 21: 04 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    "Reason: conventional airplanes can take off from unpaved takeoffs
    lanes or sections of roads, while SKVVP needs special flooring or
    full concrete runway, albeit short. "
    -----
    Engineer troops equip 200 meter concrete track slab in 1 hour
    anywhere. Delov for three pennies.
    And no dirt roads are needed.
    In Russia, there is no vertical line in the Air Force, so I needed to "expose myths."
    The Chinese people won’t expose myths, but they are strikingly designing their F-35B analogue.
    Without such an aircraft, today it’s "neither here nor there." Especially in naval aviation.
    1. Avior April 13 2020 21: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Naval aviation also received its article:))) ...
      I don’t argue, it’s not a child prodigy, but it’s a plane of its own niche and as such is difficult to replace
    2. timokhin-aa April 13 2020 22: 49 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Engineer troops equip 200 meter concrete track slab in 1 hour


      Yes, you are my friend, an optimist, however! Do you find the unloading time for one panel truck yourself?

      In Russia, there is no vertical line in the Air Force, so I needed to "expose myths."


      In Russia there is not only a vertical line, but also a need for it.
      1. voyaka uh April 13 2020 23: 28 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        There is a need, moreover, a critical need. For maritime aviation.
        The only realistic opportunity for Russia to "go into the ocean" is to do
        UDC-light aircraft carriers with vertical lines. Which will soon become one of
        common types of ships of the 1st class in the world.
        And it will appear for sailors, and the Air Force will want them.
        1. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 11: 00 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Such aircraft carriers are useless. The British had three such ships in the Falklands and they failed to dominate the air, sliding into a war of attrition, with the loss of ships and sailors. The brightest example in my opinion. An aircraft carrier is needed not for prestige and image, but for war and must be combat-ready.

          Believe me, it’s just that the notebook was written down with the options for the combat loading of the SKVVP in comparison with the norms. airplanes, “combat load-combat radius” relations, etc., and I read a lot on the topic, and not fiction from the Internet, but for example RAND research.
          1. Avior April 14 2020 11: 26 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            The British had three such ships in the Falklands and they failed to dominate the air, slipping into a war of attrition, with the loss of ships and sailors.

            due to the lack of AWACS
            To the English it came after the war.
            If there were even helicopter AWACS, the Argentines would not have a chance, even though they used supersonic planes against subsonic Harriers.
            1. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 16: 22 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Now we make an assumption for the Argentines. The Britons have a sufficient amount of AWACS, the Args have 100 Exosets.
              1. Avior April 15 2020 00: 33 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                which could be reached only if you take a warship by surprise
          2. voyaka uh April 14 2020 12: 24 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            "The British had three such ships in the Falklands and they failed
            air supremacy, "////
            -----
            Several Argentinean Air Force raids were canceled (aircraft deployed
            back to the continent) when they became aware that a handful of Harriers
            in the air.
            Argentina fought off its coast, and the British - thousands of kilometers from
            at home, without military bases nearby. In a constantly stormy south
            Atlantic. And the British with the only small aircraft carrier - WIN.
            Argentines capitulated on the islands.
          3. voyaka uh April 14 2020 12: 30 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            "Such aircraft carriers are useless" ////
            ----
            The Japanese, Spaniards, Italians, and the British apparently did not see your notebook. smile
            And the American Marines, too, did not look into it. Light aircraft carrier with vertical lines
            forcing out the springboard for sure. The catapult and the lungs will remain.
            1. timokhin-aa April 14 2020 16: 23 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              It seems like you have to write an article smile
              1. bk0010 April 14 2020 18: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                That would be nice. With coverage of the possibilities of solving problems by such aircraft carriers, except for ground-based missiles (AWACS, other reconnaissance and target designation equipment, jamming, anti-aircraft defense, anti-ship missiles, the presence of anti-ship missiles that VTOL could lift). Still interesting are the real, but not expected, capabilities of AWACS helicopters on such an aircraft carrier.
          4. 3danimal April 15 2020 05: 50 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            After the appearance of the F-35B, everything changed a lot: a full-fledged combat aircraft appeared with a range comparable to the F-18, an acceptable combat load and excellent radar and avionics. (The solution with a lifting fan is generally excellent). The difference in combat characteristics with Harrier is huge.
            IMHO, analogues will appear.
            1. timokhin-aa April 15 2020 16: 32 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Explain how fundamentally the Lightning fan differs from that of the Harrier except for the horizontal orientation? I don’t understand that with such an arrangement it is possible to go to supersonic sound, but it is impossible with Harrierovsky, but the idea is the same - to put a fan on the turbine shaft and give additional thrust in extra. nozzles clean due to air.

              A full-fledged F-35B aircraft is only against the background of other air-craft. And, for example, against the background of the F-35A or C is no longer.
              1. 3danimal April 15 2020 19: 13 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And in comparison with F18? smile
                . Explain how fundamentally the Lightning fan differs from that of the Harrier except for the horizontal orientation?

                Harrier’s air is drawn from the compressor (for vertical control), it does NOT provide lift traction. It has only an engine and 4 “subsonic” nozzles on the sides.
                1. timokhin-aa April 15 2020 21: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  It is necessary to compare the aircraft within one generation, and even with the Yak-38, let's compare.

                  Harrier’s air is drawn from the compressor (for vertical control), it does NOT provide lift traction.




                  The diagram clearly shows a large fan (up to rotary nozzles) followed by a compressor, combustion chambers and a turbine.

                  Turn the fan horizontally through the cardan joint, move the air nozzles under it and get the F-35B circuit

                  I understand that it also compresses the air for the compressor ... well, it will not compress, the compressor will be different and that’s it.
                  1. 3danimal April 16 2020 03: 14 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Ok, we have, in fact, a turbofan engine. With air intake after the fan. And the impossibility of supersonic flight and afterburner (here is a dead end).
                    In 35B, it was the lifting fan that was used (instead of the lifting turbojet engines of the same Yak-141 and “relatives”), which solved the problem of hot air intake by the main engine from the lifting ones.
      2. Avior April 14 2020 07: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Still what is the need
      3. Dmitry V. April 15 2020 14: 54 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Yes, you are my friend, an optimist, however! Do you find the unloading time for one panel truck yourself?



        Not an hour or a day.
        A typical road slab will provide VTOL basing.
  • exo
    exo April 13 2020 21: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Bobrick
    On this aircraft, the engines are located in the rear of the fuselage (IL-62, Tu-154) including to prevent particles of soil from entering the engine’s air path (with poor balance of the aircraft, it is not used on modern short-medium-long-haul passenger airplanes).

    The Tu-154 engines, and the Tu-134, are more vulnerable to foreign objects than the Boeing 767 engines. Paradoxically, this is a personal experience. At the same time, dirt and debris thrown by the wheels of the chassis get into the Tupol engines. From there and the installation of mudguards on the front support of the Tu-134. Often, with damage to the flaps. But in Boeing, it sucks in engines from the ground. And this happens much less frequently. At the same time, the tolerance for the edges of the blades on the Boeing is very large. We also saw it on the flight. On the D-30, such an engine needs to be changed.
    The second: that the Boeing, that the Airbus have rather fragile chassis. Therefore, in the parking lot and when rolling, special fingers (pins) are inserted into the struts of the racks so that they do not fold. Therefore, landing outside the normal lane is practically excluded.
  • Dmitry V. April 15 2020 13: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Again, "a lot of beech" for an empty reason.

    As for basing on ice in the Arctic - there were such experiments for the Tu-16 and Tu-95, that's what V.V. Reshetnikov writes about this.
    The recent unsuccessful take-off of the Tu-16 aircraft from the ice platform of one of the SP stations (the North Pole), which dodged to the side on the take-off and folded its “bones” in ice ropes, loomed in memory. What if my slip too? Shouldn't, her “bast shoes” are large, in carts, leaning on the ground tightly. - Well, how? The commander asks me.

    “She doesn't bend under her feet.” I think it will not crack under the machine, although more than a hundred tons will gain weight in it during landing.

    - Well, what do you doubt? This ice is indestructible for any weight. But I see the clutch bothering you? Do not be afraid - she will not go anywhere.

    Yes, I felt, General Raynaud, while I was here, really wanted to experience this creation of it under the load of the heaviest warship. Yes, and I had to try how a four-engine engine would behave with reverse traction braking on an ice lane, because before that no one would sit on ice on such machines, and in combat conditions this experience may not be amiss. [419]

    There is nothing to think about. Visibility is excellent, a breeze in the strip. In the Arctic, having missed the weather that fell as a gift, you can instantly lose it for many days, or even weeks.

    I returned to the base airfield and first went to the island tundra in the Kara Sea (this was the main task for me), and after taking off from there, I headed straight for the ice.

    He sat down gently, touched the ice gently, felt what I was dealing with: he would jump one or two more on an unsuccessful landing - you couldn’t hold it, it would slip sideways ... One hope for a good chance. But she went easily and directly, while on the two main chassis. The front did not lower immediately and very slowly. Slightly touched the brakes and felt like she was pulling her shoulders, trying to rush to the side. He removed the internal screws from the stop. On the powerful braking of the reverse thrust, she sharply reduced the mileage, froze for a moment, but then calmed down. You can shoot and extreme. The car sat firmly on its feet and was completely obedient.
    Now there was a take-off. The breeze was weak and could not have a special effect on the take-off run or its stability, and if so, is it worth returning to the beginning of the strip, the steering wheel is useless, probably about three or four kilometers. I turned it around, pacified, on the return landing course, pulled the flaps to the take-off position and right on the take-off run - the brakes still didn’t hold - increasing the engines to full operation, took off and went to the base airfield. Then the regiment commander Leonid Ivanovich Agurin came to this ice, and other crews followed him. But this experience was not widely used.
    .
    That is, landing on ice is rather an exceptional measure, and landing and take-off is very dangerous and very dependent on the bumps and experience of the commander.
    Let me remind you - Reshetnikov V.V. - An experienced pilot.
    You should not compare the basing of transporters, in which the chassis and glider are designed taking into account work from unpaved airfields and "strategists".
  • Dmitry V. April 15 2020 13: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author, of course, is aware (I hope) that in the early 60s experiments were conducted to take off the strategists of Tu-16 and Tu-95 from the ground in terms of testing the dispersal of strategic aviation?

    But sometimes the very nuts put us in the situation. This happened with the first landing on the tundra airfield. Suddenly in the evening - an urgent task "from above", which immediately fell on the regiment commander Yuri Petrovich Pavlov: a long night flight in the north-east direction with a landing on the Arctic coast. The airfield in that village is tundra. There is no other. Our ships have not yet boarded such ships. How will it all end? Under the blows of clods of frozen snow and tundra, screws and, well, compressor blades can suffer. But there was also a take-off - a more dangerous matter: after take-off, you will not inspect the screws and blades. In general, everything worked out. This, however, did not mean that a successful landing, and then Pavlov’s take-off from the tundra airfield, gave us the right to make fundamental generalizations from this naked fact. By that time, there had been several spontaneous landings and on Tu-16 bombers. Interest in this was not idle. We weren’t rich in an airfield network for heavy vehicles, you couldn’t hide such ships in protective shelters, and dispersing shelves on hidden unpaved ground was perhaps the only way out of the danger, if not to say, saving you from possible major losses in the event of an enemy’s sudden strike on the base airfields.

    Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev frantically cursed and reprimanded Marshal V. A. Sudets, commander of the Long-Range Aviation, that, he said, he did not count on any kind of soil and tundra on your machine and completely relieved himself of all responsibility for the possible consequences of such soldierish barbarism, but Vladimir Alexandrovich was true to himself and convinced the general how only he could do that the machines were much stronger than the design calculations and that so far they did not show any symptoms of destructive loads, and each landing on the ground was subjected to special engineering control.

    So it was, in essence, but all this is nothing more than a dangerous initiative in unexplored areas of flight operation of aircraft. We really had no idea how the aircraft structure would behave in a prolonged shock on the steppe strip, on a snowy coast, if heavy soil particles would suck the screws, crushing their own compressor blades and blades, incapacitating both the screws and engines. All this was to be studied and verified in special flights.
    1. Dmitry V. April 15 2020 13: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Ibid:
      One summer day in an experimental car, I flew to the Volga airfield, where an entire research team arrived from Moscow - exploiters, durable, aerodynamics, even the Tupolev test pilot.

      Next to the concrete strip lay steppe rolled soil - the field of our experiment. Muscovites turned out to be prepared according to the rules of flight test art, already approved a rather cumbersome program: racing engines in two or three modes in place, taxiing, jogging at different speeds, first without lifting, and then lifting the front landing gear, stopping the take-off and something else, and only then - making a decision to take off. After each operation - turning off the engines, inspecting the aircraft, filling out the protocols. Do not cope in a day. [422]

      Using the elder’s right, I offered the test pilot the right seat, and he took command. As the take-off was not coming soon, we didn’t put on parachutes, we didn’t fasten our seat belts, and even the headsets stuck onto our heads somehow. Everything went according to the program, no dangerous discoveries have been discovered so far. When the turn came to jogging with the front wheel raised, no one realized that our light car should certainly present us with an unexpected surprise. As soon as there was speed to lift the front wheel, I tore it off the ground a little, as it was right there — rub! - and was in the air. The tester from the right seat immediately pulled the gas sectors back to stop taking off, but I already held them tightly in my hand and, overcoming the roar of the engines, yelled: “Do not touch, take off!” He squeezed the sector forward and began to gain height. They looked around in the air, got in touch with the ground, put themselves in order, climbed into the parachute straps, buckled up, fit into the circle of the airfield and sat on concrete. It’s good that they did not stop taking off after a break. Otherwise - a broken car. Again they taxied to the ground, turned off the engines. And when, leaving the cabin, I saw the bewildered faces of all those gathered, burst out laughing uncontrollably. They were still trying to understand the reason for the unexpected take-off, and, believing that this was just an unacceptable fort, did not see anything funny so far. Wow, no one, including, of course, I, the hat, came up with a simple thing - after all, the speed of lifting the front landing gear almost coincides with the speed of separation of the aircraft, and, therefore, takeoff was inevitable! [423]

      Now, well ... It remains to make a couple of ordinary flights from the ground and complete this work.

      The car behaved perfectly, but still the tremors on the uneven ground were very noticeable and, probably, painlessly transmitted to the entire structure. This was yet to be investigated in the Tupolev Design Bureau.

      Naturally, we were most interested in takeoff with full flight weight. Soil airfields were needed not only to evade the first danger, but also to go on a mission with full combat fueling. The work was to be completed.
      1. Dmitry V. April 15 2020 14: 07 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And if the author had read more, he would have found answers to elementary questions of basing on unpaved airfields with the commander of long-range aviation Vasily Vasilievich Reshetnikov (regiment commander, division commander, corps commander, deputy commander of the USSR Air Force - Colonel General, GSS - that is, the best expert on you can’t find the Air Force base), we read in the book of his memoirs “What was something happened”, he took off on the Tu-95 from the ground, while still being a divisor:
        The place for a new test was chosen split apart - away from airfields and housing. The steppe spread from horizon to horizon. Under the strong sun, the grass had already faded, and the ground was pretty petrified.

        Two aircraft, Tu-16 and Tu-95, were preparing for take-off at the gas station. It was noticeable that on my ninety-fifth the wings sagged, the racks settled, the pneumatics flattened. Flying weight reached 160 tons, and refuellers still drove and drove kerosene into bottomless tanks: she took much more fuel than the dry one itself.
        .
        The first commander of a neighboring division, Mikhail Andreyevich Arkatov, took off on the Tu-16. A large group of command personnel and industrialists reached the level of the proposed breakaway point, and the Tu-16 separated there. For some time, his take-off was discussed, traces of take-off were measured, weights were recounted.

        Then it was my turn. At full engine power, the car barely started and crawled to the start, it seemed exhausted. No better start the run. On the first hundred meters, the right pilot, unable to withstand the internal mental stress, chattered with an excited tongue twister:

        - Commander, she does not run away! She won't take off!

        Yes, the feeling was that, having gained a small speed, the car couldn’t add anything more, but I saw the shooter slowly, but not stopping and even slightly accelerating, continued her movement. So, the speed was growing! Fifty thousand “horses” roared with all their might not in vain, dragging a heavy mother with them. Here she was already a little laughing, cheered up and, more and more leaning on the lifting force of the wings, went, my dear, like on good concrete.

        The run-up cost all four kilometers, if not more, but it was important to know that a dry, rolled steppe square could become a reserve airfield for some difficult time. In fact, we set them up on the open ground a lot - with barracks, canteens, controls. They brought, of course, fuel and ammunition. So, just in case. [425]

        That take-off with full weight, I worked with a pleasant feeling and was pilot-pleased with it, but in command - the unpaved airfields we counted on in our operational plans always made me restless and dreary.
        Winters were rarely frosty, after spring the soil dried out until the middle of summer, and autumn flooded there. How much time were those airfields that took so much effort and money to operate? It turns out that two to three months of the year is effective if the summer is dry. However, war with the weather is not considered. Well, and if after landing on the ground and refueling to full weight, a summer thunderstorm splashes, what happened more than once in the exercises, where to go? The only way out is to catch up to sputum, and “get your feet off” as soon as possible, and after spending several hours in the air, gobble up, or even drain, a few tens of tons of “excess” fuel from each car until the weight of the aircraft settles to the authorized landing, go onto the concrete strip. Everything went off at the games. But in wartime, the consequences of such a maneuver are scary to imagine. We comforted ourselves and others with these unpaved airfields than we hoped for.
        It was not accepted to irritate the authorities with his revelation, and we felt that we understood the problem very well and preferred to remain in error, since there was no alternative to him. And she was. It was in a state, and not in a departmental, approach to the construction of concrete airdromes, because of which, from year to year, there were a great many of them, small and weak, like from an egg shell, among which there was not one capable of receiving a heavy aircraft.


        Dear author, before publishing speculation - it is advisable to get acquainted with the opinion of distinguished experts of the USSR Air Force.
        http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/reshetnikov_vv/04.html
        1. agond April 15 2020 20: 37 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          The vertical take-off task for an aircraft of fighter dimension is quite simple to solve, you just need to get away from the usual methods of solutions, that is, go a different way
          And so the very essence of a different decision
          1 airplane engine needs to be installed in a special engine container separated from the airplane horizontally from above in the region of the airplane’s center of gravity (you have to resort to tautology because I don’t know how to insert diagrams here)
          2 in the center of gravity of the aircraft, install a winch on the drum of which a strong fuel hose (supporting the weight of the aircraft) is wound, 100 m long with an engine control cable, connected at the other end to a detachable motor container
          3 for vertical take-off, first a container with an engine running at minimum thrust rises to a height of 100 m, after which the engine enters afterburner mode and raises the aircraft to a height of 1000 m; the winch is turned on and the motor container is attracted for its automatic docking with the aircraft
          4 for a vertical landing of the aircraft, all actions are performed in the reverse order.
          Thus, this method greatly simplifies and solves the insoluble problems of vertical take-off and landing, including the destruction of an airfield cover by a jet engine, this method allows you to take off and land from anywhere, even from bushes, from a ravine, from a swamp, from a mountain slope or from gorges.
          1. agond April 15 2020 21: 25 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            As an option, a durable fuel hose with heat insulation (the hose may burn in the jet stream of the engine) can be replaced with a thermally insulated cable, by the way optional
            it can be thermally insulated over its entire length, 10 m is enough, maybe it will be even simpler and easier, and place the fuel reserve necessary for take-off in a propulsion container, all the more so it does not increase the total weight
            1. agond April 16 2020 10: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Although I have been instructed to repeat the minuses, if the difficult task of creating a VTOL aircraft cannot be solved in one action with the proper result (for the whole aircraft), then you can try to solve it in two actions, that is, at first a part of the aircraft takes off, its propulsion system is on a leash, and hangs over by a plane at a height of 100m, and then it turns on the afterburner and lifts the second part, the plane itself, to a height of 1000m, where both parts of the plane are joined together. . Of course, this method is very unusual, but you need to understand why for half a century there has been no progress with VTOL, but there are two reasons
              1 despite the presence of an engine with traction force exceeding the weight of the aircraft, it is not possible to apply this force to the center of gravity of the aircraft in a simple way ... and you have to be wise ...
              2 nozzles of lifting engines are located too close to the surface on which the plane lands or takes off and there is nothing to be done about it.
              These two simultaneous causes are not eliminated in one action, which means you don’t have to try to drive nails into the wall with one blow, you can’t pour a liter in one gulp, and you calmly drink it in your throats. In practice, everything could look quite simple, on the ground there is a part of an aircraft weighing 20 tons, 100 meters from it on the ground there is another part of it - a propulsion system weighing 5 tons from two AL-41F1S engines with a total thrust of 28 tons, and with a fuel reserve of 30 sec afterburner mode, in the nacelle between the engines there is a winch with a drum 1m in diameter and 30 cm wide, on which the very 100m of cable will be wound (which connects both parts of the aircraft), the winch drive from the electric motor, the winch effort minimally necessary to attract the propulsion system to after reaching a height of 1000m, naturally at this moment their thrust should be minimal
              1. timokhin-aa April 16 2020 12: 51 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                The question here is exactly one - why do I need VTOL?
                1. Cyril G ... April 17 2020 15: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Briefly.
                  VTOL is worth doing because after all, progress does not stand still, and it is worth striving for a no-aerodrome launch. But without bigotry yet ...
                  Now specifically
                  - F-35. Model B is inferior to models A and C in terms of combat radius, but not much less than the maximum combat load, which no one usually has and technical reliability. Which is no longer critical.
                  - Now about us. deck IS, this will be enough for us, despite the fact that it’s easier to prepare such a pilot than a horizontal deck pilot.
                  - To have such fighter squadrons at border airbases, it may turn out to be quite advisable, which gives us two options for reconciliation in the Air Force and Navy.
                  - Third, on the basis of the new MFI-KViVP airframe (multi-functional fighter of short take-off and vertical landing), it is possible to completely build an export simplified version without vertical stray.
                  1. Diverter April 19 2020 12: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    why strive for vertical take-off? What does he give a new principle?
                    1. Cyril G ... April 19 2020 12: 45 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      See above. If there is an objection, let's point by point.
                      And I primarily talked about - "a multi-functional fighter of short take-off and vertical landing"
                      1. Diverter April 22 2020 20: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        you did not understand. why is this needed? What is fundamental in vertical take-off?
                      2. Cyril G ... April 22 2020 21: 22 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You then definitely did not understand the meaning. What for continue?
                      3. Diverter April 24 2020 10: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yes, I understand your meaning, you won’t understand mine! Vertical take-off is technically more difficult and more expensive to operate. Why is this necessary if any piece of the road is an airfield? And if there is no road, the dirt platform is cleared by the nearest bulldozer and covered with iron shields, invented and standing in service since the 70s of the last century. If the shields were not brought, then without them in extreme cases it is possible. We have a helicopter to satisfy the vertical emotions.
                      4. Cyril G ... April 24 2020 12: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        So you all mixed up again.
                        - not a vertical take-off but a short one
                        - not any piece of the road, but only specially prepared and designed to be used as a reserve strip with branches for parking lots, etc., etc.
                        - any dirt platform is not cleared, but it is necessary either to select specially a strip where the soil will hold a high specific load created by a tucked board with suspended ASP.
                        - otherwise, a full cycle of earthwork is performed, with laying, tamping, etc. and the like, and its density should be such that it takes 50 years, and the real band with which the MiG-17 flew is still in quite good condition. Well, except for the end blurred by a stream
  • timokhin-aa April 16 2020 12: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article says that strategists will remain tied to concrete.

    However, after the proposal to dig pools for ekranoplanes on the ground, I am not surprised at anything.
    1. Dmitry V. April 16 2020 13: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      I'm not surprised at anything.


      Read - knowledge is power.
      1. agond April 16 2020 17: 25 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The question here is exactly one - why do I need VTOL?

        VTOL is needed for aerodrome-free basing of some of the aircraft.
  • Diverter April 16 2020 21: 59 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Total:
    1. floating boats to have! use in the rescue service in the fleets.
    2. only have civilians on floats.
    3. vertical lines of all sorts of scrap and do not spend resources on their development.
    4. ekranoplans have subordinate to the fleet as ships. they are fast, they are hard to notice, they are not afraid of mines and everything else.
    5. hovercraft to be subordinate to the Marine Corps.
    1. Cyril G ... April 18 2020 12: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      What side is ekranoplan hard to notice? Just in case, I’ll explain the ekranoplan is not a very fast ship, but a very crappy low-flying aircraft.
      1. Diverter April 19 2020 12: 00 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        What is an ekranoplan, I know. low flying aircraft - this is an advantage, because against the background of the underlying surface, not every radar will detect it, plus high speed and carrying capacity. therefore, it’s rather not a plane flying badly, but a hovercraft taking off.
        1. Cyril G ... April 19 2020 12: 42 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Normally they will see his radar. And from aircraft AWACS and modern radar fighter aircraft. What you are talking about was relevant until the mid-70s. So this is precisely a blatantly flying low-altitude aircraft, which is also very dependent on the weather and completely defenseless against enemy fighters.
  • abc_alex April 18 2020 23: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the case of ekranoplans, we have the most severe restrictions: they are affected by the same limiting factors that affect flying boats. But there are reservations.

    Not really. The winged wing is much shorter and wider. The mechanization of the wing is more powerful. And the wing structure is not aircraft, MUCH more powerful. The ekranoplan still lays a wing on the water at a decent speed.





    ... there is information that the open data on the masses and loads of KM are incorrect, since supposedly its body was mainly made of steel to provide the necessary strength and due to the fact that Alekseev’s design bureau was not able to obtain aluminum.


    Not aluminum, but aluminum-magnesium alloy, specially developed for a high-speed machine based in salt water.

    KM could hardly lift more than 100-120 tons of payload, which is 544 tons for the device and huge fuel consumption, to put it mildly, a little.

    544 tons is the ultimate TOTAL (take-off) mass of KM, lifted into the air. That is the mass of the car, fuel and cargo. The dry weight of KM is 240 tons. Steel there or not steel - 240 tons. This means that the maximum mass of cargo and fuel is 304 tons.

    On the other hand, in the construction of future ekranoplanes, it is technically possible to ensure, by pressurization of the air under the hull, its separation from the surface and exit to the screen at low speed and acceleration already on the screen. This makes the ekranoplan even more ineffective in terms of fuel consumption, but since the support of ekranoplanes is popularly religious in nature, economic issues in these circles do not bother anyone, but the adherents of ekranoplanostroenie use this feature of takeoff ekranoplan as a proof of its universality.


    It is not a religious matter. The fact is that over and over again, people who have thoroughly studied the available information on Alekseevsky machines are forced to carry out educational program. And again, repeat the principle of flight on the screen, the mass of cars, engine operating modes. And again and again, a new article begins by flipping through the many times voiced facts. For example, we again have to say that the fuel efficiency of ekranoplanes is not proportional to the number of engines on the “chandelier”, since all 8 engines are used only for takeoff, and on the march they either do not work at all, or work in low speed mode, for speed maneuver.
    In addition, I remind you that all the record-breaking short take-offs of combat aircraft from the ground are carried out on afterburner. For example, the MiG-29 then takes off almost from 250 meters. But this also dramatically increases fuel consumption at startup.

    Further, your thesis that blowing under the wing especially reduces fuel efficiency shows that you have not fully figured out how it works. Blowing creates excess pressure under the wing. Therefore, the blowing system does not need to have a thrust comparable to the weight of a car, like an airplane with an explosive. 140 tons of "Orlyonka" cost blowing two NK-8-4K with a total thrust of 21 tons. By the way, with regard to ice on the surface of the water: the air temperature at the exhaust of this motor is 1250K, which is much, much higher than the temperature of the melting ice ... :)
    But on the march, fuel consumption during take-off was more than compensated for by Orlyonok flying on one engine. 140 tons. On one motor. Traction 10 tons. Can an airplane weighing 140 tons fly on one NK-12? Just in case, let me remind you: the Tu-114 with a take-off mass of 164 tons used 4 (four) of these engines.
  • abc_alex April 18 2020 23: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The essence of the thesis is this: ice is a problem for a seaplane, but no for an ekranoplan, it will first fly up with ice, and then it will gain speed. Actually, of course, this is not so.

    What exactly is "this" wrong? The ability to blow "raise" the Eaglet above the surface without any serious horizontal speed? This is controversial and not confirmed. It seems to me real, to someone not. BUT. For some reason, you immediately go to ... hummocks!

    Any person who imagines what a cold sea is, remembers the ice hummock already mentioned above.
    And any person who imagines what construction is, remembers what the foundation block looks like. Why not consider the situation of the sudden appearance of a concrete wall of such blocks on GDP? I think the likelihood of such an event is no less than the take-off of an ekranolet or ekranoplan without a proven distance, through a hummock. Why are you making up fantastic situations on the verge of idiocy? Why not consider trying to take off an airplane across a field dug by trenches two meters wide?

    In the case of a heel in open water, an ekranoplan can easily catch a winged ice cap, which in cold latitudes is full of open water, moreover, they often hardly rise above it and are not visible from afar.


    The flight height of the Eaglet is up to 10 meters, okay, let it be 5 meters. Are you serious about the “from afar not visible” about the 5-meter-high ice floes? Why do you always put an ekranoplan in a situation - everything around? Of course, no one will take off without first exploring the distance. No one will fly either on hummocks or on ice. And by the way, it’s easier to do than for airplanes. The sea around - take off on any azimuth.

    huge and heavy. For example, the "Eaglet", which could lift the same load as the Mi-26, had a maximum take-off mass more than double that of the Mi-26.

    So what? And the tank is heavier than the BMP. And then?
    By the way, the Eaglet is not huge. In length, like the Tu-114, but has a 20-meter smaller wingspan and comparable height. The length was determined by the need to take 2 armored personnel carriers to the cabin or to comfortably place 200 marines. And this is comparable (225) with the maximum capacity of the IL-76. Which, albeit shorter, but not as an example of "wider range" - 50 meters wingspan, against 30 Orlenkovsky. And by the way, it has a total engine thrust of 48 tons. Is Orlyonok on the march? Remind me? 10 tons. And on take-off? 31 tons. So what's up with the economy? :)
  • abc_alex April 18 2020 23: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The essence of the thesis is this: ice is a problem for a seaplane, but no for an ekranoplan, it will first fly up with ice, and then it will gain speed. Actually, of course, this is not so.

    What exactly is "this" wrong? The ability to blow "raise" the Eaglet above the surface without any serious horizontal speed? This is controversial and not confirmed. It seems to me real, to someone not. BUT. For some reason, you immediately go to ... hummocks!

    Any person who imagines what a cold sea is, remembers the ice hummock already mentioned above.
    And any person who imagines what construction is, remembers what the foundation block looks like. Why not consider the situation of the sudden appearance of a concrete wall of such blocks on GDP? I think the likelihood of such an event is no less than the take-off of an ekranolet or ekranoplan without a proven distance, through a hummock. Why are you making up fantastic situations on the verge of idiocy? Why not consider trying to take off an airplane across a field dug by trenches two meters wide?

    In the case of a heel in open water, an ekranoplan can easily catch a winged ice cap, which in cold latitudes is full of open water, moreover, they often hardly rise above it and are not visible from afar.


    The flight height of the Eaglet is up to 10 meters, okay, let it be 5 meters. Are you serious about the “from afar not visible” about the 5-meter-high ice floes? Why do you always put an ekranoplan in a situation - everything around (censorship)? Of course, no one will take off without first exploring the distance. No one will fly either on hummocks or on ice. And by the way, it’s easier to do than for airplanes. The sea around - take off on any azimuth.

    huge and heavy. For example, the "Eaglet", which could lift the same load as the Mi-26, had a maximum take-off mass more than double that of the Mi-26.

    So what? And the tank is heavier than the BMP. And then?
    By the way, the Eaglet is not huge. In length, like the Tu-114, but has a 20-meter smaller wingspan and comparable height. The length was determined by the need to take 2 armored personnel carriers to the cabin or to comfortably place 200 marines. And this is comparable (225) with the maximum capacity of the IL-76. Which, albeit shorter, but not as an example of "wider range" - 50 meters wingspan, against 30 Orlenkovsky. And by the way, it has a total engine thrust of 48 tons. Is Orlyonok on the march? Remind me? 10 tons. And on take-off? 31 tons. So what's up with the economy? :)

    One of the solutions that can somehow improve the weight return of the ekranoplan is to abandon the chassis that the Eaglet had.


    ??? What for? The weight return of the Eaglet is already beyond. With an insignificant thrust-weight ratio, he carries a load of 20 tons. Well, think for yourself: IL-76 has 48 tons of cargo with an engine pull of 48 tons, while Orlyonok has 20 tons of cargo with an engine thrust of 10 tons. Few? Then the first in line to tear off the chassis, just the 76th. :)

    But what to do with an ekranoplane of 400 tons without a chassis? The answer, alas, is one: you need a floating dock.


    :) :) :)
    A plane without landing gear and floats will not help :)
    Yes, you’re right, the winged wing was based in a floating dock. Where was KM based? :)
    It was precisely understanding the limitations on the basis of an ekranoplan, that Alekseev made the Eaglet a screen-fly with a ceiling of up to 3000 meters and equipped his chassis. And you first brought the situation to absurdity with frankly far-fetched assumptions, and now you came to the conclusion that all this is stupid. I agree with you. Stupidity is utter. Do not break the chassis Eaglet. On the contrary, replace the shipping chassis with a full one. Give a more developed wing, allowing you to tear yourself away from the screen and switch to airplane mode, or carry out a controlled "jump" with a margin from the screen. Equip a radar and a modern computing complex, a system of enveloping the surface. And get a normal ekranolet.
    Why should he "tear off his legs"? :)

    another basing restriction is added: you need flooding, without it the basing ability will only be temporary.

    Which is entirely invented by you on the basis of absolutely fabulous assumptions. The eaglet was beautifully based on the concrete strip of the airfield, to exit it just needs a gentle slope to the water, which is no more difficult to create than rolling off an unpaved runway.


    The fact that they cannot fly normally above the ground, at least in the same way as seaplanes, is already unnecessary to speak.

    Of course, since the pilots of Orlyonok, flying on it above the ground in an airplane, at an altitude of about 1000 meters, are still alive and well. :) Or at least those who saw these flights with their own eyes. And to challenge this with fictitious theses and fabulous situations will be problematic.
    Yes, and another question. Why are you pushing the ekranoplanes so hard to the north? Do we have other water areas? For example, in the Far East there will be no problems with hummocks. Like the Black Sea.

    Thus, the most severe restrictions are imposed on the basis of ekranoplanes by nature itself in Russia, such as make them practically inapplicable.

    Not by nature, but by you. Well, you must agree that starting with the assumption that everywhere in Russia the waters are filled with ice and hummocks is somehow bold. :) Russia has 11 ice-free ports. By the way, one of them is northern - Murmansk. And besides, theoretically, ekranolet does not require a water surface. He will take off from land.



    PS. I read your conversation with uv. Vladimir_2U. And I did not find any additional arguments on your part. For example, how do you not see the combat use of high-speed heavy missile platforms? It is obvious. The ability to attack the enemy from different azimuths is the dream of any fleet commander. And airplanes cannot escort KUG without an aircraft carrier. The carrier itself requires protection, and carrier-based aircraft are not capable of carrying heavy anti-ship missiles.
    Or are you talking about ease defeat ekranoplan. But the question is: how do you find it? Just come on without new fairy tales, day and night flying Avaxa and Hokai. For horned radars, it is hidden by the horizon, for aircraft it’s inconvenient because of the underlying sea surface. Yes, perhaps the plane will be able to attack the ekranoplane and perhaps even hit it (although why is it not said about electronic warfare systems? And who forbids placing self-defense equipment on such a large machine?) But the power pack of the machine is not aircraft. Gouging an ekranoplan with a V-V rocket is unlikely to succeed.

    Well, Cuba is our everything. There are definitely no hummocks.

    And more. Mi-26 can not take on board more than 82 people. Not always the size of the landing is determined by the carrying capacity. Sometimes the size is not enough. And the power of the engines he has 22 tons.
    1. agond April 22 2020 16: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: abc_alex

      And more. Mi-26
      1. agond April 22 2020 21: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The ekranoplanes were sorted out by helicopters, for example, a record B-12, a 1958 Mil helicopter with a cross circuit, and in the beginning the designers wanted to do it with a classic circuit, but there were difficulties creating a gearbox for one screw driven by four engines, it should be possible to build now and the gearbox and propulsion system at a high power and increase the take-off weight of the helicopter from 97 tons to 150 tons, which will allow us to return to the old idea of ​​carrying a helicopter launcher with a rocket or missiles, a kind of missile system with a start from the ground.
    2. Cyril G ... April 24 2020 13: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Oh, wei started. If you are dealing with AUGs, then yes, a day flying AWACS + Coastal AWACS will join in the fun. Further, the fighter radar will detect the target without problems against the background of the water, and you will deal with the AUG on which the F-35, a ship’s missile launcher will fly into you from 100-150 kilometers.
      1. agond April 24 2020 16: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        If you are dealing with AUG,

        And let's imagine, there is a B-12 carrying helicopter, but made according to the classical scheme, with a propeller of two blades and besides they are folding (on the propeller hub you can turn and pull together to reduce the size) on the helicopter there are several anti-ship missiles and air defense missiles, which it can be launched both in the air and from the ground, This helicopter roams along the coast of Kamchatka and over the Kuril Islands, but basically it hides on the ground wherever possible (and there it has caches with fuel) The question is how quickly AUG detects it, n they found it from the satellite, and he flew off to another parking lot and again all over again, and if it was made using the stele technology (not for flight, but for parking on the ground), and if the parking lots were specially equipped with simple shelters, they planted trees with bites where then they opened a cave, somewhere they set false targets, or simply cleared the area in the lower part.
        1. abc_alex April 25 2020 20: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: agond
          there is a helicopter carrying capacity V-12

          Speed. To reach a speed of 400-500 km \ h by helicopter is VERY problematic. If at all possible. And again, equipping a classic car with heavy long-range anti-ship missiles is very problematic. See: Tu-22M3 with a thrust of 29 (50) tons can drag X-1500 missiles for 1600-2 km. I don’t know exactly how many engines Lun worked on the march, there are different data, minimum 22, but what’s for sure is that he dragged three times more missiles - 2 Mosquitoes. At a comparable range. His engines were from a passenger plane for the same 6 tons.
          Even the Eaglet, which is much smaller, in a hypothetical missile-carrying version on 1 engine would carry at least three missiles without overload. And the Tu-22M is only in overload.

          Quote: agond
          The question is how quickly AUG will detect it

          The question is how quickly HE detects the AUG. Since if he is given the command from the side, then the entire air defense / missile defense system will not be up to him. There will be a problem with defense against a missile salvo. Such a system does not loom in along the coast. She advances into the launch zone, shoots rockets and leaves. She has nothing to loom along the coast.
      2. Newone April 25 2020 01: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The radius of detection by AWACS of the ekranolet at 10 m is approximately 430 km. More curvature of the earth. The AWACS detection radius of the aircraft at 10000m 825km.
        This limitation pushes the AWACS line of duty from 400 km from the aircraft carrier to 800 km, which in turn makes the AWACS themselves easy prey for fighter aircraft. Assistance from aircraft carriers will not be in time for them, just as air defense systems of ships will not get warrants, and escort is not only difficult to organize (with multiple refueling in the air only), it is also small in number.
      3. abc_alex April 25 2020 19: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        If you are dealing with AUGs, then the same day flying AWACS + Coastal AWACS will join in the fun.


        Yes Yes Yes. You forgot about the "sea littered with buoys" for hundreds of kilometers around. :) :) :)
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        Further, fighter radar and without any problems will detect the target in the background of water


        At least one documented example of such a “no problem detect” in the studio!

        Quote: Cyril G ...
        you will fly ship missiles from 100-150 kilometers.


        :) And SAMs are already adapted for target detection against the underlying surface? Can you give at least one example of the use of missiles with GOS for speed targets on earth? I recall: missiles select targets against an empty sky. A guided missile does not fly 100-150 km. Radio horizon.

        In a word, do not need these tales, huh?
        1. Cyril G ... April 25 2020 21: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          p.1 What does the “buoy" have to say, there is a great secret. In what connection with the above said This is, then I do not know.
          item 2. I don’t owe you anything. However, read something in more detail on the latest version AN / APG-81/79/63 imported, or at least on the Barca N-011M, well-lit in our press. When searching for and detecting a target at low altitudes, the range of obn. quite comparable to Dobn at high altitudes. So AN / APG-63v.3 (This is Eagle with AFAR) discovers a 4th generation fighter from 200-220 kilometers, KR at low altitudes from 100-110 km. Ext. less solely due to the significantly lower ESR of the CR. And they learned to carry out the selection of targets on the background of water perfectly. If you are interested to read here - http://www.ausairpower.net
          item 3. The fact that you know the word radio horizon pleases. The fact that you do not know that the US Navy already had a place to be used for practical firing of SM-6 SAMs (whether since 2012, roofing felts from 2014, I don’t remember exactly) at low-flying targets for the radio horizon according to the avionics of the F-35 fighter using Link 16 on a distance of over 150 km is not at all pleasing.
          item 4. Capture of the Goal against the background of an empty sky - this is about the 60s - the beginning of the 70s, now 2020. SAM-6 missiles, if it is brought by the radio correction teams at a distance of 15-20 km from a low-flying target, and the target is in the ARGSN capture cone, it has a good probability of defeat. Something like this.

          So really no tales
          1. abc_alex April 29 2020 15: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            What does the "buoy" seem to have a great secret. In what connection with the above said This is, then I do not know.

            Well, if you think that they are original, I will disappoint you. No matter how many times the topic of counteraction to the USAG always arises, such as you describe the same scenario. Avavks and Hokai fly around the sky around the clock and the sea is littered with hundreds of sonar buoys for many kilometers around. And neither from the air nor from the sea. Usually, it is proposed to display ONE ekranoplan, ONE submarine, or ONE cruiser on this variety. Head-on. Under the motto Dementia and Courage.
            And none of you have ever been able to properly explain why such a low-minded operation is planned against a group of 10 warships and three dozen aircraft.

            Quote: Cyril G ...
            or at least for the Barca N-011M, well-lit in our press

            I read: the target detection range of the destroyer type is 80-120 kilometers. Now answer, WHY for a carrier with a launch range of 300 km to approach such a range to the order? And why should this carrier go without appropriate air cover? And you really don’t see the difference between the destroyer and the ekranolyot? And you seriously do not see the difference in finding a target reaching a speed of 500 km / h and 50 km / h?

            Quote: Cyril G ...
            AN / APG- 63v.3 (This is Eagle with AFAR) discovers a 4th generation fighter from 200-220 kilometers, KR at low altitudes from 100-110 km.

            Congratulations to the developers and you personally. You have something to be proud of. Apparently.
            Now remember that the plane is detected against the background of an EMPTY SKY! Neither to his right, nor to his left, nor behind him is nothing. For kilometers. And the sea is a disgusting surface for radiolocation, on the surface of which there are wave crests of almost ANY periodicity. Analogy. In an empty room, you can hear a whisper at a great distance. Try to hear a whisper at the same distance in the crowd.

            Quote: Cyril G ...
            If you are interested to read here - http://www.ausairpower.net

            I appreciated your joke. Australian site with the latest update in 2014 in English, link to start page. Such arguments, let me consider the topic drain.
            Even without you, I know that target selection against the background of the sea is possible. BUT! For this we need a special radar system. Aircraft radars are not like that.
            And certainly not such radar GSN missiles.

            Quote: Cyril G ...
            SAM-6 missiles, if it is brought by the radio correction teams at a distance of 15-20 km from a low-flying target, and the target is in the ARGSN capture cone, it has a good probability of defeat.

            And how will you lead her for the radio horizon? Do you understand the absurdity of all your assumptions? They write to you in Russian: the ekranolet is suitable for the launch distance hidden by the horizon! You can’t bring SM-6 to it beyond the horizon.
            What I wrote to you already.
            A guided missile does not fly 100-150 km. Radio horizon.


            All your assumptions are fantastic, and the calculations based on them are absurd. If we are talking about a war at sea against the AUG, NO AWACS and Hokai will fly. The question of the destruction of these aircraft will be addressed primarily by all means, starting with the links of long-range fighter-interceptors, ending with strikes by the Strategic Missile Forces at basing points. The location of shock platforms will be complicated by all possible means, for example, electronic warfare systems. In short, do not consider the military stupider than you.
            1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 16: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              All your assumptions are fantastic, and the calculations based on them are absurd.


              That you are right about yourself - a continuous theater of the absurd.

              And how will you lead her for the radio horizon? Do you understand the absurdity of all your assumptions?


              I will not repeat myself. Keywords - F-35, SM-6, defeat of the NLZ missile systems behind the ship's horizon. Learn essentially.

              You can’t bring SM-6 to it beyond the horizon.


              This is already a reality unfortunately. but you continue to continue not to see the obvious
              For this we need a special radar system. Aircraft radars are not like that.


              Already the third generation of fighter radar detected targets on earth background (Sapphire-23 and others), the Fourth significantly increased these capabilities; they include pulse-Doppler radars with the regime of quasi-continuous radiation (SOI). This mode, using a high repetition rate of probe pulses (each packet of pulses consisting of packets of different frequencies) Detects moving targets against the background of the earth much better. But this significantly increases the load on the computing subsystem of the radar, the first radar with a fully digital architecture was the APG-63 fighter F-15.

              link to the start page. Such arguments, let me consider the topic drain.


              No, I just offered you an educational program for understanding the issue. You obviously do not want to understand that?

              WHY why does a RCC carrier with a launch range of 300 km approach such a range to an order? And why should this carrier go without appropriate air cover? And you really don’t see the difference between the destroyer and the ekranolyot? And you seriously do not see the difference in finding a target reaching a speed of 500 km / h and 50 km / h?


              He thought for me and then laughed? It's funny Are you actually going to shoot nowhere?

              And neither from the air nor from the sea. Usually, it is proposed to display ONE ekranoplan, ONE submarine, or ONE cruiser on this variety. Head-on. Under the motto Dementia and Courage.
              And none of you have ever been able to properly explain why such a low-minded operation is planned against a group of 10 warships and three dozen aircraft.


              Quote me please where I offer such nonsense ?!
              1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 16: 18 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And more about the goals against the sea. The tomket shot down the Phoenix target at an altitude of 15 meters, transonic at a distance of more than 100 km, back in the late 70's. This is just after the rumors of Russian ekranoplans. Checked and calmed down.
              2. Newone 1 May 2020 19: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                This is already a reality unfortunately. but you continue to continue not to see the obvious

                This is not real yet. You mean these tests here https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video-successful-f-35-sm-6-live-fire-test-points-expansion-networked-naval-warfare ? So there was quite a radio visibility from the F-35.
                Knowing the horizon can theoretically provide over-the-horizon radars, but I have not met information about such tests.
                Returning to the ekranoplanes: the ekranoplan not only provides a drastic reduction in its detection radius due to the height of an economical flight, but (due to a lower flight speed) has reduced aerodynamics requirements, i.e. It’s easier to implement measures for radar stealth on an ekranoplane.

                Quote me please where I offer such nonsense ?!

                Please:
                Are you actually going to shoot nowhere?

                So then they will shoot from the ekranoplan according to external target designation.
  • Cyril G ... 15 May 2020 15: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Newone
    So there was quite a radio visibility from the F-35.


    This is a completely new level of organization of air defense AUG. F-35 sees the target at a very low altitude at a great distance from the order, Escort does not see the target. But it can already be fired at, thanks to the radio correction commands transmitted from the F-35. This is already a reality ..