America's "Flying Sea Monster" or We've Already Seen It Somewhere

137
America's "Flying Sea Monster" or We've Already Seen It Somewhere

We are here with our overseas friend Kyle Mizokami (I hope everyone knows who Kyle's friend from "Interest" is) quietly poking around in stories and giggle a little nervously. The theme, of course, is shocking, but it hits the psyche very decently. Such a massive deja vu, like "we've already met" and stuff like that.

Okay, let's not intrigue, let's move on to the topic.



And our topic is - you will download! The topic was thrown up by dashing guys from DARPA. DARPA is not something for you, this is not a brigade of budget cutters, this is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - the Office of Advanced Research Projects of the US Department of Defense. A place where they try to make a fairy tale come true and not default their native country with the help of cost overruns at the same time.

DARPA is more than 200 people in six departments who are given three and a half billion dollars a year. Such money will inspire anyone to create something epoch-making. For example, the revival of airships of the Graf Zepellin type and even large ones.

Although sometimes projects born in the minds of DARPA employees happen to “shoot out”. The LS3 mule robot, capable of carrying up to 180 kg of cargo for infantrymen and already created in metal by Boston Dynamics, is currently being tested.


But usually DARPA projects are quietly removed into the archive, and the developers are raked over for an indefatigable flight of fancy.

It looks like it happened this time as well. But even in the US, there are people who are well aware that all "breakthroughs" into the future of DARPA are nothing more than a well-performed immersion in the past. Yes, as in the case of airships. Good example.

So the ladies and gentlemen of DARPA decided to build an airplane.

The unofficial working title was "Flying Sea Monster". Yes, such a pitch towards the "Caspian Monster", the Soviet ekranoplan "Lun", created long ago and in a long-defunct country.


And what? Why not? And by the way, there are only seven notes.

So, an ekranoplan, or an aircraft that will use the principle laid down by Soviet engineers. Yes, you can talk as much as you like about all sorts of Finnish engineers and their developments, I won’t argue, if you please.

An ekranoplan or dynamic hovercraft is a vehicle for moving above the surface, supported in the atmosphere due to interaction with air reflected from the surface of the earth or water. The use of the so-called "ground effect".

And here, excuse me, there are only three gods.


Boris Yuriev (son-in-law and student of the great Nikolai Zhukovsky)


Rostislav Alekseev


Robert Bartini

Three Soviet engineers, the rest, excuse me, are secondary. And therefore, everything that will be invented, to one degree or another, will become a repetition of what our designers did.

This applies to both foreign followers and Russian ones. The works of Sinitsyn, Alyamovsky, Lukyanenko, Polyakov represent new milestones in the development of WIG technology.

But back to the USA, where specialists from DARPA decided to surprise the whole world with an ekranoplane.

According to the developers, the plane, which has already received the official name "Liberty Lifter", will be able to glide over the surface of the ocean for long distances. The main task is to deliver heavy transport cargo to outlying islands and naval bases.

So, the “Freedom Lift” will be able to carry large and heavy loads, moreover, taking off and landing on the surface of the water. DARPA is confident that they will be able to provide the device with a controlled flight both at low altitudes above the waves and at medium altitudes, like a conventional aircraft flies.


The agency notes that traditional maritime transport using cargo ships is very efficient, but slow and dependent on the use of ports. The airlift is carried out quickly, but depends on airfields, which in wartime (as practice shows) are attacked in the first place.

The Liberty Lifter will use ground effect (WIG) to produce an aircraft-ship that can carry cargo comparable to ship cargo, fly much faster than a ship, and still be able to take off and land from the water. WIG refers to the phenomenon in which lift increases as the aircraft approaches a solid surface (land, water, ice) while drag decreases. A huge aircraft, flying in the WIG zone, will consume fuel approximately like a conventional aircraft.

It is clear that the Americans are developing their "Lift", looking very closely at the "Caspian Monster". In general, the abbreviation KM was deciphered as a “dummy ship”, but KM as a “Caspian monster” is so romantic ...

And in the end, DARPA went the way of Soviet engineers: the body of the aircraft in the shape of a boat, so that you can take off from the water and land on the water. In general, ekranoplans have something from ordinary aircraft, but they cannot fly so high.

But, the payload. The same KM once took to the air with a takeoff weight of 544 tons. This was a record for any existing aircraft. Only the An-225 Mriya aircraft, which appeared later, was able to break this record. True, Mriya is already all, but nevertheless, ekranoplans are capable of lifting significantly more weight than airplanes.

Okay, KM is actually a concept. But the Lun was also quite capable of carrying personnel and military equipment with a total weight of up to 100 tons. And this despite the fact that on board there were also weapons from 6 anti-ship missiles P-270 "Moskit" and two four-barrel gun mounts UKU-9K-502-II with a caliber of 23 mm.


And all this "Lun" could carry for 2 kilometers at a speed of 000 km / h.

Of course, ekranoplanes have problems that were originally built into the design. The flight of an ekranoplan over the surface of the sea can only take place in relatively calm weather. In heavy seas, a separate wave can simply knock out an air cushion from under the wing of the apparatus.

The second problem is that the ekranoplan shows all its flight qualities when sliding over a solid surface at a relatively (by aircraft standards) low altitude. Therefore, it is very difficult to maneuver ekranoplans, because a turn is a roll, and a roll causes a loss of forces acting on the wing, which must be raised. Therefore, the ekranoplan must do any maneuvers very slowly and carefully.

In general, the flight of an ekranoplan is a very difficult task. If you look without any semi-fantastic concepts, then only the Soviet Union was able to master the construction and operation of ekranoplanes. In Russia, too, work is underway on new projects, moreover, they are progressing, although not quickly, but successfully.


The US rushed to catch up. In 2002, Boeing announced that it was developing a new Pelican WIG concept aircraft that could carry 1 tons of cargo up to 400 km above water.

It was stated that the Pelican would have a length of 152 m and a wingspan of 106 m. Movement is carried out at a height of 6 m above the ocean surface with the possibility of approaching up to an altitude of 6000 m. The Pelican was supposed to take on board about 17 tanks M1 Abrams. The last mention of the "Pelican" dates back to 2003 and no further information about the continuation of work on the project was published.

What Boeing could not implement, they decided that they could at DARPA.

The center's specialists believe that more durable modern materials and some "innovative design solutions" will play on their side. That is, the "Freedom Lift" will not be so afraid of unrest, like the devices of the past, for example.

In general, the Liberty Lifter is a commando's dream. DARPA openly says that the best arena for the use of devices could be the South China Sea with its cloud of islands militarized by China.


Of course, several of these ekranoplans will be able to transfer equipment and fighters anywhere in the shortest possible time. And yes, the rules of military logistics can be changed very, very dramatically.

But we will be happy to talk about how effectively it is possible to operate such means of delivery as a transport ekranoplan in modern conditions when the machine makes its first flight. Before this significant moment, it would be premature and pointless to draw conclusions and speculate. Boeing is a Corporation with a capital letter, but even the specialists of this company were unable to repeat the work of Soviet engineers.

Moreover, it is worth recalling that, God forbid, if one of the 50 projects that DARPA worked on became a reality.

So whether we will be able to see American ekranoplanes landing on the Paracel Islands or the Spratly Islands is a matter of a long time and a lot of dollars.

Meanwhile, in Russia there are real cars of this class. S-90, "Ivolga", "Seagull", "Aquaglide" - they do not exist on paper. So the Americans have somewhere to go and something to strive for. The main thing is to move from beautiful animation to an equally beautiful metal product. And this is not for everyone.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

137 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    4 June 2022 04: 58
    Soviet engineers and designers are an outstanding galaxy! They don't make these now!
    1. +9
      4 June 2022 05: 51
      The Americans have been trying to repeat KM for many years. All that turned out was small ekranoplanes of private aviation. By definition, it cannot fly like an airplane, more precisely, it can, but the fuel consumption becomes much higher than if it were a conventional aircraft, or it is necessary to make a variable wing. For while it flies over the surface of the water it is difficult to see and intercept it. It was developed as a destroyer of aircraft carriers and other ships. Was not able to go to sea with a fairly average sea waves. And by the way, the Americans themselves called him the Caspian Monster. And so their message is clear, whose else is the fleet in the South China Sea ...
      1. +4
        4 June 2022 06: 24
        It was not for nothing that one of the greats said: "everything new is a well-forgotten old"! And stealing someone else's idea and presenting it as your own, original, is not a problem for the striped ones ...
        1. +9
          4 June 2022 12: 25
          Quote: aleks neym_2
          And steal someone else's idea and present it as your own

          Yes, no one trans. the Americans officially asked for permission to work with Alekseev's bureau, the Ministry of Defense allowed it, they came, talked with specialists, took pictures, maybe they also transmitted some materials ...
          1. +2
            4 June 2022 18: 40
            Andrey from Chelyabinsk (Andrey), , today, 12:25, NEW -
            "... Yes, no one translated it. The Americans officially asked for permission to work with Alekseev's bureau, the Ministry of Defense allowed it, they came, talked with specialists, photographed, maybe they transmitted some materials ..."

            How are you RIGHT bully What did not "leave" during the period of "new thinking" (Gorby), feel that, in fact, for free with documentation and prototypes "bazvozdmezno" (for a small fraction, the democratic authorities of the "new Russia" - the "eccentrics" did NOT represent how they PUSHED) withemployees of "interested" organizations were taken out in droves. bully Specialists, too, who did not agree to leave for the United States, were "released" forever. Remember the series of "withdrawals" of scientists and others in the late 80s and 90s. . sad
            And so nothing personal, just BUSINESS .... bully
      2. +2
        4 June 2022 09: 13
        There are still a lot of problems. As stated in the article,
        any maneuvers ekranoplan must do very slowly and carefully.
        so security issues. Let's remember how the "Eaglet" was lost. Those engine batteries that are clearly visible in the picture in the article work ONLY during takeoff, the rest of the flight is dead weight.
        With discovery. The fool is healthy, it is easy to detect from a satellite. If anyone says that satellites do not control the entire surface of the Earth in 24/7/365 mode, it is so far. As for the clouds - ekranoplans do not fly in bad weather, dependence on the weather is fatal :(
        1. +3
          4 June 2022 18: 32
          Quote: Not the fighter
          ONLY during takeoff, the rest of the flight is dead weight.

          In the vast majority of warships, almost half of the engines are dead weight. Because the ships practically do not go at full speed.
        2. +2
          4 June 2022 19: 00
          Quote: Not the fighter
          Let's remember how the "Eaglet" was lost.

          The first one sat on the stones, got cracks that were missed, and later, having lost its tail, reached the base under its own power, and the second was lost due to a gross violation of the regulations by the ship's commander.
          Quote: Not the fighter
          The fool is healthy, it is easy to detect from a satellite. If anyone says that satellites do not control the entire surface of the Earth in 24/7/365 mode, it is so far

          Ships are even easier to spot.
          Quote: Not the fighter
          weather addiction is fatal :(
          The harrier is designed to take off with a wave of 5-6 points. It's very fresh weather.
      3. +1
        4 June 2022 19: 20
        Quote from Mitos
        For while it flies over the surface of the water it is difficult to see and intercept it. It was developed as a destroyer of aircraft carriers and other ships.

        Ummm ... those very aircraft carriers whose air defense was designed to repel an attack by supersonic missile carriers much smaller in terms of EPR, flying on extremely small and heavy anti-ship missiles? belay
        The ekranoplan is a chimera that combines all the shortcomings of an aircraft and RTOs. From the aircraft, she took the strength and limitations of the payload mass, from the RTOs - the dimensions, maneuverability and EPR. In fact, we have a subsonic low-maneuverable target with the size of RTOs, the speed of which is not enough to quickly break through the AUG air defense zone, but it is perfectly enough for even a primitive SDC to work, highlighting its signal from reflections from the underlying surface.
        About the invisibility of the ekranoplan, it was possible to poison stories to Soviet admirals, who were accustomed to the fact that nothing was visible beyond the radio horizon, there was no other air defense system except for air defense systems, and their own fighters, AWACS or the constant escort of a ship group by base patrol aviation was fantastic.
        1. +1
          5 June 2022 02: 02
          It was in the design stages. Then there was not much talk about the detection of anti-ship missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, it was created simply as a means of quickly delivering the same anti-ship missiles and launching them from long distances. So at sea at egr speeds at that time he had no competition. Now, if only as a fast transporter can be used.
          1. 0
            5 June 2022 15: 21
            Quote from Mitos
            It was in the design stages. Then there was not much talk about the detection of anti-ship missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

            Are you serious? The US Navy received its first Hawkeye in 1964. Even then they had to somehow deal with the same KSR-2, P-5 and P-35.
            That is, in the opponents of the AUG air defense already in the 60s there were supersonic low-altitude targets - and the Yankees intensively solved the problem of early detection of such targets and guidance of aviation on them. And our designers and admirals planned to launch a subsonic flying RTO into the 600-kilometer air defense zone, which, for launch, needs to approach the AUG for one and a half hundred kilometers.
            Quote from Mitos
            So at sea at the same speeds at that time he had no competition.

            Tu-16, Tu-22 and Tu-22M look at this statement with bewilderment.
            1. 0
              5 June 2022 17: 23
              Created in 1966, the unique ekranoplan "KM" is a "dummy ship" of various modifications. "Eaglet" is a transport-landing modification, and "Lun" is a missile one. That is, they are fundamentally different in purpose. "Lun" displacement was much larger, and depending on this, the aerodynamic layout also changes. Moreover, there were Mosquito rockets at the top. This is a huge additional resistance, and there were already some nuances in the design. The Americans were very afraid of him - one "Lun" was enough to bomb an aircraft carrier. It was put into service in 1990 and funding was immediately cut off and on the back burner. By the way, who is in the photo with rockets ?!
              1. +1
                6 June 2022 10: 37
                Quote from Mitos
                The Americans were very afraid of him - one "Lun" was enough to bomb an aircraft carrier.

                Oh, these tales, oh, these storytellers. ©
                Once again: the depth of the AUG air defense is 600 km. The launch range of Mosquitoes is a maximum of 100-120 km. The Yankees have 450-500 km so that their air defense system has time to detect, aim IA and hit a subsonic low-maneuverable target the size of RTOs. The same air defense system that was expected to counter the supersonic Tu-22M3 and RCC.
                Fairy tales about an inconspicuous ekranoplan, which until the last no one sees and no one can detect, could be told to Soviet admirals, for whom the radio horizon of the OVTs ship radar was an insurmountable obstacle.
        2. 0
          5 June 2022 06: 38
          Why break through the air defense of the AUG with a "carcass"? This is the task of missiles. Koi in the area and should deliver the ekranoplan.
          Does the Tu-160 (supersonic missile carrier) fly and can launch missiles at ultra-low altitudes?
          1. 0
            5 June 2022 15: 31
            Quote: Monar
            Why break through the air defense of the AUG with a "carcass"? This is the task of missiles. Koi in the area and should deliver the ekranoplan.

            And you remember the range of the planned missile armament of ekranoplanes at the time of their development. And compare with the depth of the AUG air defense zone.
            Even the Tu-16 had more chances.
            Quote: Monar
            Does the Tu-160 (supersonic missile carrier) fly and can launch missiles at ultra-low altitudes?

            What for? WWI were effective only in the last century and only in terms of reducing the danger from missiles. The same AWACS saw aircraft going to WWI, but there could be problems with the defeat. The air defense systems then worked only within the radio visibility of the illumination antennas, and the medium-range RVV on targets with a decrease worked through a stump-deck (the well-known case with the Sparrow in Desert Storm).
            Now, at the expense of the ARLGSN, the air defense systems have learned to "shoot around the corner", and the GOS RVV has been brought to perfection. So the only protection for the carrier will be speed (shorter time for the reaction of the air defense system, less time spent in the air defense zone and the ability to care for the combat radius of the BVP aircraft before they reach the launch range - in other words, the BVP does not have enough fuel for pursuit), electronic warfare and missile launch range.
            1. 0
              5 June 2022 21: 17
              remember the range of the planned missile armament of ekranoplanes at the time of their development
              Well, then the air defense was weaker.
              But why?
              Well, this is yours - "supersonic missile carriers, going to extremely small ones."
              Well, theoretically. From the sofa expert.
              6m wave. Not a single ekranoplane will take off. Useless device. But what can AUG do with such a wave? Hokai E-2 release?
              I have not seen a single video of even rocket launches during a turbulence in the sea. If there is, please share.
              But that's okay. The carrier shakes. But have you seen the launch of missiles from submarines with a wave of at least 2-3 meters?
              1. 0
                6 June 2022 12: 05
                Quote: Monar
                Well, then the air defense was weaker.

                In the 70s - for "Mosquito" from those times? Then "Tomcats" were already working with might and main from the decks, which not only valuable fur supersonic and radar, but also five-wing "Phoenixes".
    2. -1
      4 June 2022 07: 27
      Quote: your vsr 66-67
      They don't make these now!

      Do! Who do you think made the Sarmatians, Daggers, etc.?
      We also have engineers, and a designer, and a handy locksmith.
      And now there is a wagon of money and a small cart (thanks to the sanctions).
      It remains only to solve the question: what do we need for us and it will certainly be.
      The main thing is to beat off the hands of the "Westerners" so that they do not put sticks in the wheels.
      1. +2
        4 June 2022 08: 20
        Quote: Boris55
        And now there is a wagon of money and a small cart (thanks to the sanctions).

        Of course! Before the sanctions, they were not?! They didn’t know what to do with it, they decided to give it to the enemies? Compound. The entire wagon remained. laughing
        Quote: Boris55
        It remains only to solve the question: what do we need for us and it will certainly be.

        Already decided? Or again, as it was - ceremonial copies of something and a wild cut ?!
        Quote: Boris55
        Who do you think made the Sarmatians, Daggers, etc.?

        Could you tell us about aviation? Military transport, for example, civilian, about replacing the AN-2, finally. lol
        1. -6
          4 June 2022 09: 15
          Quote: victor50
          Already decided? Or again, as it was -

          Did you read my post to the end?
          "Home "Westerners" beat off their hands so that they would not put sticks in the wheels.

          As soon as we defeat the West in Ukraine, kirdyk will come to the West and then our "Westerners" will have a tragedy - there will be no owner, but while they are looking for a new one, we will have time to arrange our life the way we want.

          Visibly, the independence of Russia will be expressed in a change: the Constitution (flag, coat of arms, anthem). Renaming Volgograd to Stalingrad, removing plywood from the Mausoleum, the monument to Minin and Pozharsky, etc.
    3. 0
      4 June 2022 09: 25
      That is why the union was destroyed by the communist capitalists!
    4. 0
      4 June 2022 17: 23
      This is the legacy of a highly developed civilization.
  2. +2
    4 June 2022 05: 14
    And what is the mass of the Pelican with a carrying capacity of 1400 tons, a ceiling of 6000 m, and a range of 16000 km? belay
  3. +10
    4 June 2022 05: 33
    Of course, all this technique is interesting and even necessary, but in limited reservoirs such as the Caspian or the Black Sea. On the ocean expanses, except perhaps the Arctic, it has no future or a very limited one. Ordinary ships or ships, due to their size, endure in the open ocean, sometimes with difficulty, but endure bad weather such as storms and hurricanes. And all these vessels are designed for operation in the immediate vicinity of the surface of the water. Everyone is well aware of what happens to this surface during a storm, so they need shelter from the elements on land, which limits their use, although their ability to covert movement and difficulties in detecting them is truly phenomenal. Perhaps they will create a design that levels this shortcoming, then their time will come.
    1. +3
      4 June 2022 06: 21
      Quote: Ros 56
      Perhaps they will create a design that levels this shortcoming, then their time will come.

      The main thing is to create, and not put it in a long box. Will definitely fit. I wonder if any such "monster" is lying around today? Can't use it?
      1. +3
        4 June 2022 06: 26
        Lying around. You can use:
        a) as a museum exhibit;
        b) scrap metal.
  4. +1
    4 June 2022 06: 21
    What we have now is the essence of small airplanes (or, if you like, flying boats).
    There is no doubt that their creation was not easy and was a great technical victory.
    But there is no tactical unit for the army and navy like "Lun" (with Caliber and Granites) and "Eaglet".
    Here, at VO, the topic of ekranoplanstva for the needs of the military has been repeatedly frayed.
    And all the "experts" in this direction were sentenced to complete unsuitability.
    The current situation with the SVO and the costs of it will not allow financing a return to the topic even within the framework of one Alekseev Design Bureau.
    Although .... perhaps this time the Americans themselves will intensify the adoption of an appropriate decision by our leadership, taking up this direction. We will catch up and overtake. So we are used to it.
    1. -2
      4 June 2022 06: 55
      Hmm what's the point? What for?
  5. -16
    4 June 2022 06: 28
    The very idea of ​​​​the ekranoplan-guano. It is a pity that the people who spent resources on this project were not shot in the USSR.
    1. +1
      4 June 2022 12: 28
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      It is a pity that the people who spent resources on this project were not shot in the USSR.

      Well, you don’t need to shoot, of course, but it was worth directing irrepressible energy in the right direction. Still, there was something reasonable in Stalin's "sh.a.r.a.sh.k.a.h"
      1. 0
        4 June 2022 18: 36
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, you don’t need to shoot, of course, but it was worth directing irrepressible energy in the right direction.

        EP type "Lun" is much better than missile boats of noticeably larger tonnage.
        1. +3
          4 June 2022 19: 25
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          EP type "Lun" is much better than missile boats of noticeably larger tonnage.

          How? The complete lack of air defense? Or survivability at the level of IL-76? Speed ​​does not matter - the plane is still faster. And without an aviation umbrella, no one will climb into the threatened area.
          Instead of mythologized geek ekranoplanes, it is better to give the Navy MA normal multifunctional fighters and air-based Onyxes.
          1. +1
            4 June 2022 20: 29
            Quote: Alexey RA
            How? The complete lack of air defense?
            A lot of air defense on the Molniya-type RK? Yes, even in Karakurt? With a tonnage from 1,5 to 2 times, and a crew of 4 times more. And two 9-A-503s, one with automatic guidance from its own radar, is far from a complete absence.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Or survivability at the level of IL-76?

            With a working sheathing FROM 4 mm? A twice lighter Eaglet with a severed tail reached the base under its own power. And the tail is lost after landing on rocks and hated cracks.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Speed ​​does not matter - the plane is still faster.
            And what plane? IL-38? And are all enemy NKs equipped with aircraft? But from helicopters, as from standing ones, and bayraktar-like ones are also not a threat.

            Quote: Alexey RA
            Instead of mythologized geek ekranoplanes
            Mythologization and negative happens. Lun is such a case.

            Quote: Alexey RA
            MA Navy normal multifunctional fighters and air-based Onyxes.
            An airplane, especially a fighter, will not replace a surface ship in any way, even at 600 tons, and the EP is completely similar to the Lun, even in terms of seaworthiness. EPs are competitors to ships on the VP for sure, and in many respects to small surface ships.
            1. +3
              4 June 2022 20: 50
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              And what plane?

              That's it. What aircraft are you going to replace with an ekranoplan?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              And are all enemy NKs equipped with aircraft?

              They operate in the zone of operation of their aviation. Where the NATO NC is, there is their aviation.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              But from helicopters, as from standing

              The only question is that in the NATO strategy helicopters are used against NK only in very rare cases, playing, in general, the most auxiliary role. But the planes play a key role, but the ekranoplan is useless against them.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              An airplane, especially a fighter, will not replace a surface ship, even 600 tons

              The ekranoplan will not replace it, all the more.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              EPs are competitors to ships on the VP for sure, and in many respects to small surface ships.

              The only question is that the fleet practically does not need small surface ships (such as the RRC). A series of karakurts is from hopelessness, since AT LEAST SOME ships the fleet really needed, and the industry could not give anything.
              1. 0
                4 June 2022 21: 17
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                That's it. What aircraft are you going to replace with an ekranoplan?
                This verbiage, even if you do not take into account the mentioned IL-38 and the word competition. EP is a competitor to small surface ships - strike, anti-submarine and even air defense, but these are my personal thoughts ..

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                They operate in the zone of operation of their aviation. Where the NATO NC is, there is their aviation.
                Do not go straight out from under the umbrella? The bullshit is complete. Apart from the fact that EPs can, like RTOs, operate under the cover of NK air defense, and more successfully.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The only question is that in the NATO strategy helicopters are used against NK only in very rare cases, playing, in general, the most auxiliary role.
                Against small then? Quite active.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But the planes play a key role, but the ekranoplan is useless against them.
                In its original form, and precisely AGAINST them, yes, but when launching anti-ship missiles from 250 km and leaving at full speed under the cover of their air defense, even in their original form, EP is many times preferable to RTOs.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The ekranoplan will not replace it, all the more.

                Where money is much more important than lives, of course not. And under other conditions calmly. RK "Lightning" is weaker than EP Lun both as a striker and in terms of survivability, with equal seaworthiness and a larger crew. EP as an anti-submarine is at least not weaker and, again, tenacious.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The only question is that the fleet practically does not need small surface ships (such as the RRC).
                RTOs, like other small ships, are niche weapons. EP with elementary development makes noticeably heavier ships.
                1. +4
                  4 June 2022 23: 10
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  This verbiage

                  That is, you understand that the ekranoplan of aviation is not a rival. Already something
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  EP is a competitor to small surface ships - strike, anti-submarine and even air defense

                  :))) And now try to realize that small attack ships have long outlived their usefulness as a class and are of combat value only in two forms - for the fleets of 3 countries that need at least some kind of fleet, but do not have money for it and are preparing to fight against the same as themselves.
                  - to circumvent the treaty on short and medium-range missiles - that is, a cheap platform for the Kyrgyz Republic, which the ekranoplan cannot replace, since this platform is not intended for naval combat.
                  A small air defense ship is completely useless and no one needs it, which is why no one makes them. And the PLO is an important task, only the ekranoplan is not needed from the word "absolutely" to solve it, and it cannot solve this problem to some extent effectively
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Do not go straight out from under the umbrella? The bullshit is complete.

                  If you are talking about your "knowledge" of the tactics of NATO fleets, then yes, complete garbage. They don't come out straight. In the same north, where the "moon" was thrust, NATO controlled the Norwegian Sea in the air completely, and they were going to go to the Barents Sea with surface ships only after the destruction of our main bases.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Apart from the fact that EPs can, like RTOs, operate under the cover of NK air defense

                  Thank you for writing so frankly about your naval fantasies. I have long noticed that you do not need to be refuted - just enough to make you start expressing your thoughts :)))) After that, the whole value of your "argumentation" becomes obvious to anyone reading our discussion
                  Although, to be honest, I did not expect such nonsense from you. That is, in your opinion, we must build ekranoplanes so that they can operate from the NK air defense zone, which cannot provide air defense themselves, and which definitely do not need the presence of some kind of ekranoplanes in their air defense zone, so how, if necessary, to launch a missile attack, they can do it themselves - if, by some chance, they were not drowned before reaching the line of attack. And if they nevertheless drowned, then they, obviously, cannot provide any air defense to ekranoplans.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Against small then? Quite active.

                  Yeah. For example, as in Desert Storm - when the guidance on Iraqi ships is provided by its own patrol aircraft, and the destruction operation is carried out under the cover of carrier-based aircraft of the fleet.
                  True, in such cases, the ekranoplan will be of no use, so you diligently do not notice the air cover under which the helicopters operate.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  In its original form, and precisely AGAINST them, yes, but when launching anti-ship missiles from 250 km and leaving at full speed under the cover of their air defense, even in their original form, EP is many times preferable to RTOs.

                  The only question is that such a task of RTOs is not set from the word "in general". This task was assigned to the MRA air divisions, and now they could cope with it an order of magnitude better than ekranoplanes.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Where money is much more important than lives, of course not. And under other conditions calmly. RK "Lightning" is weaker than EP Lun both as a striker and in terms of survivability, with equal seaworthiness and a larger crew.

                  About equal seaworthiness - yes, thank you, I laughed heartily. But the most important thing that you will not understand in any way is that RTOs today cannot solve the tasks of a war at sea against a serious fleet. At all. That is why the initial shipbuilding programs of the Russian Federation did not involve their creation, and they appeared there only when the programs of corvettes and frigates were completely disrupted.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  EP as an anti-submarine is at least not weaker and, again, tenacious.

                  EP as an anti-submarine does not make sense at all. However, it would be funny to hear how you see the process of searching for submarines using EP
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  RTOs, like other small ships, are niche weapons. EP with elementary development makes noticeably heavier ships.

                  Only in your fantasies
                  1. 0
                    5 June 2022 06: 05
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    That is, you understand that the ekranoplan of aviation is not a rival. Already something
                    No, I don’t understand, name at least one strike, anti-submarine, and any aircraft capable of hanging out for 5 days in a given area at a distance of 1000 km.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Now try to realize that small attack ships have long outlived their usefulness as a class and are of combat value only in two ways - for the fleets of 3 countries that need at least some kind of fleet
                    As the forces of the near zone, nunu.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I have long noticed that you do not need to refute - just enough to make you start expressing your thoughts :)
                    In the modern fleet, you understand worse than in the armored one. There were signs.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    A small air defense ship is completely useless and no one needs it, which is why no one makes them.
                    Yes? Surface, of course, at 600 tons, you can’t really put an antenna or put missiles in, that’s why they don’t put smart air defense systems in less than a frigate. But I’ll give you a hint, you still understand in ships, about a 4,5 * 7 hull and at least 25 meters, COMPLETELY free from the power plant and everything connected with it, including fuel tanks, while completely unrelated to stability restrictions. I hope you made inquiries about the Lunya radar facility? If not, then it is almost identical to "Sivucham".

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And the PLO is an important task, only the ekranoplan is not needed from the word "absolutely" to solve it, and it cannot solve this problem to some extent effectively
                    Well, here's one of the signs. Are small ships of the PLO near zone needed? Undoubtedly. The EP at its speed and the buoys of the PLO barrier are able to arrange (hello to the tethered drone of the receiving antenna), which the NK cannot and the GAS, even submersible, even towed, which the aircraft cannot release. With low vulnerability to torpedoes.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    In the same north, where the "moon" was thrust, NATO controlled the Norwegian Sea in the air completely, and they were going to go to the Barents Sea with surface ships only after the destruction of our main bases.
                    However, RTOs were present there for some reason, and even RK. And bases and aviation are destroyed.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    That is, in your opinion, we must build ekranoplanes so that they can operate from the NK air defense zone, which cannot provide air defense themselves, and which definitely do not need the presence of some kind of ekranoplanes in their air defense zone, so how, if necessary, to launch a missile attack, they can do it themselves - if, by some chance, they were not drowned before reaching the line of attack.
                    EP will allow you to QUICKLY build up a salvo of missiles and will be able to retreat under the cover of coastal air defense, provided that there are no own air defense systems. And you don’t need to read the NC of the Russian Navy, drain the water.


                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    own patrol aviation, and the destruction operation is carried out under the cover of carrier-based aircraft of the fleet.
                    True, in such cases, the ekranoplan will be of no use, so you diligently do not notice the air cover under which the helicopters operate.
                    Yeah. And now helicopters and UAVs are already excluded from the food chain. Moreover, in the complete absence of air defense systems in the EP. Let me remind you that anti-ship missiles are ineffective, if at all, effective against a high-speed target, and UR V-V are not resistant to interference, and Lun could already put them in full ship height, so that aviation, if it catches up, with a large EP still has to fight .

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The only question is that such a task of RTOs is not set from the word "in general".
                    You have no idea about the main tactics of RTOs, sorry.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    About equal seaworthiness - yes, thank you, I laughed heartily.
                    RK Molniya provide safe navigation at low speeds in sea conditions up to 7-8 points, and a displacement of 500 tons. EP "Lun" took off safely at 5 and landed at 6 points, the maximum seaworthiness with a trimaran scheme is hardly lower than 7-8 (higher!)

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    That is why the initial shipbuilding programs of the Russian Federation did not involve their creation.
                    In general, the Russian Federation leaked a lot of things, for "financial reasons".

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    EP as an anti-submarine does not make sense at all. However, it would be funny to hear how you see the process of searching for submarines using EP
                    I wrote above, but I’ll add it, I hope you don’t think that the EP has two modes of travel, stop and full? Well, buoys should not be turned into a fetish, domestic ones have a working time of a couple of hours and low seaworthiness (that's right, the EMNIP wave limit is not higher than 5 points)

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Only in your fantasies
                    In terms of strike capabilities, Lun was not much inferior to Project 956 and Sivuch. Its vertical installations will simply be thrown according to its characteristics, unlike small ships. Do you remember the hint?
                    1. +1
                      5 June 2022 12: 35
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      No, I don’t understand, name at least one strike, anti-submarine, and any aircraft capable of hanging out for 5 days in a given area at a distance of 1000 km.

                      There is no such. True, Lun cannot do this either, with its practical range of 2000 km. And now, if you please, name a combat mission that requires "5 days to hang out in a given area. at a distance of 1000 km."
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      As the forces of the near zone, nunu.

                      Yes Yes. That is why the construction of the Republic of Kazakhstan was not envisaged by the initial program for the restoration of the fleet. Generally. In addition to the Buyans, the river-sea, which are for the Kyrgyz Republic, and not for naval battles.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      But I'll give you a hint

                      No need for hints, just show the small air defense ship that you decided to replace with an ekranoplan :))))))
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      I hope you made inquiries about the Lunya radar facility? If not, then it is almost identical to "Sivucham".

                      What? :))))))) And in what place is the Pozitiv radar located near Lun, for example?
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Are small ships of the PLO near zone needed? Undoubtedly. The EP at its speed and the buoys of the PLO barrier are able to arrange (hello to the tethered drone of the receiving antenna), which the NK cannot and the GAS, even submersible, even towed, which the aircraft cannot release.

                      M-dya .... Vladimir, in your fantasies you are completely detached from reality.
                      The first and most important thing is that to search for a submarine, you need a good radar and visibility for it, Lun does not have this - it flies too low. The second is a completely insufficient flight range. Thirdly, it’s generally interesting how he will throw the RGAB from his own flight altitude. Fourth, he will not be able to hear them while in flight. Fifth, and this is the most fun...
                      How many times, in your opinion, an ekranoplane of the "Lunya" level can splash down and take off from the sea surface during patrolling? and requires enormous fuel consumption, and an attempt to use the ekranoplan in the mode you propose will lead to the fact that its combat radius and search performance will be lower than that of a conventional helicopter?


                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      However, RTOs were present there for some reason, and even RK.

                      Where exactly? In Norwegian? :))) Seriously? :)))
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      EP will allow you to QUICKLY build up a salvo of missiles and will be able to retreat under the cover of coastal air defense

                      Only now, conventional missile-carrying aviation allows you to do all this much faster and more efficiently. And does not need to cover NK :)))
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Yeah. And now helicopters and UAVs are already excluded from the food chain.

                      Because no one in NATO has ever entrusted them with the task of combating air targets. With the same success, you can "exclude from the food chain" NATO tanks. For they cannot chase the ekranoplan either. Hooray?:))))
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      You have no idea about the main tactics of RTOs, sorry.

                      You don’t need to tell me about tactics, you tell me about the tasks of the Republic of Kazakhstan. For tactics are just a way of solving a problem. And you have nothing to answer about the tasks, because you understood only one thing - under certain conditions, an impact ekranoplan will be tactically more effective than the RK. Will, yes. Under certain conditions. The only problem is that the task of attacking the formations of the enemy fleet of the Republic of Kazakhstan has long been off the agenda.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      RK Lightning provide safe navigation at low speeds in sea conditions up to 7-8 points, and a displacement of 500 tons. EP "Lun" took off safely at 5 and landed at 6 points,

                      Exactly. Do you understand the difference between 8 points and 5?
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      In general, the Russian Federation leaked a lot of things, for "financial reasons".

                      No. RK was merged solely due to the fact that they are conceptually outdated
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      In terms of strike capabilities, Lun was not much inferior to Project 956 and Sivuch.

                      The sea lion is the same dead end as the EP, because its performance characteristics do not give it a fundamental advantage over ships / aircraft, but its cost is colossal. And 956 - that's all you are. declare
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      EP with elementary development makes noticeably heavier ships.

                      And you compare promising (in your understanding) ES with a destroyer 46 years ago!
                      Why not compare with the project 22350 frigates under construction, on which the number of UKKS has increased to 32 missiles?
                      1. +1
                        5 June 2022 17: 28
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        There is no such. True, Lun cannot do this either, with its practical range of 2000 km. And now, if you please, name a combat mission that requires "5 days to hang out in a given area. at a distance of 1000 km."
                        At full speed at 500 km / h, and cruising at 400 km / h is already 3000 km., There is such data. And the tasks at a distance of 1000 km are for RTOs, for PLO, for air defense, from Caliber strikes 1000 km deep into enemy territory, to providing PLO and air defense with the support of other ships.



                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        No need for hints, just show the small air defense ship that you decided to replace with an ekranoplan :))))))
                        It's not nice when a smart person fools around.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        in 600 tons, you can’t really put an antenna or put missiles in, that’s why they don’t put sensible air defense systems in less than a frigate.



                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What? :))))))) And in what place is the Pozitiv radar located near Lun, for example?

                        Is this what?

                        https://zen.yandex.ru/media/vkartoteke/kaspiiskii-gruz-progulka-po-ekranoplanu-lun-5fc3a3d7d57ee927523ea658?&disable_feed_under_article=false

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        M-dya .... Vladimir, in your fantasies you are completely detached from reality.
                        Andrey, what are your fantasies? Knowledge of technology and capabilities, theoretical of course.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The first and most important thing is that to search for a submarine, you need a good radar and visibility for it, Lun does not have this - it flies too low. The second is a completely insufficient flight range. Thirdly, it’s generally interesting how he will throw the RGAB from his own flight altitude. Fourth, he will not be able to hear them while in flight.
                        The radar for underwater targets works only in excellent weather. The flight range corresponds to the range of the Molniya RK, which was also assumed in the PLO version. But what can not be finalized in the RGAB, for a horizontal entry into the water at 400 km h approximately? And why fly to listen to the RSL? Get on the water, release the GAS antenna, raise the tethered drone antenna by 200 m and do not buzz, or at low speed on the thrusters.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        How many times, in your opinion, can an ekranoplane of the "Lunya" level splash down and take off from the sea surface during patrolling? and requires huge fuel consumption
                        And this take-off lasts an eternity, but no, no more than 1,5 minutes. And roughly, to go to 3000 (three tons) km and 15 takeoffs, you need one hundred tons of fuel. Well, or 1000 km radius and already thirty takeoffs, I don’t know. So do not be afraid of "engines from fighters."

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        However, RTOs were present there for some reason, and even RK.
                        Where exactly? In Norwegian? :))) Seriously? :)))
                        I'm already ashamed of you.
                        In the Northern Fleet, small missile ships were part of the 55th Pechenga Red Banner Order of Ushakov, 1st degree, missile boat brigade, which was transferred to the Kola Red Banner Flotilla of diverse forces in 1982.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Exactly. Do you understand the difference between 8 points and 5?
                        But what is the difference between a safe takeoff and a safe lowered speed? What would be the safe reduced speed rating for a 44m span trimaran?

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        No. RK was merged solely due to the fact that they are conceptually outdated
                        That's right, a small specific BC and vulnerability even from helicopters. But I once again hint to you at the booming empty hull measuring 25 * 4,5 * 7 m, spitting on stability problems.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The sea lion is the same dead end as the EP, because its performance characteristics do not give it a fundamental advantage over ships / aircraft, but its cost is colossal.
                        But EP has a fundamental advantage over NC - speed.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And you compare promising (in your understanding) ES with a destroyer 46 years ago!
                        But it’s not necessary, it was YOU who compared the promising EPs with 956 pr, and I compared the original "Lun"! Which is also 40 years old at lunchtime!
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In terms of strike capabilities, Lun was not much inferior to Project 956 and Sivuch. Its vertical installations will simply be thrown according to its characteristics, unlike small ships.


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Why not compare with the project 22350 frigates under construction, on which the number of UKKS has increased to 32 missiles?
                        Empty and booming from this case!

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And you have nothing to answer about the tasks, because you understood only one thing - under certain conditions, an impact ekranoplan will be tactically more effective than the RK.
                        You can’t get through casuistry. The EP can perform all the main tasks facing small ships, and the EP defense is even more than that. I discard the specifics of the type of anti-mine, of course.
                      2. 0
                        5 June 2022 21: 57
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        At full speed at 500 km / h, and cruising at 400 km / h is already 3000 km., There is such data

                        Yes. Only here, landing on the sea surface, waiting, launch (which burns a huge amount of fuel) and the fulfillment of a combat mission do not fit into 3000 km. So 1000 km is fantastic.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And tasks at a distance of 1000 km are for RTOs, for PLO, for air defense, from Caliber strikes 1000 km deep into enemy territory, to providing PLO and air defense with the support of other ships.

                        And let's better admit that you do not know such tasks. Because it’s absurd to shove 1000 km into the sea to shoot calibers along the bank, because there are no such distances at the World Championships and the Baltic, poking into Norwegian in the Northern Fleet is death, Japan for calibers is within reach from the raid of Vladivostok.
                        As a PLO at a distance of 1000 km, the ekranoplan is a complete zero (it is even closer - zero), which has already been explained to you. Air defense and talking funny.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Is this what?

                        What is this, an analogue of the Positive in your opinion? :))))))) M-dya, I congratulate you on lying.
                        It's either Don or Half an hour
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And this take-off lasts an eternity, but no, no more than 1,5 minutes.

                        I’m even afraid to ask how the recommended 1,5 minutes were considered.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And roughly, to go to 3000 (three tons) km and 15 takeoffs, you need one hundred tons of fuel

                        Sit down, two. If only they turned on their heads and thought - how can an ekranoplan have a practical range of 3000 km on an economic one, and in your "calculation" - 3000 plus 15 takeoffs.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        I'm already ashamed of you.

                        And again you lie, you have long lost all shame
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In the Northern Fleet, small missile ships were part of the 55th Pechenga Red Banner Order of Ushakov, 1st degree, missile boat brigade, which was transferred to the Kola Red Banner Flotilla of diverse forces in 1982.

                        That's right - the KOLA flotilla. The flotilla was entrusted with the task of ensuring the deployment of the strike forces of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea and solving operational and tactical tasks in the coastal zone.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        What is the difference between a safe takeoff and a safe low speed?

                        Again, your fantasies ... There is a simple fact - Lun was losing miserably to the Republic of Kazakhstan in seaworthiness. Dot.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        What would be the safe reduced speed rating for a 44m span trimaran?

                        How do you know about it? You can't estimate fuel consumption.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But EP has a fundamental advantage over NC - speed.

                        Only now the advantage is worthless, since it does not help to solve combat missions
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But it’s not necessary, it was YOU who compared the promising EPs with 956 pr, and I compared the original "Lun"! Which is also 40 years old at lunchtime!

                        Lies again... You wrote
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        RTOs, like other small ships, are niche weapons. EP with elementary development makes noticeably heavier ships.

                        I replied
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Only in your fantasies

                        what did you say
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In terms of strike capabilities, Lun was not much inferior to Project 956 and Sivuch.

                        So it was you who pulled the bagpipes about Lun and 956.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        You can’t get through casuistry. EP can perform all the main tasks facing small ships

                        Keep believing in it. Religious matters are sacred to me. laughing
                        You can’t even name these tasks, and when you try to think of something, you immediately get into a puddle
                      3. +1
                        6 June 2022 05: 32
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes. Only here, landing on the sea surface, waiting, launch (which burns a huge amount of fuel) and the fulfillment of a combat mission do not fit into 3000 km.

                        What is the ferry range for you, an unfamiliar concept?

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And let's better admit that you do not know such tasks. Because it’s absurd to shove 1000 km into the sea to shoot calibers along the bank, because there are no such distances at the World Championships and the Baltic, poking into Norwegian in the Northern Fleet is death, Japan for calibers is within reach from the raid of Vladivostok.
                        The main task of the RK, RTO, any carrier of strike weapons is to go to the line, shoot back and take their legs / fins away from there. And the possibility of a five-day chat, coupled with aviation speed, allows this to be realized suddenly and from an unobvious direction.


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        As a PLO at a distance of 1000 km, the ekranoplan is a complete zero (it is even closer - zero), which has already been explained to you. Air defense and talking funny.
                        The nonsense about the fact that the EP cannot throw off the RGAB and listen to them within a radius of 18 km (keel height 20 m) to 50 km (antenna height 200 m) is not an explanation.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What is this, an analogue of the Positive in your opinion? :))))))) M-dya, I congratulate you on lying.
                        It's either Don or Half an hour
                        Or your superficial knowledge of the topic, extremely superficial. No, I understand that it’s hard to switch from an armored fleet to a missile-carrying fleet wink , but the appearance of the antennas could be puzzled. And I'm wrong, I don't know much, but I'm not lying!

                        https://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vmf/rls_pozitiv-e.html
                        And the rest of the antennas on the keel of the "Lunya" complexes "Mineral / Monolith" and the electronic warfare complex "Too lazy to look for the name" but similar to "Sivuch" and 956 pr., believe me.



                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I’m even afraid to ask how the recommended 1,5 minutes were considered.
                        Memories of testers and EP operators, dear Andrey! And my own experience of flying on GA aircraft. Do not be afraid, remember your own experience. Although hints you stubbornly do not want to understand. From giving full throttle to climbing to a height of 100 meters, a minute plus / minus (rather minus). EP has no need for even a hundred meters, although it is possible.


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And you're lying again, you've lost all shame a long time ago.. ...That's right - the KOLA flotilla. The flotilla was entrusted with the task of ensuring the deployment of the strike forces of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea and solving operational and tactical tasks in the coastal zone.
                        You do not scatter words about lies, it is ugly.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        On the the same north, where they put the "moon" NATO controlled the Norwegian Sea in the air completely, and in barents they were going to go by surface ships only after the destruction of our main bases.
                        And the North is present, and the Barents Sea. And the range of MRK 1234 allowed to visit Norwegian. So about the "inaccuracies" - I'm afraid to you.


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Again, your fantasies ... There is a simple fact - Lun was losing miserably to the Republic of Kazakhstan in seaworthiness. Dot.

                        The fact is that the "Lun" could easily take off at 5 points, and this is even the limit for the use of weapons for frigates. And the fact that small ships have maximum seaworthiness, and if you think that a 400-ton TRIMARAN with a hull from 4 to 12 mm will yield to a 500-ton single-hull ship with a fairly high center of gravity in this seaworthiness, then you seem to understand little about ships.


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Sit down, two. If only they turned on their heads and thought - how can an ekranoplan have a practical range of 3000 km on an economic one, and in your "calculation" - 3000 plus 15 takeoffs.
                        Haha, and you for the inattention of the goose! I did not write at all that Lun has these hundred tons (there is no information anywhere about the capacity of the tanks), I wrote that they would be enough.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And roughly, to go to 3000 (three tons) km and 15 takeoffs, you need one hundred tons of fuel



                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What would be the safe reduced speed rating for a 44m span trimaran?
                        How do you know about it? You can't estimate fuel consumption.
                        Everything is fine with an estimate of consumption, so I dare to think that everything is not bad with an estimate of seaworthiness either.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Only now the advantage is worthless, since it does not help to solve combat missions
                        A TEN-FOLD advantage in speed is worthless? I understand, write Santa Fe like that, but you?!

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Lies again... You wrote
                        I understand you are angry, but please be more objective!
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And 956 - that's all you are. declare
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        EP with elementary development makes noticeably heavier ships.
                        And you compare promising (in your understanding) ES with a destroyer 46 years ago!
                        Why not compare with the project 22350 frigates under construction, on which the number of UKKS has increased to 32 missiles?



                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Keep believing in it. Religious matters are sacred to me. laughing
                        You can’t even name these tasks, and when you try to think of something, you immediately get into a puddle

                        In general, blind adherence to dogmas is also a kind of belief.
                        And as for the tasks, for attack ships this is the launch of missiles at a convenient time and from convenient positions, for PLO ships it is the search and destruction of underwater targets by all available means, and for air defense ships it is the shooting down of air targets. All this can be a heavy EP, although as a ship it is light, practically a boat.

                        P/S In general, it's funny, I'm not some kind of fan of EP, but when I see some kind of stupidity and misunderstanding of the simplest things, I try to correct them, to convince them. A lot of frank nonsense and lies have been written about heavy EPs, and you, Andrey, perceive them uncritically, with all due respect.
                2. +1
                  4 June 2022 23: 24
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  EP is a competitor to small surface ships - strike, anti-submarine and even air defense, but these are my personal thoughts ..

                  Anti-submarine - no chance. How are you going to listen to the RGAB scattered around the patrol area from the working heights of the ekranoplan flight? They work for VHF.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Apart from the fact that EPs can, like RTOs, operate under the cover of NK air defense, and more successfully.

                  NK air defense is 30 km. That’s it, we don’t see further on WWI.
                  And how quickly will the ekranoplan with its speed come out from under the air defense umbrella of the ship group?

                  As a result, we again run into fighter cover. And the question is - why do we need hemorrhoids with ekranoplans, if the same combat load is delivered to the same radius of 8 MFIs faster and with greater chances of launching and leaving?
                  1. +1
                    5 June 2022 09: 46
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Anti-submarine - no chance. How are you going to listen to the RGAB scattered around the patrol area from the working heights of the ekranoplan flight? They work for VHF.

                    Why am I ashamed of you? Can an aircraft release a submersible or towed GAS antenna? But nothing prevents the EP from raising the tethered drone-antenna by standing on a stop for at least 5 days, after setting up the RGAB barrier, which the ship cannot.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    NK air defense is 30 km. That’s it, we don’t see further on WWI.
                    And how quickly will the ekranoplan with its speed come out from under the air defense umbrella of the ship group?
                    It is more important here how quickly it will go under it, because for 500 km of retreat the planes simply may not have time to catch up, with the initial minimum configuration, with a penny air defense. But RTOs with its max 60 km have no chance at all, even against a helicopter.

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And the question is - why do we need hemorrhoids with ekranoplans, if the same combat load is delivered to the same radius of 8 MFIs faster and with greater chances of launching and leaving?
                    8 MFIs, but at least 28, will not be able to hang out for 5 days in a given area of ​​\u250b\u5bthe sea, in any bay. as well as they will not be able to independently reach the target without reconnaissance (the Lun radar in passive mode allowed this from XNUMX km). And they won’t be able to take off from the destroyed airfield, definitely not with XNUMX ton anti-ship missiles.
                    1. 0
                      5 June 2022 12: 09
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Can an aircraft release a submersible or towed GAS antenna? But nothing prevents the EP from raising the tethered drone-antenna by standing on a stop for at least 5 days, after setting up the RGAB barrier, which the ship cannot.

                      Oh, these dreams about landing on water in an unequipped area and on duty on the water. I already thought that they sorted it out at the stage of seaplanes - but no, now it has migrated to ekranoplanes, and even with a tethered antenna.
                      Do you remember the service life of the RSL? And the fact that the barriers are set up at different times purely because the carrier cannot be at all points of the area at the same time, or because some of the barriers are set up situationally, based on information from other components of the PLO system?
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      It is more important here how quickly it will go under it, because for 500 km of retreat the planes simply may not have time to catch up, with the initial minimum configuration, with a penny air defense.

                      Oh, those aporias of Zeno. I can see directly how the "superphoenix" on its 4-5 M cannot catch up with the ekranoplan.
                      Or do you think that everything will be like in any bad alternative: one side is developing the Uberwaffe, while the others are stupidly following the canon? I'll disappoint you - it won't work. As soon as the development of ekranoplanes begins, the enemy will immediately begin developing ways to deal with them. And I wang that the result of the multibillion-dollar R&D for the creation of a fundamentally new weapon system will be a shamanized "phoenix", to which the GOS and the control system from the "one hundred and twenty" will be screwed. smile
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      8 MFIs, but at least 28, will not be able to hang out for 5 days in a given area of ​​\u250b\uXNUMXbthe sea, in any bay. as well as they will not be able to independently reach the target without reconnaissance (the Lun radar in passive mode allowed this from XNUMX km).

                      And why do we need this? Wouldn't it be better to build an AWACS aircraft for the fleet instead of an ekranoplan and provide this very reconnaissance and target designation? In this case, the aircraft will be able to perform other tasks for 4 days, and strike on the fifth.
                      1 AWACS + 8 MFIs - these are all the expenses of the fleet when replacing an ekranoplan with naval aviation. The airfield is not included in the estimate - it will also have to be equipped in the case of an ekranoplan for basing aviation, covering its exit to the launch line.
                      Moreover, unlike the ekranoplan, both AWACS and MFIs can perform other tasks in the interests of the Navy, in addition to strikes against enemy ships. And they can also be safely transferred between fleets - even from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      And they won’t be able to take off from the destroyed airfield, definitely not with 5 ton anti-ship missiles.

                      If the airfield is destroyed, then the ekranoplan can be accurately written off. Because without air cover, he is the same target as RTOs. Or does someone believe in the possibility of reaching the launch line or even beyond the harbor in the absence of at least temporary and local air supremacy? Well, well, on one island in the South Sea, this dream / Mriya was recently smashed, and on both sides operations.
                      1. +1
                        6 June 2022 06: 22
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Oh, these dreams about landing on water in an unequipped area and on duty on the water. I already thought that they sorted it out at the stage of seaplanes - but no, now it has migrated to ekranoplanes, and even with a tethered antenna.
                        What unequipped area? A ship with 12 mm even aluminum bottom plating does not care much, unlike a GS with God forbid 3 mm bottoms.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Do you remember the service life of the RSL?
                        Domestic? A couple of hours, what? For example, NK buoys are not exposed at all, short-lived for sure, that's all - can the GAS be removed from them for worthlessness?

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Oh, those aporias of Zeno. I can see directly how the "superphoenix" on its 4-5 M cannot catch up with the ekranoplan.
                        To catch up, you need to get target designation, and at a speed of 500 km in half an hour, the EP will go in an arbitrary direction for 250 km. And isn’t it wonderful when the enemy also has to develop a special missile, with unobvious efficiency, which will not put any interference on WWI, but will stupidly fall from above.


                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        "Superphoenixes" will drown them. With ARLGSN and a control system modeled on "one hundred and twenty" +, additional channels will be attached to the GOS in case of electronic warfare (optics, IR, UV).
                        Haha, Alexey, your words about my dreams look like a good joke! The 40-year-old Lun also had an electronic warfare system and could put up curtains that can be screwed up on a promising, scary and thoughtful, from anti-missiles to lasers, since the energy is practically ship-based. . Well, the UV channel on the target on the underlying background does not work, as far as I remember, it catches the target on the background of the sky, but this is so, a trifle.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And why do we need this? Wouldn't it be better to build an AWACS aircraft for the fleet instead of an ekranoplan and provide this very reconnaissance and target designation?
                        Which cannot hang in the sky for 5 days, which needs to be covered, because it shines like a Christmas tree, which needs an airfield and which costs at least a couple of EP Lun with BC. (There are calculations, the Lun costs approximately the same as the Il-76 plus a couple of engines)

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        The airfield is not included in the estimate - it will also have to be equipped in the case of an ekranoplan for basing aviation, covering its exit to the launch line.
                        NK also needs to be covered, but in the case of EP, the required cover time is reduced, not by an order of magnitude, but many times over! By the way, ATP, came to mind just now.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Moreover, unlike the ekranoplan, both AWACS and MFIs can perform other tasks in the interests of the Navy, in addition to strikes against enemy ships.
                        PLO and possibly air defense? But air defense is so, hypothetically, although the capabilities of the EP quite allow.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And they can also be safely transferred between fleets - even from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean.
                        In peacetime, or from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific Fleet along the Sevmor, at least on ice. and there are few problems with EP, at 400 km / h cr. travel and 3000 km ferry range.


                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        If the airfield is destroyed, then the ekranoplan can be accurately written off. Because without air cover, he is the same target as RTOs.
                        EPs, like RTOs, can hang out in any puddle deeper than 3 m, but unlike RTOs, they can go 30 km in 200 minutes! Dispersal and repositioning after a satellite pass, for example, make defeating an EP in the parking lot a difficult task.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Well, well, on one island in the South Sea, this dream / dream was recently smashed, and on both sides of the operation.
                        Well, let's say the Ukrainians also beat the Litaks.
            2. +1
              4 June 2022 23: 15
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              A lot of air defense on the Molniya-type RK? Yes, even in Karakurt?

              There is no air defense on the ekranoplane at all. And on RTOs at least there is a "Pantsir".
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              With a working sheathing FROM 4 mm? Twice as light as the Eaglet with its tail torn off, under its own power, reached the base.

              One awkward maneuver at any point on the route - and that's it, the task is disrupted. Not in narrowness, not in shallow water - at any point. That is why the ekranoplan is closest in terms of survivability to the aircraft (going to WWI).
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              And what plane? IL-38?

              Any deck-based or shore-based MFI. Even the patrol "Poseidon" is faster.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              And are all enemy NKs equipped with aircraft?

              Once again: without air cover, an enemy naval formation will not enter the threatened area. And the enemy will have coastal or deck aviation - it will make no difference to the ekranoplan.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              But from helicopters, as from standing ones, and bayraktar-like ones are also not a threat.

              Who is going to fight RTOs with helicopters (after all, the ekranoplan is planned in the niche of RTOs)?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              An airplane, especially a fighter, will not replace a surface ship, even 600 tons

              It has long replaced RTOs and RKAs. 8 MFIs in the coastal zone will reach the launch line much faster than RTOs. And they will need less cover - because the cover group for the percussion MFIs will need one, it can go along with the drummers. But for the RTOs, these groups will have to be changed - covering the RTOs all the time while it is crawling. And for ekranoplan too.
              And without cover, RTOs live until the first inclusion of the radar - even lost among other marks. Libyans guarantee.
              Paradoxically, the RKA and RTOs are the weapons of the rich. They can only work properly when backed by a strong air force and navy.
              And I'm not talking about the fact that MFIs are much more multifunctional than small attack ships and ekranoplanes. Especially in terms of solving air defense problems.
              1. +1
                5 June 2022 09: 59
                Quote: Alexey RA
                There is no air defense on the ekranoplane at all. And on RTOs at least there is a "Pantsir".
                Even on the original there were two cannon installations, min. one of them with automatic guidance on its own radar. In the original, with a hull empty to the boom and a clogged PU roof.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                Any deck-based or shore-based MFI. Even the patrol "Poseidon" is faster.
                But what about the IL-38? laughing After all, EP PLO is a competitor to him. And how will the aircraft be used to heat the EP? Anti-ship missiles against a high-speed target are little, if at all, effective, UR explosives are subject to interference, and Lun had a ship-based electronic warfare system, plus stupidly constructive survivability.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                Once again: without air cover, an enemy naval formation will not enter the threatened area. And the enemy will have coastal or deck aviation - it will make no difference to the ekranoplan.
                It makes no difference to all NCs. And EP at least has a chance to get away from the blow, unlike NK.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Who is going to fight RTOs with helicopters (after all, the ekranoplan is planned in the niche of RTOs)?
                It’s strange, why then have small-sized anti-ship missiles been stubbornly suspended on helicopters since the 80s?

                Quote: Alexey RA
                It has long replaced RTOs and RKAs. 8 MFIs in the coastal zone will reach the launch line much faster than RTOs
                Once again, if the airfields allow.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But for the RTOs, these groups will have to be changed - covering the RTOs all the time while it is crawling. And for ekranoplan too.
                The EP flies only 2,5 times slower than a fighter with anti-ship missiles.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                And without cover, RTOs live until the first inclusion of the radar - even lost among other marks. Libyans guarantee.
                The Lun radars are identical to Sivuch and 956 pr. and made it possible to launch Mosquitoes from 250 km in PASSIVE mode.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                And I'm not talking about the fact that MFIs are much more multifunctional than small attack ships and ekranoplanes. Especially in terms of solving air defense problems.
                Yeah, and PLO, only if the airfields didn’t bark!

                P / S
                One awkward maneuver at any point on the route - and that's it, the task is disrupted. Not in narrowness, not in shallow water - at any point. That is why the ekranoplan is closest in terms of survivability to the aircraft (going to WWI).
                Where does such confidence in some kind of awkward maneuvers come from? Not only can you cut circles of any radius on the open sea, but also the speed decreases, or are there still two modes, full stop and full speed ahead? I'll hint about cruising 400 km. move.
                1. 0
                  5 June 2022 12: 18
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  But what about the IL-38? laughing After all, EP PLO is a competitor to him.

                  I'm talking about enemy aircraft. It’s speed that doesn’t matter to them - what is an RTO, what is an ekranoplan. Because the air defense of ship groups was considered against supersonic anti-ship missiles and their carriers.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  And how will the aircraft be used to heat the EP? Anti-ship missiles against a high-speed target are little, if at all, effective, UR explosives are subject to interference, and Lun had a ship-based electronic warfare system, plus stupidly constructive survivability.

                  "Superphoenixes" will drown them. With ARLGSN and a control system modeled on "one hundred and twenty" +, additional channels will be attached to the GOS in case of electronic warfare (optics, IR, UV).
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  It makes no difference to all NCs. And EP at least has a chance to get away from the blow, unlike NK.

                  Where should he go? He needs to fulfill a combat mission - to break through to the target at a launch range.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Once again, if the airfields allow.

                  No airfields - no ekranoplan. Without air cover, he will repeat the fate of the Libyan and Iraqi boats.
        2. 0
          4 June 2022 20: 14
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          EP type "Lun" is much better than missile boats of noticeably larger tonnage.

          What does "better" mean? Indicate which combat mission the ekranoplan will solve better than a missile boat.
          1. 0
            4 June 2022 20: 51
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            What does "better" mean? Indicate which combat mission the ekranoplan will solve better than a missile boat.
            It will reach the launch line, leave the launch site an order of magnitude faster, evade helicopters and most enemy UAVs, with a three to four times smaller crew and a larger ammo. And this is Lun in the original version!
            1. +2
              4 June 2022 22: 24
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              It will reach the launch line, leave the launch site an order of magnitude faster

              Again. Voice the combat mission that the ekranoplan will solve better than a missile boat. You write about the stages of its implementation. No steps needed, voice the task :))))))))))
              1. 0
                5 June 2022 10: 03
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Again. Voice the combat mission that the ekranoplan will solve better than a missile boat. You write about the stages of its implementation. No steps needed, voice the task :))))))))))

                Performing the same task, but with a smaller crew and a much lower risk of death, is already a better task. And an order of magnitude faster access to the border, in principle, can allow something that the Republic of Kazakhstan cannot fulfill.
                1. 0
                  5 June 2022 12: 49
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Performing the same task

                  That is, you cannot formulate the tasks of the RC. And it is quite understandable why - for a missile boat in modern naval combat, the Russian Navy simply has no tasks. The fleet doesn't need it. Accordingly, shock EP is not needed either.
      2. 0
        4 June 2022 19: 57
        “it was worth directing indefatigable energy in the right direction” - absolutely right !!! The question is where to get independent and at the same time qualified experts? At the firm-competitor will not work by definition.
        As for the "irrepressible energy", then there is a double-edged sword - on the one hand, technical progress is driven by enthusiasts, on the other, it is the satisfaction of one's own curiosity at the expense of the state.
        “Still, there was something reasonable in Stalin’s “sh.a.r.a.sh.k.a.h”” - there was nothing reasonable in them. Slave labor is, by definition, ineffective. Moreover, then it is necessary to punish those who allowed failed and meaningless scientific work, and those who appointed these "allowed" and so on to the very top.
        1. 0
          4 June 2022 20: 23
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          The question is where to get independent and at the same time qualified experts?

          This is difficult, but here the question is not so much in expertise, but in the competent formulation of tasks. With regard to ekranoplans, it was necessary to clearly formulate the criteria for the success of the project. And as it turned out that they are not being implemented - close the project.
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          “Still, there was something reasonable in Stalin’s “sh.a.r.a.sh.k.a.h”” - there was nothing reasonable in them. Slave labor is, by definition, ineffective.

          I would not say that the Tu-2 and Pe-2 were ineffective. Sharashki, on the other hand, became a reaction to unsuccessful attempts to establish market mechanisms for managing design activities. That is, the market was adjusted, and as a result they got such a heresy ... And, in fact, sh.a.r.a.sh.ka is not slave labor. This is the way in which the convict continued to work in the profession. Which, in my opinion, is much more productive than sending qualified designers to wave a shovel at the White Sea Canal
          1. +1
            4 June 2022 21: 17
            “not so much in expertise, but in the competent setting of tasks” - these are the links of one chain.
            “And as it turned out that they are not being implemented - close the project” - I completely agree, but very often it is impossible to understand this without testing real equipment.
            “much more productive than sending qualified designers to wave a shovel” - in this context, I agree with you. But you consider the dilemma - bad or very bad. And why would the unconsidered option be good?
            "Tu-2 and Pe-2 turned out to be ineffective" - ​​Tu-2 went into production too late, and not least because of the status of its creator. The Pe-2 is a frankly failed machine as a bomber.
            “Sharashki became a reaction to unsuccessful attempts to establish market mechanisms” - sharashki became a reaction to the monstrous decline of qualified engineers from industry to camps. And many were shot.
            1. +1
              4 June 2022 23: 27
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              I completely agree, but very often it is impossible to understand this without testing real technology.

              I don’t argue, but here it would just be reasonable to “stop” after the appearance of the first models of ekranoplanes and ekranoplanes
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              But you consider the dilemma - bad or very bad. And why would the unconsidered option be good?

              In general, I am for everything good against everything bad, but how do you see the implementation of this "good"?
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              The Pe-2 is a frankly failed machine as a bomber.

              Controversial, but I'm not an expert in aviation
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              Sharashkas were a reaction to the monstrous loss of qualified engineers from industry to the camps.

              Do you consider the reasons for this loss? In the pre-repression era, we had extremely market methods of moral and material incentives for the creators of modern military equipment (and not only). Simply put, the designer, having created something important and useful, received both a status in society and material benefits (there are cottages, and housekeepers, and official cars, and fancy apartments, and very serious awards, etc. etc.) . But what did it lead to?
              In addition to the fact that quite often folk funds were literally squandered on empty projects that formally fit the conditions of bonuses, but in fact had no practical benefit, swindlers from technology were bred immeasurably. Simply put, the people quickly adapted and began to stick to the feeder, having the right to do so on a formal basis.
              And there was no one to control this especially, since the people in management, as a rule, “did not graduate from universities,” but were “communist practitioners,” which, in fact, Stalin personally illustrates. The personnel shortage was terrible, ideological specialists who would work specifically for the good of the country and not for their own pockets were hard to find.
              In general, I do not really understand how you want to do without repressions in those real conditions, but I will also listen with interest to your point of view on this issue.
              1. 0
                5 June 2022 08: 28
                “Crooks from technology have bred immeasurably” - I would say otherwise - illiterate enthusiasts.
                “Do without repressions” - repressions have been at all times and in all countries, this is one of the functions of the state. The question is their usefulness. Regarding the USSR of that time, it was really impossible in a different way, but for a different reason - the essence of the power of the Bolsheviks, their ideology, the inability to think and work differently. They transferred their intra-Party methods of struggle to the population of the country, which in essence is far from politics.
                “And the reasons for this very loss” - there are two reasons - emigration as a result of the Civil War and repression.
                "pre-repression era" - repressions began immediately after the Bolsheviks came to power. The intensity was just different.
                1. 0
                  5 June 2022 12: 48
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  Regarding the USSR of that time, it was really impossible in a different way, but for a different reason - the essence of the power of the Bolsheviks, their ideology, the inability to think and work differently

                  Sergey, we can argue endlessly on this topic. If you think so - to serve you, it is quite obvious that in the framework of the correspondence I will not change your opinion.
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  “And the reasons for this very loss” - there are two reasons - emigration as a result of the Civil War and repression.

                  You are in the strongest way mistaken, absolutizing tsarist Russia. Today there are 2 main currents - those who claim that under tsarism everything was bad, but under the communists it was good, and those who think the opposite. I am in the middle of these currents, because both there and there had their good and bad. But what was not exactly in tsarist Russia was an abundance of technical specialists. Excuse me, our industry under the tsar was far from being the most developed, and much of what was produced was not at the best world level. At the same time, a number of industries were absent altogether (remember the same machine tool industry) or were in their very infancy (auto, aviation).
                  At the same time, it is quite obvious that the results of the WWI and the Civil War, even with the most loyal attitude towards specialists, would lead to serious emigration.
                  1. 0
                    5 June 2022 14: 11
                    “I am in the middle of these currents, because both there and there had their good and bad.” - I have exactly the same views.
                    Of course, there was no abundance of engineers in tsarist Russia, but the available ones had a very good education and, in principle, they were enough for industry.
                    By and large, I agree with your further thoughts. Disagreement in details.
                    1. 0
                      5 June 2022 14: 13
                      Quote: Sergey Valov
                      By and large, I agree with your further thoughts. Disagreement in details.

                      Well, it was nice to have a little discussion! hi
                  2. The comment was deleted.
            2. 0
              5 June 2022 12: 26
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              Tu-2 went into production too late, not least because of the status of its creator.

              For the Tu-2, the traditional misfortune of our aviation industry - engines - played its role. Native AM-37 did not go into production, and M-82 in 1942 was still frankly raw.
              The aircraft flew around on December 15, 1941, and the test cycle lasted until August 22, 1942. Such extended terms were explained by the extremely unreliable M-82A engines. Their failures constantly forced to remake the wings and engine nacelles.

              It was possible to start combat tests only in September 1942, when it was possible to achieve sufficiently reliable operation from the M-82 engines.
              It was not possible to accurately determine the characteristics of the "103V" due to the fact that the M-82 motors lacked power.

              EMNIP, there were complaints about the "eighty-second" even in the middle of 1943.
        2. -2
          4 June 2022 22: 00
          You correctly identified the essence of the problem-expertise. The expert was Stalin, for example, or Brezhnev, after all, a lot of practical skills in production management. 104, Tu-124, Tu-144, Tu-22M, Tu-160 is just crazy PR and a manifestation of a cargo cult. Tupol, for example, learned how to play economy. Even the Tu-144, after the collapse in the Civil Aviation, tried to hand over the Air Force and Navy of the USSR. Read Reshetnikov, commander of the USSR YES.
    2. -3
      4 June 2022 18: 34
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      The very idea of ​​​​the ekranoplan-guano. It is a pity that the people who spent resources on this project were not shot in the USSR.

      The Lun ekranoplan turned out much better for Soviet engineers than you did for your parents.
  6. +4
    4 June 2022 06: 31
    Perhaps something will come of this. But the next pine goose is much more likely.
  7. +4
    4 June 2022 06: 32
    "Caspian Monster" is so named by our enemies by the Americans because of the letters "KM". What, in fact, meant "ship - layout". Fear has big eyes.
    Rostislav Alekseev. Yes, there were people in our time ...
  8. +2
    4 June 2022 06: 46
    Of course, ekranoplanes have problems that were originally built into the design. The flight of an ekranoplan over the surface of the sea can only take place in relatively calm weather. In heavy seas, a separate wave can simply knock out an air cushion from under the wing of the apparatus.

    Maybe it makes sense to make an airplane that can fly like an ekranoplan with an increased payload as a bonus.
  9. +5
    4 June 2022 06: 46
    "Caspian Monster" is KM, a model ship.

    "Lun" is already a conditionally serial model (a series of 8 devices was supposed, in fact one was built). The "Lun" did not carry troops, it was originally developed as a shock, anti-ship missile carrier.
    The amphibious ekranoplan is the "Eaglet".
    In general, horsemen mixed up in a bunch ...
  10. +3
    4 June 2022 06: 52
    It seems that the words "robot-mule" are being tested, I heard already 10 years ago ... a shot for a long time, however, it is being tested.
    1. 0
      4 June 2022 22: 43
      Quote: Alexey Sedykin
      It seems that the words "robot-mule" are being tested, I heard already 10 years ago ... a shot for a long time, however, it is being tested.

      "DARPA - The Pentagon Advanced Research Projects Agency has signed a new agreement with Boston Dynamics to refine its four-legged LS3 robot, also commonly known as BigDog. The reliability of the robot must be increased for its use in a real combat area. It is planned to equip the robot with protection from the effects of small arms weapons , as well as a silent power supply system, which will allow the robot to move without attracting attention.The additional contract is worth almost $ 10 billion.It is expected that all work under the new contract will be completed no later than March 31, 2015(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) of the year"
      .https://topwar.ru/35008-ssha-v-poiske-avtonomnyh-boevyh-robotov.html
      1. -1
        4 June 2022 23: 16
        Here I am about the same thing. Already 22 and they have all the tests going on. )))) And they also say there is no corruption.
        1. +1
          5 June 2022 09: 39
          Quote: Alexey Sedykin
          And they say there is no corruption.

          Commission anti-corruption The US Senate moved from floor to floor in the same building.
          Without purchases, laying communications, etc. - just moved the furniture.
          Were within 3,1 млн dollars ...
          At the trial, the carrier company stated that they had this service
          9 800 bucks. She was paid ....
          And everything else - "There is no corruption ..." ...
  11. -1
    4 June 2022 06: 57
    Okay, KM is actually a concept.
    And "Lun" was in one copy ...
    But the Lun was also quite capable of carrying personnel and military equipment with a total weight of up to 100 tons.
    Is that accurate? You have to work with the material, otherwise the result is another agitation industry crafts ...
    1. -1
      4 June 2022 18: 39
      Quote: smaug78
      And "Lun" was in one copy ...

      The second on the topic "Rescuer" began to be redone, but not completed.
      Quote: smaug78
      Is that accurate? You have to work with the material, otherwise the result is another agitation industry crafts ...
      Missiles with launchers of approximately 60 tons, at least ten tons for radars and electronic equipment. Not 100, but 70 for sure.
      1. +1
        4 June 2022 19: 40
        “But not completed” - stands on the territory of the plant, when you sail on a ship along the Volga, you can see it through the foliage. On a good place for him in the museum.
        1. 0
          4 June 2022 21: 20
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          “But not completed” - stands on the territory of the plant, when you sail on a ship along the Volga, you can see it through the foliage.

          Judging by the photo of the interior, the cabin is generally not saturated with appliances.
  12. -1
    4 June 2022 07: 14
    Our success is not so great as to puff up with pride. There is only a clear trifle in the work, and the rest consists of pieces of paper from presentations. The first Lun was decommissioned a long time ago due to congenital ailments, and the second one has not been completed for forty years. He has already outlived himself. Missiles have become smarter, longer-range and faster. The plane is faster, and the steamer is more spacious and reliable. Both the first and the second are more economical, energy efficient and do not require "razor blade" control. It should be decided whether this monster is needed at all? If needed, then we need control automation like the Su-57 and engines specially designed for the ekranoplan, possibly with a gas-tube generator and screw motors.
  13. +2
    4 June 2022 07: 22
    Many unique Soviet developments remained on paper because then the technologies did not allow them to be translated into metal, it would be good to raise these developments today, because their time has probably come.
    1. -2
      4 June 2022 13: 10
      “Many unique Soviet developments remained on paper” - and thank God that they remained. Defensiveness and so was provided.
      "technology did not allow them to be embodied in metal" - what good is the development that cannot be embodied in metal? This only speaks of the isolation of science from the realities of industry. Much more benefit would be from the development of industry, from the creation of competitive highly efficient industrial equipment, machine tool building, etc., but alas, this direction has always remained on the sidelines.
    2. 0
      5 June 2022 11: 36
      No matter how much you would like, but this transport is viable only in a small-sized version, and then in limited use.
  14. -2
    4 June 2022 08: 14
    Quote: Boris55
    Quote: your vsr 66-67
    They don't make these now!

    Do! Who do you think made the Sarmatians, Daggers, etc.?
    We also have engineers, and a designer, and a handy locksmith.
    And now there is a wagon of money and a small cart (thanks to the sanctions).
    It remains only to solve the question: what do we need for us and it will certainly be.
    The main thing is to beat off the hands of the "Westerners" so that they do not put sticks in the wheels.

    I agree with you! There are designers, engineers, working people even now! But! Sarmatians, Poseidons, daggers, etc. - these are all the backlogs of Soviet designers! At that time, there was simply not enough money, technology, political will, finally, to translate all this into metal! Now it is implemented with some changes and additions! Can you imagine how ahead of the whole planet you were the designer of the BZhK, ekranoplans, astronautics, etc.? Until now, no one can repeat the many developments of the designers of the USSR!
    And who is now at the head of all corporations? Not outstanding designers, but journalists, economists, lawyers and other ists! While S.P. Korolev headed cosmonautics in the USSR, we were ahead of the rest! With his death, accidents, disasters and the collapse of the entire astronautics began! And so in all areas!
    Boots should be made by a shoemaker ...., but now we have boots made by ists ...
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. +2
    4 June 2022 08: 22
    The test of the mules is long over. They didn't like the army
    1. 0
      4 June 2022 10: 23
      The engine hummed, I saw the unit.
  17. 0
    4 June 2022 09: 31
    Again about ekranoplanes! For a long time, practice - namely PRACTICE - has shown that this is a dead end branch of aviation development. Very pretty, but very impractical. It has already been mentioned that they fly only in relatively light seas, but there are other congenital sores - the lack of a landing gear forces operation only from the water, and these are wild problems from maintenance to bases. Takeoff / landing on the water forces to make a reinforced fuselage, which dramatically raises the weight of the machine. Floats because of this and aerodynamics in the direction of deterioration. For large machines, it is necessary to eliminate the possibility of scooping the wing consoles for water, also due to weight and aerodynamics. The scope of their application is also a big question - as landing, it is also necessary to look for a suitable coast for them, as shock - why are they better than a classic aircraft, as rescue - a classic seaplane is more versatile.
    1. -2
      4 June 2022 18: 45
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      For a long time, practice - namely PRACTICE - has shown that this is a dead end branch of aviation development.

      EP type "Lun" ship.
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      The scope of their application is also a big question - as landing, it is also necessary to look for a suitable coast for them, as shock - why are they better than a classic aircraft, as rescue - a classic seaplane is more versatile.
      Heavy EPs are competitors to hovercraft in any parameters other than landfall, and even then skeg ones cannot. Small ships - in terms of speed, with equal seaworthiness, aircraft in terms of being at sea.
      1. +2
        4 June 2022 19: 12
        “EP type "Lun" ship” - a ship hovering above the waves! Yes
        According to the second thesis - practice has put everything in its place - no one in the world makes ekranoplanes.
        1. -1
          4 June 2022 20: 36
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          According to the second thesis - practice has put everything in its place - no one in the world makes ekranoplanes.
          Titanium submarines are also nobody in the world, superheavy launch vehicles are nobody. Because they can't.
          Russia does not make VTOL aircraft, ekranoplans and aircraft carriers - the conclusion is that they are not needed.
          1. 0
            4 June 2022 21: 20
            "Because they can't" - or don't want to. request
            “Conclusion, they are not needed” - I don’t dare to argue, you are absolutely right. Russia does not need them at this stage.
            1. +1
              4 June 2022 21: 27
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              You are absolutely right. Russia does not need them at this stage.
              Yes, according to this logic, Russia didn’t need a lot of things. VTOL, aircraft carriers, orbital stations, reusable space systems, own passenger aircraft.
      2. +1
        4 June 2022 19: 23
        "hovercraft" - as for hovercraft, they can be called ships with a big stretch. They fly great over ice. SHIPS!!! Back in the late 70s, at lectures at MATI, we were told about air-cushion vehicles for moving goods inside workshops. Samples were created but did not receive application. Also ships?
        1. -1
          4 June 2022 20: 42
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          "hovercraft" - as for hovercraft, they can be called ships with a big stretch. They fly great over ice.

          An RTO like Sea Sivuch laughs at you, because it is a ship and because it cannot soar even in a dream on ice, unlike an EP of any class.
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          air cushion vehicles for moving goods inside workshops. Samples were created but did not receive application. Also ships?
          If they carried weapons and were based on the water, then yes. Carried and based? laughing
          And it was not a pillow, but "air lubrication" for a very even floor.
          1. +1
            4 June 2022 21: 24
            "Carried and based?" - seaplanes and carry weapons and are based on the water. Let's call it ships? laughing
            "air lubrication" - it will be necessary to remember this new technical term. good
            1. 0
              4 June 2022 21: 33
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              seaplanes and carry weapons and are based on the water. Let's call it ships?
              GS are NOT based on water, and yes, large aircraft are called airships or ships. So that.

              Quote: Sergey Valov
              "air lubrication" - it will be necessary to remember this new technical term.
              And why remember, drive into the search engine and be enlightened, from bearings and ships to cargo handling systems.
              1. 0
                4 June 2022 22: 20
                “HS are NOT based on water” - let's stop there. Many seaplanes without landing gear have been created in the world and they are based/based on water. Internet to help you
                1. 0
                  5 June 2022 09: 33
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  “HS are NOT based on water” - let's stop there. Many seaplanes without landing gear have been created in the world and they are based/based on water. Internet to help you
                  Name at least one modern military GS without a wheeled chassis. And we ended when you imagined that hovercraft (hovercraft) could not be ships.
      3. 0
        5 June 2022 11: 39
        Competitor? Unlike the ekranoplan, the hovercraft is not afraid of excitement ...
        1. 0
          5 June 2022 16: 03
          Quote: Alexey Sedykin
          Competitor? Unlike the ekranoplan, the hovercraft is not afraid of excitement ...
          It's kind of a shame! At RTO Sea Sivuch, with a wave of 4 points, the maximum speed of the ship is reduced to 50 knots, and with 5 points, to 40 knots. With excitement above, there is no talk of any air cushion, but this is a skeg ship!
          1. 0
            5 June 2022 20: 21
            Yes ... but this underplane will not fly at all at best.
            1. 0
              6 June 2022 05: 52
              Quote: Alexey Sedykin
              Yes ... but this underplane will not fly at all at best.
              You missed a lot, Lun both flew and carried out successful test firing at full speed.
              1. 0
                6 June 2022 19: 05
                In a storm? With anxiety???
                1. 0
                  7 June 2022 07: 08
                  Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                  In a storm? With anxiety???

                  Restriction on the use of weapons for ships up to destroyers 5 rarely 6 points. If that tells you anything.
                  1. 0
                    7 June 2022 12: 55
                    You still didn't answer my question.
                    1. 0
                      7 June 2022 13: 10
                      Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                      You still didn't answer my question.

                      Launches over calm water. Did he fly in a storm? Many 400 ton ships go out to sea in a storm?
                      1. 0
                        7 June 2022 17: 29
                        Shaw, are we discussing ships or under-aircraft? What are you writing to me about the courts? And yet, if sea vessels were not designed to withstand storms, then no navigation other than cobatage would exist in nature ... because the weather does not ask permission and does not warn.
                      2. 0
                        8 June 2022 03: 55
                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        Shaw, are we discussing ships or under-aircraft? What are you writing to me about the courts?

                        The fact that you are illiterate is already clear. I'll spell it out. EP Lun could take off safely with a 5 point wave, 5 points is the limit for the use of weapons even for destroyers, not to mention frigates. Not a single HS can take off or land at 3 (three point) waves and the seaworthiness limit of the HS is 5 points, further destruction. Even extrapolating this difference to the Lun, we get 7,5 seaworthiness points, this is a Molniya-type launcher of 500 tons.
                        You don’t know shit about EP, and a little less about maritime affairs.

                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        And yet, if sea vessels were not designed to withstand storms, then no navigation other than cobatage would exist in nature ... because the weather does not ask permission and does not warn.
                        Take an interest in how many small-sized and not only ships and ships died before the appearance of more or less reliable weather forecasts. You are a philosopher even worse than an EP - an airplane. laughing
                        I think it’s pointless to write about the fact that the Lun trimaran with a skin of 4 to 12 mm, but I’ll write.
                      3. 0
                        8 June 2022 07: 39
                        Well, yes ... you are our smart one. A missile boat, unlike this under-plane, once caught in a storm, is capable of continuing to move like any ship, which increases the chances of surviving at times. But such a flying misunderstanding will surely go to the bottom and spit even a catamaran, even a trimaran. Yes ... and more than one meteorologist does not predict a flurry that has flown. And I don’t need to rub about seaplanes, this is an ordinary plane only capable of landing on water. I also know about the conditional flying abilities of an underplane ... a chicken is also kind of like a bird and is even able to fly a little bit and somehow
                      4. +1
                        8 June 2022 08: 13
                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        like any ship to continue moving, which increases the chances of surviving at times.
                        Clinic.
                        A person who does not understand a word about the wave score and the thickness of the skin and the stability of mono and polyhull ships, but undertakes to talk about this, must finish his studies at school.
                        Go to school! Right after the holidays.
                      5. -2
                        8 June 2022 08: 55
                        The clinic is yours.
                      6. 0
                        8 June 2022 09: 09
                        You don't seem to know "terms" other than "under-aircraft" at all. I'll throw you another one, so be it - "shkololo".
                      7. -2
                        8 June 2022 11: 22
                        So he does not pull on the "undership". But do not be rude dove.
                      8. 0
                        8 June 2022 12: 21
                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        So he does not pull on the "undership".

                        A ship with a speed of 270 knots is exactly what a supership is.

                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        But do not be rude dove.
                        Learn to find an argument, at least some, and "shkololo" will be canceled. You don't understand even the simplest things.
                      9. 0
                        8 June 2022 17: 37
                        So your argument is lame on both legs.
                      10. -1
                        8 June 2022 17: 41
                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        So your argument is lame on both legs.
                        What is this? Refute if you see weakness. Otherwise, an under-aircraft and an under-ship are not an argument at all.
                      11. 0
                        9 June 2022 10: 58
                        Do you have it? All you wrote is that he is a trimaran and is able to climb. But is not a word with evidence capable of withstanding a small storm ... And yes, most maritime tragedies in a storm are due to loss of speed.
                      12. 0
                        9 June 2022 11: 10
                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        But is it capable of withstanding a small storm not a word with evidence ..

                        A small storm, in your understanding, what is it?

                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        And yes, most maritime tragedies in a storm are due to the loss of speed.
                        Followed by inversion. Do you know the overkill resistance of trimarans, or is it the "little storm" level?
                        Well, Lun had two APUs and a partition for generators, a couple of three azipods, or, at worst, put thrusters to install as there was nothing to do if they weren’t standing yet.
                      13. -1
                        9 June 2022 12: 37
                        Theoretically, yes, trimarans are more stable, but the dimensions ... plus the wings are the most vulnerable item, however, there are big doubts. The fact that it was completely abandoned clearly says that this is an unpromising dead end. Not the first and not the last dead end experiment.
                      14. +1
                        9 June 2022 13: 45
                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        but here are the dimensions ... plus the wings are the most vulnerable item, however, there are big doubts.

                        What about dimensions? Span 44 hull 4,5 by 73, a boat with a working width of a battleship. And you look at the wings before you doubt, they are very thick and wide, the pontoon for the floating bridge is practically the same. due to only the forms are very rigid, no aviation ones are even close! But also the thickness of the working skin! From 4 mm to 12, for comparison: An-124 has the thickest elements at the root of 10 mm. And the rest of the wing .... 4 mm, 2 mm and attention! 0,6 mm!

                        P / S Lun's wing is very thick even for a ship's trimaran.

                        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
                        The fact that it was completely abandoned clearly says that this is an unpromising dead end.
                        This is the only conditionally working argument against it, but why conditionally? When did they abandon "Lun"? In the early 90s. And what else was abandoned at this time? Yak-141, Yak-44 AWACS, nuclear aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk", energy program, but only military unfinished projects will occupy the page! Were they all hopeless? That's it!
                      15. 0
                        9 June 2022 22: 15
                        Okay, I give up...convinced.
                      16. +1
                        10 June 2022 04: 15
                        In fairness, the Lun is perhaps the ideal - what is smaller, even the Eaglet, is flimsy and unsafe, what is larger is technically and economically very risky. hi
                      17. +1
                        10 June 2022 06: 39
                        To be honest, thank you very much. I haven't argued so much with a truly enthusiastic person in a long time.
                      18. +1
                        12 June 2022 01: 08
                        Vladimir, you are more than right!
                        The potential of EP for the tasks of the Navy is huge, it is in the range between the ship's carrying capacity and aircraft speeds (according to the Karma-Gabrielli diagram).
                        KM, Lun - private solutions of Alekseev's aircraft scheme, only revealed the potential of EP, cannot be considered as the limit of technology.
                        The seaworthiness of the EP is proportional to the linear dimensions, more precisely, to the length of the chord of the bearing surface. Therefore, the ideal EP (in terms of seaworthiness and other parameters) is a supporting body, a flying wing. The fundamental problems of EP (flight stability, launch energy, controllability, noise, scaling, etc.) have a beautiful complex solution at the level of modern technical capabilities and materials.
                        EP is capable of refueling aircraft.
                        EP with YaSU is possible.
                        The potential of EP is huge, the question is how much it is in demand for the tasks of the Navy now?
                        Administrative graters kill.
  18. +2
    4 June 2022 11: 35
    Just don't confuse the terms. The same "Eaglet", although called an ekranoplan, is actually an ekranoplan. And despite the similarity of names and the same cruising method of flight, the difference is big. If an ekranoplan is in fact a vessel whose bearing surfaces are only sufficient to reach the ground effect, then an ekranoplan is an aircraft that uses the ground effect to reduce the required power of horizontal flight.
    The mentioned "Eaglet" has a ceiling of 3000 meters. That is, in case of worsening weather, it simply gains altitude.
  19. 0
    4 June 2022 14: 15
    All this is nonsense.

    Judging by the lack of at least some quality graphics, this is a purely draft-draft project, which offices darn hundreds in order to simply illustrate any idea ...

    i.e. US AMI experts decided to figure out - is it even worth discussing how much it can cost, efficiency, utility, supply chains ......

    and DARPA simply illustrated the order, and in haste
  20. +1
    4 June 2022 14: 49
    But, the payload. The same KM once took to the air with a takeoff weight of 544 tons. This was a record for any existing aircraft. Only the An-225 Mriya aircraft, which appeared later, was able to break this record. True, Mriya is already all, but nevertheless, ekranoplans are capable of lifting significantly more weight than airplanes.

    Ahem ... but is there a substitution of concepts here? A large takeoff weight does not mean a large payload at all - it can only mean a large mass of an empty car and fuel.
    Moreover, the weight return of flying vehicles with landing on water is always lower than traditional ones - simply due to the need to ensure sufficient strength of the lower part of the fuselage for landing "on the belly" on an uneven surface (water in waves).
    1. 0
      4 June 2022 18: 46
      Quote: Alexey RA
      A large takeoff weight does not mean a large payload at all - it can only mean a large mass of an empty car and fuel.

      According to memoirs, hundreds of tons of ballast were loaded into KM, and they were never unloaded, they flew with them all the time. Possibly a legend.

      Quote: Alexey RA
      Moreover, the weight return of flying vehicles with landing on water is always lower than traditional ones.
      In EP, this is compensated, and strongly, by a sharp increase in quality on the screen.
  21. 0
    4 June 2022 14: 49
    Here they are sawing the budget, handsome men, you are simply amazed!
  22. -2
    4 June 2022 15: 36
    And why didn't the Soviet ekranoplans go into mass production if they are so useful?
  23. +1
    4 June 2022 16: 04
    Borya Eltsyn at one time sent a team from a Boeing to a top-secret facility and they crawled up and down with rulers and cameras Lun
  24. kig
    0
    5 June 2022 03: 59
    I decided to search the net for information about the operation of the devices mentioned in the article, and found nothing. It seems that the Ivolga is operated only by the manufacturer himself in a single copy, the S-90 project has generally stalled, the Seagull is just a model traveling through exhibitions. Only "Aquaglide" seems to be made in 10 copies, but it is not known where they ended up.

    In general, either the operation of ekranoplans is a specially protected state secret, or they are of interest only to enthusiasts.

    In this regard, one can only envy the Americans, who can afford to spend rather big sums on half-crazy projects. By the way, once upon a time, all more or less sane people believed that iron could not float. This idea seemed crazy.
  25. +2
    5 June 2022 10: 06
    In heavy seas, a separate wave can simply knock out an air cushion from under the wing of the apparatus.
    "The waves rolled over the pier and fell down with a swift jack." (I. Ilf, E. Petrov, "12 chairs") The author's articles on political topics are much more successful.
    1. 0
      5 June 2022 10: 55
      Well, how does the author know about the features of the formation of a dynamic air cushion? Hence the pearls. lol
      As well as the fact that mentioning the features of piloting an ekranoplan, its instrumentation is ignored.
      In fact, it is identical to the aircraft with one big difference.
      The attitude indicator, or whatever it is on the sea, the inclinometer (I don’t know for sure) here, although it’s still the same gyroscopic device, it’s still different.
      First, it is larger.
      Secondly, on the aviation horizon of the scale, at best, after five degrees, here the accuracy is up to one.

      However, there is also an aviation horizon, as a backup device.
  26. 0
    5 June 2022 13: 26
    If they do, then I'm sure it will be a very efficient transport. But the issue of freedom of action raises big questions, yet the aircraft is much more vulnerable than the ship.
  27. 0
    5 June 2022 15: 06
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But what was not exactly in tsarist Russia was an abundance of technical specialists. We, sorry, the industry under the tsar was far from the most developed

    With pleasure I got acquainted with the work of Prilepin, he describes the way of the Solovetsky camps in the work "Abode". You have to believe him, all the technical specialists of the early stage of the USSR are former tsarist specialists. There were not so few of them. Let us recall the achievements of the early Soviet government, the built hydroelectric power stations, and so on. Since the revolution, nothing has passed, there was simply nowhere to take other specialists and workers. And if we talk about educational institutions, then they need teachers and professors, of course, these were royal specialists. The USSR did not start from a blank slate. But gaps remain in some areas. What you wrote as the shortcomings of tsarist Russia, to a large extent, applies to the USSR itself.
    and much of what was produced was not at the best world level. At the same time, a number of industries were absent altogether.
  28. 0
    13 June 2022 16: 11
    Well, yes, Russia has something to be proud of))) evolved from 500-ton colossus to "Cossacks" with propellers with floats from pedal-powered pleasure catamarans))). Don't tell others what they CAN'T, think of what you can yourself while you can. And then you will receive another message: batut is working).
  29. 0
    13 June 2022 18: 23
    Under this machine, the entire third workshop was conceived.
    Then they repurposed for the construction of "Bison" and other military ....
  30. 0
    22 August 2022 21: 04
    It seems that in Russia they covered up all sorts of developments of ekranoplanes and ekranoplanes. This is a frank bungling of our naval commanders! A huge backlog in shipbuilding and naval aviation, decades ahead of the United States and NATO countries, was ruined by our naval strategists. But all is not yet lost. It is optimal to go in two directions at once, along the line of shipbuilding and along the line of naval aircraft construction. In aviation, things are going even better. On the basis of the Beria A-40, there is already a ready-made powerful naval strike missile amphibious strategic aviation complex, which has even better combat characteristics than the ekranoplans created in the USSR .. Depending on the modular filling, the A-40 can be both anti-submarine systems and rescuers, and landing amphibious aircraft. They are not afraid of any minefields. The delivery of the landing force is almost 100% guaranteed to the very shore. The draft of an amphibian afloat is scanty. Landing can also be carried out directly on the shore. But in Russia there is a naval lobby that lobbies for the interests of large shipbuilding and aircraft manufacturing enterprises that produce products with much worse characteristics than the A-40. Therefore, the products and projects of the Taganrog TANTK named after. Beriev in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation are not in demand. Naval military strategists are still living in yesterday. They are pushing with maniacal persistence the idea of ​​building a new Russian aircraft carrier. But who knows what it is, they have an idea that it is a very expensive pleasure, and not only in construction, but also in operation. Maintenance, escort at sea, protection and repair of an aircraft carrier will cost Russia as much as a whole division of warships. The tasks that an aircraft carrier solves can easily be solved by 5 amphibious aircraft based on the A-40. And with the money needed to build one aircraft carrier, you can build 100 A-40 aircraft (!). Any aircraft carrier is not even difficult to sink with a pair of missiles or torpedoes with a conventional warhead. And with a nuclear warhead, one is enough for the aircraft carrier itself and for its entire escort.
    Darpa immediately switched to the twin-fuselage version of the ekranoplan. This is right. The stability on the water surface of a twin-body ship or amphibious aircraft increases many times over. The carrying capacity of the ship and aircraft is also increasing.
    Russia still has the opportunity not to miss its leadership in the creation of flying sea ships and amphibious aircraft. Russia already has technical documentation, technological equipment, experience in manufacturing the A-40, these weapons carriers, especially amphibious aircraft. A twin-body amphibious aircraft can also be quickly created by combining two A-40 aircraft into one. If you equip the old Be-12s with modern engines and equipment, then on the basis of the Be-12 you can also successfully create a modern amphibious catamaran aircraft. At TANTK them. Beriev, there are more modern developments. The matter remains only with the military contracts of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation with the TANTK them. Beriev and financing the construction of aircraft .. And in a little over a year, the new A-40s will already be able to enter service with the Russian Navy.
  31. 0
    28 August 2022 09: 29
    Listen, this narrative about a "non-existent country" in my opinion is used by some narrow-minded people. Russia was, is and will be. The fact that it was somehow called differently in certain historical periods can be omitted long ago. Though maybe it's done on purpose...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"