Iran's Shahid Soleimani-class guided missile corvettes

On February 27, 2025, the Shahid Rais-Ali Delvari, the fourth ship in the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, was commissioned. missile Shahid Soleimani-class corvette.

Shahid Soleimani-class missile corvettes

The lead ship of the series entered service on September 5, 2022, and the next pair (Shahid Hasan Bagheri and Shahid Sayyad Shirazi) - in 2024. The ships have a somewhat non-standard design for warships - a catamaran, although their analogues are available in fleets USA, China, North Korea and Taiwan.

These catamaran warships are a further development of the double-hulled corvette “Shahid Nazeri”, built in 2016 for the IRGC.

Corvette "Shahid Nazeri"

The series was built at the Shahid Mahallati Shipbuilding Complex in Bushehr. The ship's hull is made of aluminum alloy using stealth technology. The main propulsion system is four diesel engines. The full displacement is about 600 tons, the length is 67 m, the width is 19 m, the speed is 32 (according to other sources - 45) knots. The cruising range at economic speed reaches 5000-5500 nautical miles, which allows the ships to operate in most of the Indian Ocean without replenishing supplies.

Construction of the Shahid Soleimani-class corvette

"Shahid Soleimani" with the original armament (instead of 20-mm artillery mounts, 12,7-mm machine guns, other radars)

The catamarans are equipped with powerful missile weapons:

• four Ghadir anti-ship missile launchers (range 330 km, warhead weight 165 kg);
• two launchers of Nasir anti-ship missiles (range 140 km, warhead weight 130 kg);
• six long-range cruise missiles (1000-2000 km) in 6 vertical launchers;
• 16 vertical launchers for Sayyed-2 (range up to 75 km) or Sayyed-3 (range up to 150 km) anti-aircraft missiles.

PU missile systems

Location of anti-ship missile launchers and boat hangar

Ghadir anti-ship missile

PKR Nasir

Anti-aircraft missile Sayyed-2-2

In addition, the Shahid Soleimani-class corvettes are armed with a 30mm cannon, four 20mm remote-controlled triple-barreled Gatling gun mounts and 2 x 12 jamming launchers.

Artillery installations and control units for jamming

Three-barrel 20-mm artillery mount

The stern section is equipped with a runway for a helicopter or UAV weighing up to 5 tons, as well as a hangar and a launch and recovery device for three high-speed boats.

Helicopter landing

Launching of boats

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

An interesting boat. Moreover, judging by the bottom of the central part, it is transitional to a trimaran, and this somewhat levels out a couple of shortcomings of a purely catamaran scheme. Missile weapons and air defense are strong for such a tonnage, but the radar is mediocre.

[IVZ]

Moreover, judging by the bottom of the central part, it is transitional to a trimaran

I read somewhere that it is a "clean" catamaran. The central hull increases survivability when one of the side hulls is flooded. It does not work in normal operation.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: IVZ

I read somewhere that it is a "clean" catamaran.

Possible.

Quote: IVZ

The central hull increases survivability in the event of flooding of one of the side hulls.

And it allows you to place more. Especially vertical structures - such as UVP.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Interesting boat

Interesting, but for warm seas. Unfortunately, with our ice conditions, even sometimes on the Black Sea, this solution is unacceptable. Besides, it has good seaworthiness.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

Unfortunately, given our ice conditions, even sometimes in the Black Sea, this decision is unacceptable.

RK, MRK, and other small ships have been and are being used by all fleets...

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

RK, MRK, and other small ships somehow went and go

With an aluminum hull? The issue of catamarans for the Russian Navy was discussed at one time, but this direction was abandoned. I am not against this type of ship for our Fleet as littoral, patrol and anti-submarine, but the issue should be properly studied.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

With aluminum body?

Hello! Most ships and sea vessels on hydrofoils have aluminum hulls, some TA.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Most ships and marine hydrofoils have aluminum hulls

And how do they feel in slushy ice? What is their corrosion resistance, fire resistance and resistance to any ammunition? After all, we are talking about a potential combat ship. That is why I wrote that the device is very interesting, very tightly packed in terms of armament, as a double-hulled ship it should have good seaworthiness, and this with a range of 5000 miles. If it were not for our ice conditions, then as a littoral ship (corvette) of the OVR, an anti-submarine corvette and an FSB patrol ship, this would be a very interesting solution. But we have ice conditions of varying severity in the Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet and the Baltic for up to six months. And this already imposes a number of conditions and requirements on the ship's hull. And for warm seas, this is a very good ship, if it is also well controlled. For Iran, China, Japan, Korea (both) this would be very useful. But in order to use this type of ship here, we need to think and calculate very well.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

And how do they feel on the slushy ice?

I am talking about DOMESTIC ships. Somehow DOMESTIC ships and vessels probably feel in slush. Especially if the thickness of the plating is 4 mm on civilian hydrofoils.

Quote: bayard

What is the corrosion resistance and resistance to fire and any ammunition? After all, we are talking about a potential combat ship.

It may be news to you, but the hull material does not have much effect on fire resistance, due to the fact that the hull comes into contact with water, and corrosion is combated by electrochemical protection and paintwork. The thickness of the plating - yes. But the material of the bulkheads, decks, superstructures, etc. has a big effect. And now this is definitely news to you - all operating small ships of the Russian Federation, almost without exception, and probably the big ones, are all made of aluminum, and the most modern ones are also made of some undisclosed plastics.

Quote: bayard

But in order to use this type of ship here, we need to think and calculate very well.

Personally, I think the most promising small ship for Russia is a heavy ekranoplan. But we have afedron with small ships in general, what can we dream about EP.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Personally, I believe that the most promising small ship for Russia is a heavy ekranoplan.

Like "Lun" or something?? It costs as much as a destroyer. Or as a frigate. No way, a single light multifunctional corvette should be in the VI 1200-1500 tons, with a propulsion plant on two D-500 diesels - 2 x 10 hp, with two UKSK for 000 cells, "Paket-NK", BUGAS and a sonar lowered on the foot, SAM "Pantsir-M", 16 mm gun. At a price of 76-12 billion rubles. this will be the optimal light ASW corvette, which will be able to both in strike missions and in escort of merchant ships and landing ships. It will be possible to build such at almost any normally equipped shipyard, i.e. at all fleets simultaneously because a lot of them are needed (15-40 units) and quickly. The only bottleneck in this topic is the D-50 diesel, which is essentially the engine on the frigates of project 500 with double the number of cylinders. Casting of cylinder blocks began three years ago, but since then there has been no news. If such a diesel appears in our country, then light corvettes, large frigates, and large landing ships can be built with propulsion plants on these engines.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

Like "Lun" or something? It costs as much as a destroyer.

Stupidity. Like two Il-76s maximum, and that's if the engines are new, not overhauled, as was most likely the case.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

. Like two Il-76s maximum, and that's if the engines are new.

If we take into account that the cost of one Il-76MD-90A is about 100-120 million dollars, then the cost of two is definitely more than the export cost of the Chinese frigate Type-54A, or like our project 11356. Strike ekranoplans are now irrelevant because AWACS aircraft, as well as combat aircraft with their radars, will easily detect them, not to mention the satellite groups of enemies. The speed is low, maneuverability is zero, and the tasks ... What can "Lun" do that an MRA aircraft with a GP anti-ship missile on suspensions can not? In combination with a BRK GP anti-ship missile with a range of 1000 km.
Need an MPA plane?
For the first step in solving this problem, such an aircraft already exists - Su-34M\M2, which can easily handle two anti-ship missiles, or one, but with additional drop tanks. And if you equip it with the "Belka" radar/IRLK from the Su-57, it will also be able to stand up for itself in an air battle. This is if you do it FAST and as the first step in solving the problem.
But for a QUALITY solution to this problem ... we make an enlarged airframe a la Su57, but with a two-seater cabin like the Su-34 with a takeoff weight of about 75-85 tons, we install two R-579V-300 engines on it, which are now undergoing tests with a thrust of 23 - 000 kgf in afterburner, and 24 - 000 kgf without afterburner. Two anti-ship missiles in the internal weapons bays and two air-to-air missiles in the bays in the underwing extensions (where the Su-14 has one). And here you have an ideal MPA strike aircraft with a range of 000 - 14 km, a speed of 500 - 57 M in afterburner, and low visibility. Which, in addition to this, can also be used as a long-range medium-lift bomber. And even as a long-range fighter for escorting DA aircraft. Can you imagine how many RVVs it can take into its internal compartments?
Here you have two aircraft of the future MRA for the near and medium term. And strike ekranoplans are already from the realm of the past, when "the impossible is possible" - in terms of implementing the most complex engineering tasks without the appearance of any obvious advantages.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

Considering that the cost of one Il-76MD-90A is around 100 - 120 million dollars.
then the cost of two is definitely more than the export cost of the Chinese frigate Type-54A

In 2015, the cost of one Chinese Type 054A frigate was US$348 million.

For example, the Il-76 with PS-90 engines was produced in Tashkent for 50-55 million dl.
It's no wonder why you think EPs are expensive, with such a command of numbers.
But PS-90A in terms of maximum thrust may be enough for 6 pieces, and PS-90A1 will definitely be enough, and not 8 NK-87.

Quote: bayard

What can "Lun" do that an aircraft\you MRA with a GP anti-ship missile on pylons can't? In combination with a BRK GP anti-ship missile with a range of 1000 km?

It is absolutely unclear what the State Protection Regulation of the Russian Federation is.
The Harrier can be at sea, at a wave of 5 points, with the ability to take off, or at least 8 points in motion, or near the coast or in the skerries for 5 days, and conduct passive radar reconnaissance at a range of up to 400 km.
And carry 6 pcs of 4-ton missiles, with the ability to launch either based on their own intelligence or external targeting devices. And all this in the original version.
Because the Lun type EP is a small missile ship, even officially, and was equipped with a radar at least no worse than all the Moskit carriers, and even the 956 project, in terms of over-the-horizon detection of the Monolith radar. But the EP, with its seaworthiness, is also an excellent small anti-submarine ship, which is what it was originally intended to be.

Quote: bayard

Strike ekranoplans are now irrelevant because AWACS aircraft, as well as combat aircraft with their radars, can easily detect them, not to mention the satellite groups of enemies.

Even the ancient "Lun" is not a torpedo boat, and was not supposed to attack at low altitude within the radio horizon. And like a normal missile/missile ship and generally a ship with anti-ship missiles, it could use anti-ship missiles both from an external control unit and according to its own data.
So, both in price and in application, the EP is not a competitor to aviation, but to small ships. But taking into account the tenfold superiority in speed, small ships are not competitors to the EP.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

In 2015, the cost of one Chinese Type 054A frigate was US$348 million.

I don't know where you got that figure, but I took the cost of the Type-54A from the EXPORT price for four frigates built for Pakistan. And the price there is indicated as 189 or 187 million dollars. I am sure that the price for the PLA is not higher than the export price. And that was... I think 2019.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

For example, the Il-76 with PS-90 engines was produced in Tashkent for 50-55 million dl.

In what years was this?? I'm talking about modern prices. Again, for 2019-2020. When the state-set price of $100 million turned out to be unprofitable for the plant. Including because the Shoigi Ministry of Defense forced the contractor to take commercial loans to fulfill the order. And then there was talk of wanting to raise the price to about $120 million. I don't know what was agreed upon, but Ulyanovsk still does not build more than 6 aircraft per year.
And you dream of a new "Caspian Monster". Such a miracle won't fit into 300 million dollars. And there's no one to build them. We've forgotten how to build ordinary civilian airliners.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It is absolutely unclear what the State Protection Regulation of the Russian Federation is.

Hypersonic anti-ship missile of the coastal missile system. "Zircon" launched from the TPU of the BRK "Bastion". Such already exist and were even used for strikes on Kyiv. Once or twice - for sure.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The harrier can be at sea, on a wave of 5 points, with the possibility of take-off, or at least 8 points in motion, or near the shore or in the skerries for 5 days,

We will never have such ships or aircraft again, that's for sure. Only the USSR could spend money on such things and launch such experiments. And like all-titanium submarines. And I repeat - there is NO ONE to build such ships either. We can't replicate the regular An-2, although they are desperately needed for local airlines.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

carry 6 pieces of 4-ton missiles

Three Su-34s can carry this much, its (the plane's) chief designer confirmed this. At the same time, the air version of the "Zircon" weighs somewhat more, approximately 4,6 tons.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

But the EP, with its seaworthiness, is also an excellent small anti-submarine ship, which is what it was originally intended to be.

I don’t know what/who conceived it as before, but as an anti-submarine weapon it’s completely out of place. Let us have NORMAL ASW aircraft based on the Tu-214R, capable of detecting submarines by the water hump using the radar method, with a good green lidar (capable of seeing targets at a depth of up to 300 m), with a good set of first-class highly sensitive acoustic drop buoys, and with a good anti-ship missile system (in the internal compartment, at least 4 Kh-35 or Kh-69), depth charges and torpedoes. And it is also desirable to place pylons for the RPV for self-defense. The presence of a radar system and passive RT reconnaissance equipment on board will allow using these ASW aircraft as integrated reconnaissance and target designation aircraft. We should have created one yesterday, but we only have the Vega for this, and it still hasn’t finished the A-100.
So for the future - classic ASW and Integrated Maritime Reconnaissance and Target Designation Aviation, and classic MRA - the first regiments on the Su-34M2, in the medium term the above-described MRA aircraft.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The EP is not a competitor to aviation, but to small ships.

It does not have the same seaworthiness or autonomy as a classic ship.
Anti-submarine warfare in the BMZ and in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation should be carried by anti-submarine warfare corvettes of the above-described type, with the reinforcement of their groups (and they should work in groups of 3-4 ships) by frigates of project 22350.1 and already built corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385. Anti-submarine warfare is when COMBAT DUTY IS CARRIED OUT in a given area for a long time with rotation of ships\search\combat groups. And of course Anti-submarine warfare aviation. For which we need to have about 100-120 (optimum) basic anti-submarine warfare aircraft based on the Tu-214 of the above-described type. The minimum requirement for such aircraft is 60 pcs.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

small ships are not competitors to the EP.

If the "Karakurts" are armed with "Zircons" (1000 km) or "Onyxes" (up to 800 km), then they are quite competitors. Simply because they already exist, there will be relatively many of them and they can be dispersed in advance to cover all dangerous directions. And their price is almost an order of magnitude cheaper than such a "Lun", if you want to build it "right now".

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

I don't know where you got that figure, but I took the cost of the Type-54A from the EXPORT price for four frigates built for Pakistan. And the price there is listed as 189 or 187 million dollars.

But I don’t know where YOU got this figure.

two pairs of Project 054A/P frigates with the Chinese foreign trade association China Shipbuilding Trading Company Ltd. (CSTC), which is part of CSSC. The value of the contracts was not officially disclosed, but, according to unofficial reports, is a total of $1,4 billion.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4427932.html

Project 054A – $348 million

https://novate.ru/blogs/210225/72472/

Quote: bayard

What years was this?? I'm talking about modern prices.

and in approximately the same years, where did you get the price of 100-120 million d.
https://www.aviationunion.ru/media/news/4248/
Moreover, I named a price of a maximum of two Il-76s with old engines, because the NK-87 is a very old engine.

Quote: bayard

We can't replicate the regular An-2

They don’t even repeat it, what nonsense, they can’t replace it, and that’s because of the engine.

Quote: bayard

And you dream of a new "Caspian Monster". Such a miracle won't fit into 300 million dollars. And there's no one to build them. We've forgotten how to build ordinary civilian airliners.

What nonsense. Lun is much simpler than a transport aircraft, it has a simple wing, it has no landing gear, the hydroski is an order of magnitude simpler than the landing gear, it has a welded body, much simpler than the Il-76, and without the use of titanium. Finally, all heavy EPs were built at a shipyard. The main expense item for EPs is the engines.

Quote: bayard

Three Su-34s can carry this much, this was confirmed by the aircraft’s chief designer.

Where did you read this nonsense?

Quote: bayard

Let us have NORMAL anti-submarine aircraft based on the Tu-214R, capable of detecting submarines by the water hump using the radar method, with a good green lidar (capable of seeing targets at a depth of up to 300 m), with a good set of first-class highly sensitive acoustic drop buoys,

Is this a reason to liquidate the IPC?

Quote: bayard

I don’t know what/who conceived it for before, but as an anti-submarine weapon it’s completely out of place.

Unlike an aircraft, an EP can use any type of sonar, be it submersible or towed, and for several DAYS. Like an aircraft, it can use a laser and a magnetometer, and even more so a radar. Yes, it can't use a radar, but a radar can't see a hump even with some kind of wave.
But the EP is a competitor of small anti-submarine ships, not anti-submarine aircraft; it is an ideal pair with aviation, thanks to its instant arrival at the point of contact.

Quote: bayard

If the Karakurts are armed with Zircons (1000 km) or Onyxes (up to 800 km), they will be quite competitive.

Well, the EP can also be armed with the same missiles, only the EP is invulnerable to torpedo weapons, and can very quickly leave the launch site.

Quote: bayard

Simply because they already exist, there will be relatively many of them and they can be dispersed in advance to cover all dangerous directions.

And EPs can do this with lightning speed.

Quote: bayard

It does not have the same seaworthiness or autonomy as a classic ship.
ASW corvettes of the above-described type must be carried in the BMZ and in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation.

What is the tonnage of a classic ship? And how vulnerable is such a ship to a torpedo attack?
The ability to take off from a 3,5-4 m wave at a speed of 170-250 km/h indicates a VERY strong EP design, so seaworthiness is for the EP. And 5 days of autonomy for a semi-experimental device is also very good. At least because the MPC will spend about 3 days for a thousand km there and back, as opposed to 3 hours for the EP.

Quote: bayard

And their price is almost an order of magnitude cheaper than such a "Lun", if you want to build it "right now"

The EP is not an An-225, and not even a Ruslan; if you take it without NEW and unrestored engines, it is comparable to one Il-76.

But enough. I'm finishing the article, everything will be described there, with pictures!

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I'm finishing the article, everything will be described there, with pictures!

Well, now it's clear why you insist so much on their usefulness. I like Alekseev's ekranoplans myself, but in the current conditions as a combat vehicle alas. No one will go for it. Not only is there no one to build such ships/ekranoplans now, but they also require a rather complex and expensive infrastructure for maintenance. In any case, it was with such arguments that the military and industrialists dissuaded VVP from paying attention to them at the time... when the representative of the design bureau praised the EP to Putin standing next to the model.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

But I don’t know where YOU got this figure.
two pairs of Project 054A/P frigates with the Chinese foreign trade association China Shipbuilding Trading Company Ltd. (CSTC), which is part of CSSC. The value of the contracts was not officially disclosed, but, according to unofficial reports, is a total of $1,4 billion.

Vladimir, why are you so inattentive? The cost of the entire contract includes not only the cost of the ship itself, but also at least several sets of ammunition, equipment for servicing at the base, a supply of spare parts and other auxiliary equipment. Neither the Shtil SAM, nor the anti-ship missile, nor other ammunition and equipment are included in the cost of the ship. So it turns out that with the cost of the ship itself (export price 187-189 million dollars) of about 200 million, the cost of several sets of SAM and anti-ship missiles and other ammunition and associated equipment, consumables, spare parts and possibly the cost of training the crews costs another 150 million. For contracts for combat aircraft, the cost of the contract can be 2-2,5 times higher than the cost of the aircraft alone. I found my figures on a website about Chinese shipbuilding, and that was about 5 years ago. So I don’t even remember the name of the website, although I visited it several times. But I remembered the numbers well.
By the way, for comparison, the cost of purchasing our frigates of project 11356 is 17 billion rubles in prices of 10 years ago. That is, at the then exchange rate, approximately 250 million dollars. In terms of class, weapons and composition of weapons, it is approximately equal to the Chinese. Although the SAM "Shtil" is 2 times smaller, but the cruise missiles in the KUSK are much more serious than the Chinese anti-ship missiles.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and in approximately the same years, where did you get the price of 100-120 million d.

It's not true, you quoted the price of the Tashkent ASZ, but it hasn't existed for a long time. I gave the approximate cost as of today. You'd better double-check the figures yourself, at least on the Ulyanovsk ASZ website. Besides, the cost of planes could only have increased since then. Because production is still piecemeal, but maybe at least they don't kill with loans like they did under Shoige. There were riots among the workers there - because of these tricks, the administration paid them a pittance... but it didn't forget itself.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I named a price of a maximum of two Il-76s with old engines, because the NK-87 is a very old engine.

Well, you understand that no one will do such nonsense anymore. I am more interested in ekranoplans as a means of transport. I was interested in the Orlyonok as a landing craft. Lighter ekranoplans are interesting as patrol craft and for border guards in the Far East and elsewhere. But as for attack craft - no thanks. I am telling you this as a former combat command officer of an air defense unit. It is absolutely defenseless against enemy aircraft. And it will be VERY easy for reconnaissance satellites to detect it. But as a rescue craft for quickly arriving at the accident/disaster area, landing on the water and taking off the crew - that is YES.
Do you even remember what motivated its creation at the time (60s - 70s)? That at such low altitudes, fighter radars simply would not see it against the background of the earth, and missile defense systems would not be able to capture it. And back then, this was partly true. But since the late 70s, radars have appeared that can perfectly see targets against the background of the earth's surface, and perfectly guide missile defense systems to them, even during WWI.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The Lun is much simpler than a transport aircraft, it has a simple wing, no landing gear, and a hydroski.

But it's much bigger. And building such things is a very specific business. And training pilots? Alekseev himself sat at the controls when he demonstrated his machines. And remember how the "Caspian Monster" perished, when a pilot unfamiliar with the specifics of piloting suddenly took the controls. Who would want to mess around with something like that? Even in the USSR, this thing barely made its way, and that was only because of Alekseev's extraordinary organizational and assertive qualities.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The EP can use any type of sonar, whether submersible or towed.

AS ? Lowered, of course, TOWED how? Roar across half the ocean with eight engines and...? Do you know the search speed with a towed sonar? That's only for a ship.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: bayard
Three Su-34s can carry this much, this was confirmed by the aircraft’s chief designer.
Where did you read this nonsense?

I watched a long interview with the chief designer of the Su-34, and they asked such questions. Only the conversation was about the Onyx anti-ship missiles, and they are a little lighter (somewhere around 3,8 tons), but he claimed that if they are launched at a short range (for example, 500 km from the airfield), then the Su-34 can take 3 (three) Onyx missiles with insufficient fuel. And this was confirmed/repeated to me in correspondence by Klimov, who was familiar with and discussed exactly these topics with the chief designer. So 2 anti-ship missile launchers (at the time of the conversation, drop tests of such missiles were already underway with the Tu-22M3) can be placed on the Su-34. Together with the weight of the pylons, this will be no more than 10 tons, and it can take 12 tons at most. But as a standard, I would recommend one on the central pylon, two drop tanks and an air defense missile system for self-defense. Then the combat radius will be maximum, and these missiles are already very accurate and effective.
So if we are going to raise the issue of heavy ekranoplans, I would recommend promoting them as a means of transport that does not require airfield infrastructure. For our Primorye, the Far East, for supplying island garrisons, as a passenger vehicle and as a rescue vehicle - yes. For export, we can offer this to countries in Oceania, etc. But even then, the question of flight safety will arise - what if they start colliding with ships, there are now as many of them in the oceans as dirt.

[shocktrooper]

Alekseev himself sat at the controls when he demonstrated his machines. And remember how the "Caspian Monster" perished, when a pilot unfamiliar with the specifics of piloting suddenly took the controls. Who would want to mess around with something like that? Even in the USSR, it barely made its way, and that was because of Alekseev's extraordinary organizational and assertive qualities.

To be fair, automation has developed greatly since the early 80s and will most likely greatly simplify the process of controlling such equipment.

[bayard]

Quote: shocktrooper

automation has developed greatly and will most likely greatly simplify the process of controlling such equipment.

Of course, automation has developed, but still, controlling such equipment is a very specific matter and pilots will need to be trained completely separately, this is a very specific piloting school. And in order to teach pilots, their teachers must first be taught. Let's start building small ekranoplans first - as patrol and rescue vehicles. And then we'll see.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

Not only is there simply no one to build such ships/ekranoplans now, but they also require a rather complex and expensive infrastructure for maintenance.

Are there no shipyards left? Or aluminum welding specialists? Or have they stopped making motors? ALL of this exists.
From an expensive structure, maximum a dock for 400 tons, for a dozen cars, this is actually the norm for small ships. And it is possible without a dock, on a slip, generally pennies.

Quote: bayard

In any case, it was with these very arguments that the military and industrialists dissuaded VVP from paying attention to them at the time... when the representative of the design bureau praised EP to Putin standing next to the model.

I don't know about the fact of praise, but I do know about the level of naval management and lobbying, bordering on criminal, of the manufacturers. Why do they need the strongest competitor?

Quote: bayard

The cost of the entire contract includes not only the cost of the ship itself, but also at least several sets of ammunition.

It's simply amazing...
Where in these words did you find the cost of several!!! BC?
(it is unclear whether this includes weapons and missile ammunition or not)
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4427932.html
Sometimes the cost of a ship is calculated together with the BC, alone, but sometimes.

Quote: bayard

By the way, for comparison, the cost of purchasing our frigates of project 11356 is 17 billion rubles in prices of 10 years ago. That is, at the exchange rate of that time, approximately 250 million dollars.

A very good example.

Construction of the second three... ..project 11356... under a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense dated September 13, 2011, worth 40 billion rubles.

There is no talk of any BC. The dollar costs 32 rubles. WHAT 250 million? Turbines alone cost 65 million.

Quote: bayard

But I remembered the numbers well.

I see...

Quote: bayard

It is not true, you have given the price of Tashkent ASZ, but it has not been there for a long time. I have given the approximate cost for today. You would be better off double-checking the figures yourself, at least on the website of Ulyanovsk ASZ.

What do you mean it's not true? Actually, the figures are from the same article. They're just inconvenient for your point of view. Because the plant is gone, but the dollar remains.

In the UAC documents for 2011, the price was 1111 million rubles, which is generally 36,5 million dollars, well, let's say 55 million dollars. The cost of work on the production of the Il-76MD-90A aircraft by Aviastar for OAO UAC-TS was (on paper) 1601 million rubles, which is the same 54 million dollars. At the same time, we are talking about an aircraft "with units, engines and purchased components installed on it, and ... the Il-76MD-90A transport aircraft." This was the price for a "series" of 3 aircraft. And the October 2012 contract for a much more solid batch for our own Ministry of Defense immediately pulled in 139,42 billion rubles, which gives 4,6 billion dollars or 119 million dollars per piece. Thus, the price has somehow increased more than 2 times in 2 years.

The parasitic superstructure has a direct relation to such a price increase. But this superstructure also raised the prices of ships, prices for them are now hard to find... However, the plane has become even more complex. By the way, since you stubbornly compare the modern Il with the ancient Lun, then perhaps I will reduce the cost to one and a half with new engines.

Quote: bayard

There were even riots among the workers - because of these tricks, the administration paid them a pittance... but did not forget itself.

Quote: bayard

It is absolutely defenseless against enemy aircraft.

Absolutely right, like the vast majority of small surface ships. But from the launch site, the EP will go 200 km in half an hour, and the RK - 30. And it is defenseless against jet aircraft, and this is an aircraft carrier group. And what ship can withstand an AUG, and how many AUGs are there in the world? But it will easily get away from helicopters. And it is defenseless in its original, 1978 design.

Quote: bayard

And it will be VERY easy for reconnaissance satellites to detect it.

Like any other combat ship. Only thanks to the speed, the EP will change the discredited position, and the NK will not have time.

Quote: bayard

Here, as a rescue vehicle for quick arrival to the accident/disaster area, landing on the water and removing the crew - that's YES.

Just in the line about seaworthiness. "Rescuer" was declared upon landing - WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS on wind/waves.

Quote: bayard

Do you even remember what motivated its creation at the time (60s - 70s)?

This is a later "motivation" from journalists. It was created, like all of Alekseev's ships, for the sake of speed.

Quote: bayard

But since the end of the 70s, radars have appeared that can perfectly see targets against the background of the earth's surface, and perfectly guide missiles to them, even during WWI.

Again, this is a problem when meeting with the AUG, and it was remembered because the installed electronic warfare system was mentioned.

Quote: bayard

Only it is much larger.

This does not mean that it is more expensive. In terms of materials, it is only twice as expensive because of titanium, and I considered it in favor of the airplane, but there is also labor intensity. Compare the wings in terms of mechanization.
The alarm clock is larger than the Breguet wristwatch, but the price...

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Where in these words did you find the cost of several!!! BC?

When a state purchases any type of weaponry abroad, it also purchases ammunition with a reserve - for years of service/combat use/for conducting training shooting, a sufficient supply of spare parts, consumables, and maintenance equipment. The contract also includes the preparation and training of crews, as well as the cost of warranty service. I cited the cost of the ship from the manufacturer, because I took it from an article about this plant. In addition, I do not know the size of the export duty on this product in China. The price is export. So do not worry, both my price and the price you cited (contract price, divided by the number of ships) are perfectly consistent and consistent.
And the price of the plant never takes into account the cost of ammunition (not only missiles, but also shells, torpedoes, bombs for rocket launchers, sea mines, etc.). So the cost of the Borei-A SSBN, according to the government procurement website, is about $500 million (at the exchange rate), and together with the BC (SLBMs, torpedoes, anti-submarine missiles, etc.) its cost will at least double, or even triple.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Construction of the second three... ..project 11356... under a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense dated September 13, 2011, worth 40 billion rubles.

This was the contract price for ships that were never completed. I gave the price when the first three of these frigates were delivered to the customer. Because they were completed after the coup in Kyiv, including when the ruble exchange rate fell to 60-70 to the dollar. After all, we are talking about the final price of the product at the time of delivery to the customer. And I had in mind precisely that period (quite an extended one) when the dollar exchange rate was 60-70 rubles.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: bayard
But I remembered the numbers well. I see...

No need to be sarcastic, just look at the dates. We don't live in the USSR, where prices didn't change for 20 years. Scandals with pricing from the Ministry of Defense happened 6-7 years ago (then they continued, because the crooks continued to cheat), it was a period of stable dollar exchange rate (60-70 rubles), but inflation in the country was considerable and the Ministry of Defense didn't take it into account.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Since you stubbornly compare the modern Il with the ancient Lun, then perhaps I will reduce the price to one and a half with new engines.

You compare the cost of a real aircraft with a spherical horse in a vacuum. To build such ekranoplans, it will be necessary to create a new production facility and modernize old ones, look for and train specialists who simply do not exist and whom no one has trained, all these expenses will be added to the cost price and inflate it to the skies, and the series by definition will not be large, so all the costs will not even pay off. No one will go for these expenses. In the near term for sure. The country simply does not have the money for this. And even the same aircraft engines for the aircraft manufacturing industry are currently in dire need, and the existing capacities are extremely insufficient and there are very serious problems with their expansion. The same engines for the Il-76MD90A under construction are in dire need, although very few of the aircraft themselves are built - no more than 6 units per year. They have been promising to increase production for 10 years, they publish schedules and do not cope. Incl. because of the lack of engines. So now is definitely not the time for large ekranoplans. And definitely not for missile carriers based on them. And in the modern Russian Federation no one will create a completely new industry (and this should be exactly a new industry of production). There are no resources, no personnel ... and there is no urgent need. Here the MRA, from which there will definitely be more sense, cannot be revived in any way, and you are talking about ekranoplans.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"Rescuer" was declared upon landing - WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS on wind/waves.

For this, as well as transport for operational supply of island and remote from main bases garrisons (in the Pacific Fleet and partly the Northern Fleet), as well as civilian transport and passenger vehicles, they could become interesting. But not now. Alas.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

Alekseev himself sat at the controls when he demonstrated his machines. And remember how the "Caspian Monster" died, when a pilot unfamiliar with the specifics of piloting suddenly took the controls.

Alekseev was not a pilot. The pilots in the EP squadron were naval pilots. It is much easier to control EPs than heavy aircraft, especially in landing. The KM was smashed due to carelessness, the first Orlyonok due to landing on rocks and cracks, the second "Orlyonok" either due to a violation of the rules or a malfunction of the vertical control. With one fatality in all.

Quote: bayard

HOW? belay Lowered, I understand, TOWED, how? Roar across half the ocean with eight engines and...? Do you know the search speed with a towed GAS? This is only for a ship

My dear,! Even without taking into account that the engines don't have to roar, at least not all of them. , and even with the presence of generators, and in addition to the APU, they were in a separate enclosure, the installation of auxiliary electric motors is a penny matter. 400 hp give a 400-ton ship 10-12 knots. By the way, a bonus - the EP, unlike an airplane, can save the RGABs.

Quote: bayard

But as a standard, I would recommend one for the central pylon, two PTBs and a RVV for self-defense.

A good solution. Aircraft carriers of anti-ship missiles are needed. But they are tied, and very tightly, to airfields - due to their large weight, they cannot be on duty for long, and they need an external control center, and we have a sad situation with this.

Quote: bayard

So if we are going to raise the issue of heavy ekranoplans, I would recommend promoting them as a means of transport that does not require airfield infrastructure.

It's expensive, fairly average and not particularly seaworthy.

Quote: bayard

But even then the question of flight safety will arise - what if they start colliding with ships, there are now as many of them in the oceans as dirt.

Not everything is so sad, even on busy routes the traffic is far from highway, the maneuverability of Lun, even at cruising speed, quite allowed to avoid "sudden", at a distance of 3-5 km, ships.

Quote: bayard

So if we are going to raise the issue of heavy ekranoplans, I would recommend promoting them as a means of transport that does not require airfield infrastructure.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Alekseev was not a pilot.

I know, but he wanted to pilot his devices, and it was he who saved the first "Orlyonok"... together with the members of the state commission on board.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Even without taking into account that you don't have to roar the engines, at least not all of them, and also with the presence of generators, and in addition to the APU, they were in a separate enclosure, installing auxiliary electric motors is a penny matter. 400 hp gives a 400-ton ship 10-12 knots. By the way, a bonus - the EP, unlike an airplane, can save the RGABs.

I didn't know about this option, it's interesting. But still, it's not the right anti-submarine warfare system for long-term duty in the zone. It's only a "firefighter" or "ambulance", or for collecting those same dropped buoys... even those of others. But for this, light and medium-class EPs are more suitable.
If we are going to develop this topic, then we should do all of this (and organize production) only at the Pacific Fleet, where they will be in the greatest demand.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

A good solution. Aircraft carriers of anti-ship missiles are needed. But they are tied, and very tightly, to airfields - due to their large weight, they cannot be on duty for long, and they need an external control center, and we have a sad situation with this.

MRA aircraft are not for patrolling, they usually take off for use after receiving target designation. Reconnaissance can and should be carried out by heavy submarines with the appropriate equipment on board. And since our own turboshaft/turboprop engines have finally appeared, we will soon have a class of heavy UAVs. They can patrol in online mode. And MRA aircraft with a range of anti-ship missiles of 1000+ km will still only launch based on external target designation. Airfields in Primorye, Transbaikalia, Kamchatka and Sakhalin will cover with the radius of destruction of their anti-ship missiles not only the entire Okhotsk and Japanese seas, but also all adjacent waters of the Pacific Ocean for 1000-1500 km, and this is a lot. And this is if we use Su-34M2 as MRA aircraft. And with refueling they can reach much further.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

We don’t live in the USSR, where prices didn’t change for 20 years.

But if the price is tied to the dollar, then in dollars it should remain unchanged, more or less, remember the U.S. dollar. But here there is a SHARP change in dollars, not rubles.

Quote: bayard

To build such ekranoplans, it will be necessary to create a new production facility

Quote: bayard

And in modern Russia, no one has a completely new industry

Hydrofoils are produced, and these are the same technologies, materials and specialists, the question is in scaling, and this is much easier to create.

Quote: bayard

There is an acute shortage of the same engines for the Il-76MD90A under construction

I didn't find any problems with the engines, but let's assume they exist. However, the "Lun" has, perhaps, an ideal architecture for a heavy EP, and it allows using almost any engines that are more or less suitable in terms of thrust. The thrust of 6 of the newest ones is enough, we install 6, if the newest engines are not enough, we install eight older, less powerful ones. The only question is in changing two pylons, and this does not concern either the wing or the fuselage itself. And given that the EP is operated over a continuous runway, then installing used engines is quite natural. As they did on the KM and Orlyat, for sure, and probably on the Moon. Engines are not an issue for the EP.

Quote: bayard

I know, but he wanted to pilot his devices, and it was he who saved the first "Orlyonok"... together with the members of the state commission on board.

This means that no special qualifications are required, compared to airplanes.

Quote: bayard

I didn't know about this option, it's interesting. But still, it's not the right anti-submarine defense system for being on duty in the zone for a long time.

How is this not a means?! Just duty in the waiting area, with listening to the sea with your own means. Flight to contact from a UAV, for example, and the operation of the sonar both in active mode and in passive mode from external explosive sources. In the event of confirmation of contact with a submarine, and its long-term pursuit. In peacetime, of course. No aircraft can pursue a submarine, few (no) naval ships can make it before contact is lost. This is just one example.

Quote: bayard

Airfields

Airfields are being put out of action. It is difficult to organize the storage of anti-ship missiles at all airfields. Anti-ship missiles cannot stay suspended for long. And this is definitely not a reason to abandon the small missile system, and the EP is an ideal small missile system.

[shocktrooper]

Somehow, probably, DOMESTIC ships and vessels feel in slush. Especially if the thickness of the plating is 4 mm on civilian hydrofoils.

So they feel that they simply do not navigate at this time? It still seems to me that for the Navy something like this is clearly unacceptable. Well, yes, even at the peak of their distribution in the USSR, Meteors and others performed a very limited range of tasks, and small ships are usually not made to quickly deliver passengers from A to B, for this in any case, the same helicopters and airplanes are much better suited.

Personally, I believe that the most promising small ship for Russia is a heavy ekranoplan.

An Ekronoplan is a blue dream of all lovers of something big and noisy, which is not clear why it is needed. About 10 years ago I was also interested in them, but the more I read, the more I understood the dead end of this idea, in fact, the lack of any progress on them in the world since the disappearance of the bottomless budget of the USSR defense industry is evidence of this, so it is good that money is not spent on such things, it is better to continue to rivet submarines for the Northern Fleet, and not mess around in the Black and Baltic puddles.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

So they feel that they simply do not navigate at this time? It still seems to me that for the Navy such a thing is clearly unacceptable.

Tell that to the small ships and boats of the USSR and Russian Navy. And there are dozens of them even now.

Quote: shocktrooper

but small ships are usually not made to quickly deliver passengers from A to B

Do you seriously think that ice does not pose a danger to small ships and boats, even those with a steel hull?

Quote: shocktrooper

About 10 years ago I was also into them

If we were carried away, we wouldn’t have written the garbage below, and even below.

Quote: shocktrooper

the more I understood the dead end of this idea

Quote: shocktrooper

in fact, the lack of any progress on them in the world since the disappearance of the bottomless budget of the USSR defense industry

Or maybe it's because no one except the USSR even tried to make large EPs? Because those who can, don't need small combat ships, and those who need them, can't.

[shocktrooper]

Tell that to the small ships and boats of the USSR and Russian Navy. And there are dozens of them even now.
Do you seriously think that ice does not pose a danger to small ships and boats, even those with a steel hull?

Well, at what speeds do they travel in such conditions? The original point was that the ships on air wings were made of aluminum alloys. But wooden ships also cut through the Arctic Circle.

Or maybe it's because no one except the USSR even tried to make large EPs? Because those who can, don't need small combat ships, and those who need them, can't.

Yes, because it is a classic suitcase without a handle, requiring simply huge investments for the sake of very limited advantages in a very narrow area. In general, if anyone can afford to indulge in such things, it is precisely the superpowers, but as experience has shown, even they had a hard time going beyond experimental samples.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

The talk was initially about the fact that air-winged vessels were made from aluminum alloys.

No, the initial discussion was about the fact that the use of aluminum ships and vessels in our seas raises doubts.

Quote: bayard

Interesting, but for warm seas. Unfortunately, with our ice conditions, even sometimes on the Black Sea, this solution is unacceptable. Besides, it has good seaworthiness.

Quote: bayard

With aluminum body?

As it turned out, both in civilian life and in service, aluminum vessels in the USSR and Russia were used, are used and will be used. Including not on hydrofoils. For example, "Serna".

Quote: shocktrooper

Yes, because it is a classic suitcase without a handle, requiring a huge investment for very limited benefits in a very narrow area.

A tenfold advantage in speed is not a limited, but a decisive advantage. And a heavy EP can have a wide application in naval affairs. As small surface ships have such an application.
By the way, “a suitcase without a handle” is a rather awkward comparison.
Because the suitcases without handles for the "young state" of the Russian Federation turned out to be:
- microelectronic industry;
- aircraft carriers;
- orbital stations;
- VTOL aircraft;
- small AWACS aircraft;
- They don't even build destroyers in Russia, damn it.
So the EP is the same "suitcase" for the narrow-minded, greedy and thieving "powers that be" as the above.

[shocktrooper]

A tenfold advantage in speed is not a limited, but a decisive advantage.

Depends on what you compare it to. They really like to compare speed with ships, ignoring airplanes, and the fact that on ships both the load and survivability are several times higher - well, that's not important. Well, there are certain limits beyond which the benefit of increasing becomes 0 - as in airplanes with a speed above 3 machs.

And the heavy EP can have wide application in naval affairs.

Maybe, I don't argue. If you force all the adjacent ones to give him these applications. Plus with very dubious efficiency.

By the way, “a suitcase without a handle” is a rather awkward comparison.

No, it is quite convenient, as you correctly wrote, the Russian Federation, even omitting all the political background, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, CMEA and the USSR, unexpectedly had its economic capabilities seriously reduced, because of which a bunch of things, including the above, turned out to be those very suitcases. They are still trying to "attach" a handle to some of them, and the rest have been rightly abandoned. For example, without destroyers, there is no point in aiming at VTOL and aircraft carriers, and without microelectronics, small AWACS can only be made from foreign components. There is a whole line of these "suitcases" there, and fortunately, heavy EPs have not yet been pushed ahead of the much more important AWACS or microelectronics.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

They really like to compare speed with ships, ignoring airplanes, and the fact that the payload and survivability on ships are many times higher - well, that's not important.

Once again I am convinced that when you wrote about your passion for ekranoplans, you greatly embellished it.
The Lun missile ship carried one and a half times more strike weapons than the Molniya missile system, with a significantly smaller full displacement and approximately equal fuel mass and range, and a quarter less than a 956-class destroyer, with approximately equal radar weapons.
In terms of survivability, well, considering that all small ships of our fleet have an almost complete aluminum interior, then survivability is approximately equal with approximately equal displacement. But the "imaginary" advantage allows the EP to evade almost all threats to small, and not only small, ships.
You know the topic very poorly...

Quote: shocktrooper

There is a whole line of these "suitcases" there, and fortunately, heavy EPs have not yet been pushed ahead of the much more important ones, such as the same AWACS or microelectronics.

This is already a political question, and not at all about the effectiveness of the EP. By the way, the effectiveness of the EP may be higher than that of the NK, which is equal in capabilities, also because of its greater, much greater, operational mobility.

[shocktrooper]

The Lun EP carried one and a half times more strike weapons than the Molniya missile system with a significantly smaller full displacement and approximately equal fuel mass and range, and a quarter less than a destroyer!!

By abandoning all other weapons? Yes, they could probably fit 6 launchers on the Molniya instead of 4 if they wanted, but as experience shows, in addition to being a very expensive launch platform for missiles, small ships have a bunch of other important tasks. And to have a very expensive strike vehicle for the last war - it would be better to build extra strike submarines.

In terms of survivability, well, considering that all small ships in our fleet have an almost complete aluminum interior, then they have approximately equal survivability with approximately equal displacement.

Of course, it is difficult to say anything here without real experience of use, but I doubt that a small ship can be confidently sunk by air-to-air missiles, which I am not at all sure about in the case of EP. After all, the results of damage at speeds of 30 km/h and 400 km/h will be strikingly different.

But the “imaginary” advantage allows the EP to evade almost all threats to small, and not only small, ships.

And makes it vulnerable to others. I don't understand why everyone is so fixated on the defeat from anti-ship missiles, when the most logical means of counteraction is air defense missiles.
Well, and with all this, the combination of its size and speed means almost guaranteed detection at almost the maximum range of enemy detection equipment, unlike ships, on which there is an option to try to reduce their visibility.

because of greater, much greater, operational mobility.

What other operational mobility? For movements between Fleets, it will still go across the seas "at the speed of the slowest in the order", since the EP has no hint of autonomy, or it will move along rivers for a long time and painfully with a terribly ineffective aircraft hopping, and even then in a very limited geography. And again, naval aviation aircraft are simply an order of magnitude better in this regard, especially for our country.

[shocktrooper]

Well, in general, instead of comparing these spherical horses in a vacuum, it’s better to write where and in what roles these same EPs can be used for our country, and in such a way that it makes sense to spend a bunch of resources on a literally new type of troops, almost from scratch.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, in general, how can you compare these spherical horses in a vacuum?

Calling ships spherical horses, which were at least made of metal, and many are still serving, all of them have passed tests, including fire tests, and were considered successful... Yeah. Although knowing what you consider "suitcases without handles" it is not surprising.

Quote: shocktrooper

By abandoning all other weapons?

What kind of armament is this? A whole 76,2 mm cannon? A most valuable weapon for a missile boat, nothing to say.

Quote: shocktrooper

Yes, they probably could have put 6 PUs on the Lightning instead of 4 if they wanted to.

Why didn't they want to? They wanted to put it on the Ovod and they did, and on the Sivuch they put as many as 8. They didn't want to because the stability didn't allow it, and when they decided to install a SAM system with a full-fledged air defense radar (a good thing), they had to install the same 4 missiles, although not the same ones, but much lighter ones, and therefore weaker.

Quote: shocktrooper

a very expensive launch platform for missiles, small ships have a lot of other important tasks

The high cost is VERY exaggerated, if you do not take into account the engines, then in terms of tonnage and technology, the welded aluminum Lun and the same Molniya (it has no less aluminum, although the body is steel), then Molniya is more expensive. And with engines, then Lun is more expensive, but not fundamentally, although it is faster fundamentally.

Quote: shocktrooper

Small ships have a lot of other important tasks.

What kind of tasks are there for high-speed (for small combat ships this is the most important survival characteristic) small ships that a heavy EP cannot handle? Besides mine clearing, and carrying helicopters with a crew, which is generally difficult for 400-ton ships.
So, a heavy EP is capable of performing ALL the tasks of small surface ships. And there are no universal ships of such tonnage.

Quote: shocktrooper

Of course, it is difficult to say anything here without real experience of use, but I doubt that a small ship can be confidently sunk by air-to-air missiles, which I am not at all sure about in the case of EP. After all, the results of damage at speeds of 30 km/h and 400 km/h will be strikingly different.

Why no experience? They shot down large planes, passenger planes. But it wasn't easy, and one missile wasn't enough, and they destroyed one, and the second one landed.
Only the EP is not a passenger plane, it has a much more massive stabilizer and wings, much, much thicker skin, and this is a sharp increase in survivability against the warheads of the AA missiles, and there are countermeasures. In the ancient one, I note.

Quote: shocktrooper

And makes it vulnerable to others. I don't understand why everyone is so fixated on the destruction from anti-ship missiles, when the most logical means of counteraction is air defense missiles....
Well, and with all this, the combination of its size and speed means almost guaranteed detection at almost the maximum range of enemy detection equipment.

This once again shows that you know NOTHING about EP.
Because the Moskit anti-ship missile system implies an OVER-THE-HORIZON launch, and a fairly long one at that, and the Monolith radar system provided it, and this is a normal tactic, and not an attack launch, like a torpedo boat. Therefore, the use of SAMs against EPs is impossible under normal tactics. And also, SAMs are easily used against small ships, this has long been implemented. But within the radio horizon.
By the way, what is this fixation on anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles? Are torpedoes and mine weapons all out of fashion? No, they are not. And small surface ships on the move are defenseless against torpedoes.

Quote: shocktrooper

unlike ships, which have the option of trying to reduce their visibility.

And why can't visibility be reduced? The laws of physics help aircraft and ships reduce visibility, but not ekranoplans? This is voluntarism!
Where the shape does not allow, namely at the keel, there will help radio-absorbing coatings. The thickness of the profile and the set allow, just much simpler than for aircraft.

Quote: shocktrooper

What other operational mobility? For movements between Fleets

You have confused the inter-theater maneuver, which is strategic mobility, with the speed of taking up a position, entering a waiting/patrol area, changing position after an enemy reconnaissance satellite has flown by, or to the location of the supposed location or detection of a submarine by an aircraft/UAV.

Quote: shocktrooper

anyway, it will go across the seas "at the speed of the slowest in the order", since the EP has no autonomy at all,

Once again... Well, you get the idea... The full-speed range for the "Lun" is stated to be 2000 km, and for the "Rescuer" it is 3000, probably in cruising mode the "Lun" will give 2500, and with all the missiles (24 tons) Autonomy is 5 days. This is actually the range of the Molniya, in cruising mode.
But the funniest thing is that why would the EP crawl "at the speed of..."?!!! It's hard to think that the EP would catch up with the convoy in 6-7 hours, refuel and fly another 2500 km.??? And 5000 km is almost the Northern Sea Route, where tankers are not needed at all. And more than one such rendezvous could be organized.

Quote: shocktrooper

or a long and painful crossing along rivers with a terribly ineffective airplane jump, and even then in a very limited geography.

And dismantling masts and air defense radars on small ships from behind bridges is terribly effective...
And what's so inefficient about approaching? You don't have to fill up with fuel, there are no rockets, takeoff, flight, landing. All you have to do is not allow idiots into the water area during this time.

Quote: shocktrooper

And again, naval aviation aircraft are simply an order of magnitude better in this regard, especially for our country.

And what does the plane have to do with it? The EP is not a competitor to the plane. At least to the strike plane. And the plane maneuver may not be realized for various reasons. And the ships are in place.

Quote: shocktrooper

where and in what roles can these same EPs be used for our country, and in such a way that it would make sense to spend a bunch of resources from scratch on a literally new type of military force.

I already wrote that the EP can do everything that a small ship can. But at the same time, it is invulnerable to mine-torpedo weapons, it can evade anything slower than it, and that's almost everything except jet aircraft, for the same mass of weapons it requires much less crew (Lightning).
But more about that in my article. When I finish her.

[shocktrooper]

To call ships spherical horses, which were at least made of metal, and many are still serving, all of which have passed tests, including fire tests, and which were recognized as successful...

The fact that something has been assembled or tested does not mean that it is applicable, much less widely applicable - no one will shove icebreakers into the Black Sea or attack submarines into the Caspian Sea. That's why I say - where should these EPs be attached and in what form?

What kind of armament is this? A whole 76,2 mm cannon? A most valuable weapon for a missile boat, nothing to say.

Well, also 30 mm cannons and at least some kind of air defense (ZUs on the Moon are clearly not comparable). And all of this is much more necessary for what these boats have been doing in recent years - for a patrol ship, there is exactly zero use from even 4 or 6 anti-ship missiles, but to intercept those same drones - cannons are needed.

What kind of tasks are there for high-speed (for small combat ships this is the most important survival characteristic) small ships that a heavy EP cannot handle?

With the same patrolling. It doesn't matter that for their main purpose neither the RK, nor especially the EP, if I'm not mistaken, were ever used in the USSR and especially the Russian Federation.

But it was not easy, and one missile was not enough, and one was destroyed, and the second landed.

Uh-hum, they were shot down quite a lot, just look at the history of shooting down civil aviation or military transport aircraft, they even shot down aircraft with MANPADS, not to mention anything heavier than regimental air defense.

Only the EP is not a passenger plane, it has a much more massive stabilizer and wings, much, much thicker skin, and this is a sharp increase in survivability against the warheads of air-to-air missiles, and there are countermeasures.

And also, regular airplanes do not fly several meters above the surface and have a reserve for maneuver in case of an emergency, in fact, most accidents happen during takeoff/landing, i.e. near the ground. Well, about the skin - is it the whole skin, and not just the lower parts of the hull, which are actually seaworthy? I somehow doubt that the same tail unit was made with a reserve for cutting through waves, when it was necessary to save weight anyway.

and not a launch in attack, a la torpedo boat

Therefore, the use of SAMs against EPs under normal tactics is impossible.

Naturally, I am not saying that anti-ship missiles with a range of 100 km+ are launched from the horizon. Here I did not express myself quite correctly, I meant all the "X-air" missiles in general. Well, in general, there are both PAGSN and AGSN, and target designation has long been no longer necessarily transmitted from the SAM carrier itself, the same AWACS exist. So to pretend that there is no way to hit this EP with a missile, especially considering that they often tried to call it an "aircraft carrier killer", is somehow strange.

Torpedoes and mine weapons are all out of fashion? No, they are not. And small surface ships on the move are defenseless against torpedoes.

Yes, I don't argue with that. There are a lot of interesting (and dangerous) things in this area, but something still tells me that neither torpedoes nor mines are nearly as common as missile weapons, since most of the targets live above sea level.

And why can't visibility be reduced? The laws of physics help aircraft and ships reduce visibility, but not ekranoplans? This is voluntarism! laughing
Where the shape does not allow, namely at the keel, there will help radio-absorbing coatings. The thickness of the profile and the set allow, just much simpler than for aircraft.

Ships do not need to simultaneously reflect radio signals and remain at least a little "flyable", and here, excuse me, but the EP, even throwing aside the huge elephant in the form of size, has a lot of problems in the form of the same engines, wing geometry, hull shape, etc. Again, it is difficult to say something without evidence, but I highly doubt that the EP will not glow like a Christmas tree at those distances where the MK, built for radio invisibility, will be barely visible.

You have confused the inter-theater maneuver, and this is strategic mobility, with the speed of taking up a position, entering the waiting/patrol area, changing position after the flight of an enemy reconnaissance satellite

Yes, I screwed up a bit. But then again, even in this regard, how is it better than aviation? From the point of view of anti-ship missiles, there is no point in comparing them at all, the only thing that looks at least a little promising is hunting for submarines, if the EP can detect and destroy them.

The full speed range for the "Lun" is declared to be 2000 km, and for the "Rescuer" it is 3000, probably in cruising mode the "Lun" will give 2500, and with all missiles (24 tons). Autonomy is 5 days. This is actually the range of the Molniya, in cruising mode.

Well, the Lightning in the later modifications will be around 4000, if you try, and again, it is unlikely that anyone will reroll the Lightning, it is too small a fish. And the Buyans and Karakurts are generally around 4500.

It's hard to think that the EP will catch up with the convoy in 6-7 hours, refuel and fly another 2500 km.??? And 5000 km is almost the Northern Sea Route, where tankers will not be needed at all. And more than one such rendezvous can be organized.

Novorossiysk-Kronstadt - almost 9000 km, Kronstadt - Murmansk almost 4000 km. And again - rendezvous - the modern Russian Federation is far from having such a fleet to have a couple of permanent supply bases on each route. And without a supply ship sailing there in advance - that same "slowly in order".

And dismantling masts and air defense radars on small ships from behind bridges is terribly effective...

Yes, the fleet is generally far from maneuverable, especially when you don’t have an island as a metropolis, but half a continent.

And what's so inefficient about approaching? You don't have to fill up with fuel, there are no rockets, takeoff, flight, landing. All you have to do is not allow idiots into the water area during this time.

There are many things. It is worth starting with the fact that the EP will hardly be able to "screen" normally on rivers - maneuverability will not allow even on many sections, and where it will allow, then "traffic" for such a motorcade, who will clear. And in general, diving under bridges at 400 km / h is a recipe for disaster. If you fly "pancake" - again, the problems of traffic and "non-linearity" of rivers remain, plus the fact that the device designed for flights on the screen will be in the air about like an iron, both in aerodynamics and in fuel efficiency. A very dubious adventure.

And what does the plane have to do with it? The aircraft is not a competitor to the aircraft. At least to the drummer.

Well, the same Lun in its original configuration is clearly a competitor to at least strike aircraft, fortunately, missile weapons have long been flying at a range of more than 20 km, and the aircraft themselves can easily lift a couple of tons, and the integration (and weight and dimensions) of detection and guidance systems are not standing still.

And the maneuver of the planes may not be carried out for various reasons.

It seems to me that if maneuvers by aircraft within the country are impossible, then the situation for both the EP and the entire fleet as a whole is already so bad that there is nothing to say.


So far, from everything you've said here, and from what I've read myself, the only interesting thing that seems to be for the EP is the hunt for submarines in the Okhotsk, Pacific and Arctic Seas, fortunately the task is quite specific. And that's good of course, but the same submarines also participate in such things, and besides, they can usually cause a stir themselves. But I'm waiting for the article with interest, I'll take a look.

[Vladimir_2U]

No offense, it is interesting to argue with you, sometimes you put forward arguments that are not hackneyed, and you do not descend into idiocy, but you are as far from the naval topic as you are from the topic of EP.

Quote: shocktrooper

The only interesting thing that seems to be happening for the EP is hunting for submarines in the Okhotsk, Pacific and Arctic Seas, fortunately the task is very specific.

This is one of the most important, if not the most important task of our fleet! Because only dense anti-submarine warfare can ensure the combat stability of our SSBNs.

Quote: shocktrooper

Just because something has been assembled or tested does not mean it is applicable, much less widely applicable.

You have now practically written off the entire fleet as "spherical horses", because neither anti-ship missiles, nor especially anti-submarine missiles, were used in combat by our fleet...

Quote: shocktrooper

That's why I'm asking - where should these EPs be attached and in what form?

It seems you think that the EP can be equipped only and exclusively with the Moskit anti-ship missile, but of course this is not so. Therefore, I repeat - name any task for a small NK and the EP can perform it, and better than the NK, thanks to its speed. You just need to build the EP for the task.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, also 30 mm cannons and at least some kind of air defense (ZUs on the Moon are clearly not comparable).

At least some kind of air defense - these are the 30s. But exactly at least. Because without a modern radar, and there is none on the Molniya, they are of little use against anti-ship missiles and SAMs. By the way, are you aware that the 76,2 was installed on small missile ships and RKs in order to fight off their classmates? There is no need for the EP to fight off boats, it will leave them with a whistle, as well as helicopters, let me remind you.
And 23 mm is a completely naval caliber, and considering that the stern gun is equipped with a radar with automatic guidance, it is probably effective.
But wait a minute. How can you be sure that the EP can only be equipped with "Moskits" with inclined PUs? Even 10 m UKSKs fit perfectly into the practically empty hull of the EP, and these can be used for completely different missiles... Well, they will stick out the same 3-3,5 meters as the "native" PUs. Only by weight can 12 of them be inserted. Minimum.

Quote: shocktrooper

Uh-hum, they were shot down quite a lot, just look at the history of shooting down civil aviation or military transport aircraft, they even shot down aircraft with MANPADS, not to mention anything heavier than regimental air defense.

Yes, but mostly SAMs, and MANPADS rarely, often with landing and always with fire. But even planes are different. The same Il-76 is about three times lighter than Lun dry, and the Tu-154 is five times lighter.

Quote: shocktrooper

And also, regular airplanes do not fly a few meters above the surface and have a reserve for maneuver in case of an emergency; in fact, most accidents occur during takeoff/landing, i.e. close to the ground.

Well, the EP doesn't just fly, it flies on the screen. And the flight on the screen is very stable. Roughly speaking, the dynamic air cushion prevents it from falling down, and the mass of the EP prevents it from blowing up. Right away - all videos of EP accidents show the flight and stall outside the screen, at aviation altitude, all accidents are due to violations of the flight mode.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, and about the sheathing - is it the whole sheathing, and not just the lower parts of the hull, which are actually seaworthy?

Good question! For Lun, the WORKING skin is declared to be from 4 to 12 mm. From this it is obvious that the entire body and the entire wing and even the tail unit have a minimum of 4 mm skin all around. Surely some hatches and cowls and probably control surfaces have a smaller thickness, but hardly much. But airplanes, and heavy airplanes at that, often have a skin all around that is less than a millimeter. The skin is up to a centimeter only at the very root of the wing.

Quote: shocktrooper

I somehow doubt that the same tail unit was made with a reserve for cutting through waves, when it was necessary to save weight anyway.

Well, it is clear that the bottom, floats/washers and the edge and bottom of the wing should cut through, but the tail should withstand considerable loads during takeoff from the 4th wave. And the fact that the stabilizer skin is not foil is confirmed by photos showing solid and rather rough welds. And for aluminum this is achievable at exactly 4-6 mm.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, in general, there are both PAGSN and AGSN, and target designation has long since not necessarily had to be transmitted from the SAM carrier itself; the same AWACS exist.

They all require specific target designation. And the presence of AWACS means meeting with the AUG. And then NO ONE will be in trouble. But ordinary formations are not covered by AWACS aircraft... And that's it.

Quote: shocktrooper

So to pretend that there is no way to hit this EP with a missile, especially considering that they often tried to call it an "aircraft carrier killer", is somehow strange.

Who hasn't been designated "the terror of the Americans and aircraft carriers". From small missile ships to 949 submarines. But why be like journalists? You just need to understand that the EP is capable of evading almost all threats, except jet aircraft.

Quote: shocktrooper

that neither torpedoes nor, especially, mines are nearly as widespread as missile weapons, since most targets live above sea level.

But you are mistaken. Modern submarines with modern long-range torpedoes and anti-ship missiles are quite numerous and very dangerous for any surface ships. The Turks have at least 8 fairly modern submarines, against our two in the Black Sea Fleet.
Helicopters, even with light anti-ship missiles, are dangerous for small NKs.

Quote: shocktrooper

and here, excuse me, but even throwing aside the huge elephant in the form of dimensions, the EP has a bunch of problems in the form of the same engines, wing geometry, body shape, etc.

And what are these huge dimensions? No, well, it's clear - the wing and stabilizer. But they are horizontal to the sea surface, and the lateral frontal projections are minimal, and the wing is also slightly above sea level... Even the radar from the plane, the wing and the vertical stabilizer will not add anything, except for a satellite. Sorry, it's elementary physics.
And so, even with the keel, the dimensions of the EP on the water are approximately equal to the dimensions of ships with comparable armament. And there is the height of the side, and the height of the tower/mast for the radar, which cannot be avoided.
And everything can be given a proper shape, with great tolerance for the aerodynamics of the ekranoplan. It is necessary to slightly collapse the sides of the hull. Measures to reduce the visibility of the EP are a little more complicated than for a ship, and much simpler than for an airplane. The lower hemisphere does not need to be hidden!

Quote: shocktrooper

But again, even in this regard, how is it better than aviation? From the point of view of anti-ship missiles, there is no point in comparing them at all.

Even in its ancient configuration, Lun could carry the anti-ship payload of 6 Su-24/34 strike aircraft, keep this payload ready for use for about a year, stay in the waiting area for at least 5 days, and conduct reconnaissance with its radar at a range of up to 400 km. What can we say about something modern - with UVP, and normal air defense.

Quote: shocktrooper

the only thing that looks even a little promising is the hunt for submarines, if the EP can detect and destroy them.

This is right on target. But where does the doubt come from? The EP in the ancient 78-9 project lifted approximately 50 tons of missiles and launchers. Believe me, this is significantly more than the heaviest anti-submarine load of the MPC projects 1141 and 11451, recognized as the most effective in their class. It is obvious that the MPC does not need anti-ship missiles.

[shocktrooper]

So, back to the computer.

but you are as far from the naval theme as you are from the EP theme.

Yes, I did get to the EP from the planes.

Because only dense anti-submarine warfare can ensure the combat stability of our SSBNs.

That's true, but the vast majority of EP-ers never saw anyone talking about this, and instead they talked about anti-ship missiles or landings in general.

because neither anti-ship missiles, nor especially anti-submarine missiles, were used in combat by our fleet...

Well, strategic ones were not used for obvious reasons, but new submarines and battleships were used in Syria and Ukraine, showing that such ships have a large number of other applications in addition to launching anti-ship missiles.

Therefore, I repeat - name any task for a small NC and it can be performed by an EP

Fighting BEKs. Launching cruise missiles (I am far from sure that at least the current cruise missiles are adapted for launching from containers like Lun). Fighting aircraft, including UAVs. Banal counter-sabotage activities.
Having ships purely for launching anti-ship missiles is too wasteful IMHO.

At least some kind of air defense - that's what the 30s are. But that's at least. Because without a modern radar, and the Molniya doesn't have one, they are of very little use against anti-ship missiles and SAMs.

Again, such a radar will also be installed in Molniya during construction today, if we are talking about modernization. But in general, again, you are comparing an outdated EP from the 70s concept with the same outdated LK from the 70s, which remained in service due to a limited budget.

Are you aware that 76,2 was installed on MRK and RK in order to fight off classmates? There is no need for EP to fight off boats

And now these 76 mm are used against BEKs and on more distant ships in anti-piracy. History has shown that at least some cannon armament should be on the ship, it is too multifunctional. Well, if you want, then in general it would be possible to attach radio land mines with air defense functions there.

And 23 mm is a completely naval caliber, and considering that the stern gun is equipped with a radar with automatic guidance, it is probably effective.

Well, there is a huge difference between the aft UKU-9K and AK-630 with a full firing sector. These are simply orders of magnitude different air defense capabilities.

Even 10 m UKSK fits perfectly into the practically empty hull of the EP, and these can be used for completely different missiles...

Now this is more interesting, but again we need to look at the possibilities of launching them at speeds, plus again, it turns out to be a purely rocket ship.

But every plane is different. The same Il-76 is about three times lighter than Lun dry, and the Tu-154 is five times lighter.

Well, after all, it won’t be rebels/conscripts on exercises who will be shooting at the EP, but much more serious organizations that usually have no shortage of missiles, because according to its very concept, it was clearly made specifically for such conflicts.

Right away - all videos of EP accidents show the flight and breakdown off-screen, at aviation altitude, all accidents are due to violations of the flight regime.

The flight of the plane is also quite stable, especially if the altitude is sufficient, but they do shoot it down. And the EP during the flight still needs a fairly large correction so that the very same stall does not happen due to an increase/decrease in speed, turns.

For Lun, the WORKING skin is declared to be from 4 to 12 mm. From this it is obvious that the entire body and the entire wing and even the tail unit have a minimum of 4 mm skin all around.

This is already interesting, then yes, it will clearly not be so vulnerable to air defense.

They all require specific target designation. And the presence of AWACS means meeting with the AUG. And then NO ONE will be in trouble. But ordinary formations are not covered by AWACS aircraft... And that's it.

Again, technology is developing at full speed and the same Americans have long been using systems that allow launching missiles to illuminate other aircraft, not just AWACS. Plus, if there is one thing that hasn't been a problem for a long time, it's radars. In fact, the current conflict clearly shows that most anti-aircraft weapons have been operating far beyond the visible horizon for a long time, especially aircraft weapons. Plus, again, who will this EP with 6/12 anti-ship missiles fly after, except for large enemy groups that will almost certainly be covered from the air? Not for Somali pirates, or the Georgian fleet.

that the EP is capable of evading virtually all threats except jet aircraft.

Then it would be more correct to say that it is vulnerable to long-range missile weapons, since if they did launch at it either from aircraft, or from the shore, or from ships, I have very little faith that it would be able to either evade or destroy them. And this already makes it something like a one-salvo ship, which, yes, is almost guaranteed to have time to fire a salvo, but at the same time it is unlikely that it will be able to outlive the enemy who fires back.

Even a radar from an airplane, a wing and a vertical stabilizer will not add anything, except perhaps to a satellite. Sorry, it's elementary physics.

Well, now marine radars even manage to spot wooden boats from a dozen kilometers away, and here we are talking about a metal colossus. I admit that at first there will be problems due to the specificity of the target, but then, when the firmware is fixed, I am sure that the EP will shine like Christmas trees for everyone.

Measures to reduce the visibility of an EP are a little more complicated than for a ship, and much simpler than for an aircraft.

Well, that's clearly not the case, the angles for reflection in the same wing are hard to change, since the straight and wide wing is the basis of the EP, there's no place to hide a bunch of engines, and these are some of the main radar reflectors with their blades and other things, a huge tail unit, which by the way is again one of the main weaknesses of stealths and which they strenuously got rid of in the same B2, you can't get away from here, otherwise the EP will stop maneuvering at all, as a result, I really doubt that it's really possible to make the EP at least somewhat radio-invisible.

Lun could carry the anti-ship payload of 6 Su-24/34 strike aircraft, keep this payload ready for use for about a year, stay in the waiting area for at least 5 days, and conduct reconnaissance with its radar at a range of up to 400 km.

Of the obvious advantages - its own intelligence, but again the development of microelectronics has long allowed to significantly reduce the power and size of radars, which was usually an obstacle to their installation on an aircraft. In other respects - the radius and speed of aircraft are better, the variability of use is also better (at the level of 6 destroyers or 1 super battleship), readiness for use in a year - and how is aviation, excuse me, different? Also air defense, if you still shove normal container missiles into the EP, but here too it is written with a pitchfork, you need to spend money on a bunch of experiments.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, the Lightning in later modifications will be around 4000, if you try... ...And the Buyans and Karakurts will be around 4500

On diesels with an economical speed of 12 knots. Of course, it won't come to leather belts for lunch, but crackers will run out. But the EP can also go without rockets, and add additional fuel at their expense, and the efficiency of the engines can be higher, especially considering the age.
And today's small missile ships are already corvettes... puny, but heavy, it's true.

Quote: shocktrooper

And again - rendezvous - the modern Russian Federation does not have a fleet large enough to have a couple of permanent supply bases on each route.

A rendezvous is a meeting with a supply ship, in our case. And sending a trio of ships to the rendezvous points in advance is not particularly stressful even for our fleet.

And without a support ship that had sailed there in advance, it was the same “slowly in order”.

That's the point... Not very deep.

Quote: shocktrooper

Yes, the fleet is generally far from maneuverable, especially when you don’t have an island as a metropolis, but half a continent.

Is this a reason to abandon the fleet and inter-fleet maneuvers? Even in war, the Northern Sea Route can operate.

Quote: shocktrooper

It's worth starting with the fact that the EP will hardly be able to "screen" properly on rivers - maneuverability will not allow it even on many sections, and where it does allow, then who will clear the "traffic" for such a motorcade. And in general, diving under bridges at 400 km/h is a recipe for disaster.

Well, screw it, such extreme! Because what is there? Planing!

Quote: shocktrooper

again, the problems of traffic and the "non-linearity" of rivers remain, plus the fact that a device designed for flights on the screen will be about as good in the air as an iron, both in terms of aerodynamics and fuel efficiency.

The EP "Lun" allegedly carried out flights at 300 meters within the framework of the "Rescuer" program. But even if this is not so, "Rescuer" definitely had a standard mode of such a flight. Therefore, the maximally lightweight "Lun" could both take off and fly with acceptable VP-characteristics, controllability and range. Fuel can be neglected, not an ocean.

Quote: shocktrooper

fortunately, missile weapons have long since been flying at a range greater than 20 km, and the planes themselves can easily lift a couple of tons, and the integration (and weight and dimensions) of detection and guidance systems are not standing still.

What, are we still looking at the "Lun" from almost 50 years ago? I wrote about what the plane can't do.

Quote: shocktrooper

It seems to me that if maneuvers by aircraft within the country are impossible, then the situation for both the EP and the entire fleet as a whole is already so bad that there is nothing to say.

Not necessarily. It's just that the runway can be destroyed, and there may be enough tasks for attack aircraft at the permanent base.

Quote: shocktrooper

But I'm waiting for the article with interest, I'll take a look.

Not in a few days, but soon!
P/S. Two comments because the site doesn't allow one, it's too long, he says. )))

[shocktrooper]

But the EP can also go without rockets, and add additional fuel at their expense, and the efficiency of the engines can be higher, especially considering the age.

Yes, it’s probably possible to raise it.

And today's small missile ships are already corvettes... puny, but heavy, it's true.

Well, for now they seem clearly more interesting than their predecessors, which are hopelessly outdated both technically and conceptually.

That's the point... Not very deep.

Well, if you know in advance and have time to prepare something like this, then I still think that these ten saved days will not make much of a difference, but if it happens suddenly, then it’s hard to organize something like this.

Is this a reason to abandon the fleet and inter-fleet maneuvers? Even in war, the Northern Sea Route can operate.

Well, only between the northern and the quiet and carry. The rest are almost guaranteed to close in case of any serious conflict, and for non-serious ones, the EPs are clearly excessive and poorly suited.

Because there is what? Gliding!

I didn't think about it, yes, it will be better than everything else.

The EP "Lun" allegedly carried out flights at 300 meters as part of the "Rescuer" program.

Orlyonok was launched 2 km, if you believe it. But I have not found any open data on the effectiveness of such a flight, and logic suggests that something like this could be done on this castrated wing and this heavy carcass only by operating all engines at maximum power, which is definitely not good for everything. So there are doubts about all of these

fly with acceptable VP characteristics, controllability and range

points.

I wrote about what the plane can’t do.

Again, the EP is still not suitable for long patrols, and besides, these same 5 days are clearly not 5 days of continuous flight, but clearly with sitting on the water, when it otherwise becomes similar to a ship, and for a sharp strike when covering the coast, aviation has no equal, unless we are talking about a submarine.

Not necessarily. It's just that the runway can be broken,

Well, again, if the enemy destroyed the runway, then he could just as easily destroy the EP near the wall with a missile (hello, World Championship Fleet), and the runway itself, as practice shows, is so easy to repair that disabling the runway for a fairly long period of time is an extremely non-trivial task.

and there may be enough tasks for strike aircraft even at their permanent base.

Well, if there was not enough money for a submarine, then where to get it for a submarine, especially developing a submarine almost from scratch. And again, a submarine is still many times more maneuverable than a submarine, at least due to the fact that it is much easier to strengthen the front, both in speed and in general in terms of maneuverability at the moment (there are too many bottlenecks in the sea inter-theater routes).

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

That's true, but the vast majority of EP-shniks haven't seen anything about it at all

The heavy ekranoplan was originally planned for anti-submarine warfare.
https://airwar.ru/image/idop/sea/km/km-2.gif

Quote: shocktrooper

showing that, in addition to launching anti-ship missiles, such ships have a large number of other applications.

That's exactly it, except for launching missiles (not anti-ship missiles of course), the small missile ships did not perform any other tasks.

Quote: shocktrooper

Fighting BEKs. Launching cruise missiles (I'm not sure that at least the current cruise missiles are adapted for launching from Lun-type containers). Fighting aircraft, including UAVs.

With what BEKs? Have you even followed the course of events? Army aviation is fighting them, but not the NK. MRK/RK can fight UAVs only as part of self-defense. But they can't fight PKR/KR.
MRK/RK can be equipped with anti-sabotage sonars, but they are ineffective against the BEK, not to mention torpedoes. Well, again, great, why Lun in the architecture of a half-century range? The vertical PU fits perfectly into its hull.

Quote: shocktrooper

Having ships purely for launching anti-ship missiles is too wasteful IMHO.

You'll laugh, but the Karakurts are about the same, and even a little worse, ships.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, in general, again you are comparing an outdated EP from the concept of the 70s with the same outdated LC from the 70s,

Karakurt pr. 22800 with the same weight of the main weapon is almost three times heavier than the EP on the standard VM. And also the radar of the ancient Lun is comparable to Karakurt ones... But the speed of departure from the launch site is not.

Quote: shocktrooper

History has shown that there must be at least some cannon armament on a ship, it is too multifunctional.

I have nothing against guns. The pirates were pressed from helicopters and even from ships with machine guns and 30-ka, and considering the Black Sea Fleet was standing at the wall, NKs do not fight with BEKs. And during attacks on Black Sea Fleet ships, including small missile ships, 76,2... were not used.
Well, there are 23 mm on the ancient Moon, it will simply leave a stronger enemy, and it is not a problem to stick powerful guns on 240-300 tons of st. vi. I hope you know what the AC-130 "Gunship" is?

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, after all, there is a huge difference between the aft UKU-9K and the AK-630 with a full firing sector.

No AU will provide 360 ​​degrees of fire. But two will be close. The "Lun" has two AU. A radar sight on the bow can also be installed, but they did not consider it necessary, most likely due to the typical tactics of RK/MRK. When the threat is from the stern angles. But this is a 50-year-old "Lun".

Quote: shocktrooper

Now this is more interesting, but again we need to look at the possibilities of launching them at speeds, plus again, it turns out to be a purely rocket ship.

Why would that be? If you remove the huge PU comb that covered almost the entire EP body, there will be plenty of space for anything. The EP was slightly stronger than the MRK/RK only because of this comb...

Quote: shocktrooper

And the EP still needs quite a large correction during flight

Only large aircraft do not maneuver to avoid launches, it is pointless. And in a straight line the EP is very stable.

Quote: shocktrooper

Plus again, who will this EP with 6/12 anti-ship missiles fly after, except for large enemy groups, which will almost certainly be covered from the air? Not after Somali pirates, or the Georgian fleet.

Find out the list of tasks for small missile ships. And yes, small fleets are also a target for anti-ship missiles. However, why such an emphasis on anti-ship missiles? The UVP UKSK 3S14 already allows using, along with very long-range anti-ship missiles, also cruise missiles on the shore, and, what is important, anti-submarine missiles. And UKSK-M also uses SAMs.
https://topwar.ru/157219-nuzhny-li-flotu-malye-raketnye-korabli-mrk.html?ysclid=m8ch39cx5a915558978

Quote: shocktrooper

I have very little faith that he will be able to either evade or destroy them.

Come on... That is, an EP with a cruising speed of 240 knots cannot evade a strike, but a NK with a full speed of 28-30 can... Modern anti-ship missiles are not capable of intercepting targets with a speed higher than 100-120 km/h. Long-range SAMs are either installed on destroyer ships, and in very few countries, or on land-based SAMs. And such SAMs require more precise targeting than anti-ship missiles.

Quote: shocktrooper

It is almost guaranteed that he will be able to fire a volley, but it is unlikely that he will be able to outlive the enemy who fires back at him.

This is now directly about any surface ship. Because it, unlike the EP, will not be able to move from the launch site by 220 km (and many anti-ship missiles, not to mention SAMs, have such a maximum range) in half an hour.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, nowadays marine radars can even detect wooden boats from a distance of ten kilometers, but here we are talking about a metal colossus.

What do you expect from a target of the "large boat - small corvette" class? They are detected by AWACS aircraft, without any measures to reduce their visibility, from 300-400 km.

Quote: shocktrooper

[b]since the straight and wide wing is the basis of the EP, there is no place to hide a bunch of engines, and these are some of the main radar reflectors with their blades and other things, a huge tail unit

I wrote this because for an aircraft at least half of the threats from detection come from the lower hemisphere. Obviously, for an EP the lower hemisphere is not a threatened direction. But it seems you do not quite understand the essence of the measures to reduce the EPR. An aircraft - especially the B-2 - is generally a large wing, but the fact that it does not directly reflect the pulse to the radar, but reflects it in the other direction, according to the principle of "the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection", does not make it the main culprit of the EPR. The same with the horizontal tail. However, a small sweep along the leading edge will not hurt in this regard. The engines are not a problem at all, they are already well cowled and a small beak, especially in combination with measures against splashing, will completely cover them. The fin is the main problem, but it is comparable to the towers/masts of classmates, and can be built from radar-absorbing materials.

Quote: shocktrooper

readiness for use in a year - and how, excuse me, is aviation any different?

You didn't understand because you don't really know the topic. Large missiles on aircraft pods don't last long, even if we assume that the aircraft is always ready to take off for a specific task, which is obviously not the case. But ship-based launchers allow for storage and instant readiness to launch missiles, including those with nuclear warheads, from several months to several years.

Quote: shocktrooper

Otherwise, the radius and speed of the planes are better.

Airplanes are tied to the runway, they can't stay in any place in the maritime theater for several days, and they can't do many things that a small ship can. But I'm not against airplanes.

Quote: shocktrooper

Another air defense, if we can shove normal container missiles into the EP, but this is also a no-brainer, we need to spend money on a bunch of experiments.

And a fleet, especially a missile-carrying one, is generally an expensive thing. However, the greater survivability and effectiveness of the EP, compared to its surface classmates, will more than compensate for this.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, for now they seem clearly more interesting than their predecessors, which are hopelessly outdated both technically and conceptually.

Apart from the UVP, there is NO fundamental difference.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

but I still think that these ten saved days won’t make much of a difference, and if it happens suddenly, then it’s hard to organize something like that.

Generally yes, but there is a big difference between 1,5 days and 15 days. And sharply and far away, and the aviation maneuver is very difficult.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, only between the northern and the quiet ones and transport.

Dear Gleb! And the Northern and Pacific fleets are the main fleets of the USSR/Russia, before there was OPESK, but it was also secondary.

Quote: shocktrooper

that something like this could be done on this castrated wing and this heavy carcass only by operating all the engines at maximum power, which is definitely not good for everything.

The wing area, thrust-to-weight ratio and maximum takeoff weight of the Lun correspond to the average for heavy transport aircraft. Accordingly, the reduction in takeoff weight will have a beneficial effect on the takeoff characteristics of the EP, and the cruising thrust of even all engines will be quite sufficient for horizontal flight at low altitude. In addition, the straight, albeit short, wing shows itself well at such speeds and altitudes. Fuel for such a thing can be neglected. Especially in light of the refusal to install/dismantle equipment.

Quote: shocktrooper

Again, the EP is still not suitable for long patrols, and besides, these same 5 days are clearly not 5 days of continuous flight

And what kind of long patrol can a small surface ship withstand? The same MPC 1124 "Albatross" had only 10 days of autonomy with a thousand tons of VI. And two or three of them were spent on the transition to the search site and back. And the EP was semi-experimental...

Quote: shocktrooper

and obviously with sitting on the water, when in other respects it becomes similar to a ship

So how much do I write about this?! EP is a ship with aviation speed of the main mode of movement. And this speed gives ultimate superiority over surface ships even of a significantly larger VI.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, again, if the enemy destroyed the runway, then he could just as easily destroy the EP near the wall with a missile (hello, World Championship Fleet)

This is a subjective question of the incompetence of the Black Sea Fleet leadership. But objectively, the runway cannot be moved, but the EP can, and quickly, much faster than the NK.

Quote: shocktrooper

As practice shows, GDP is so easy to fix

What practice are we talking about? The Khikhlys operate from distant runways, and they have not struck our runways, only parking areas, and with very limited means. There is no practice of massive strikes on runways. In addition, do not confuse the airfield network of the center-south of Russia and the Far East, and especially the equipment.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, if there wasn’t enough money for the PLA, then where could we get it for the EP, especially for developing the EP almost from scratch.

You are not in our reality, no offense, huge funds are being squandered senselessly, not even stolen, where would they come from? This is not even a question of expediency, but simply the will of the state.

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, again, the submarine is still much more maneuverable than the EP.

Of course, but anti-submarine aviation has only one decisive advantage - the search for submarines by radar using a static wave (hump), which is completely leveled even with a small wave, and is possible at great depths and low speed of the submarine, but a short time spent in the search area and not particularly high efficiency of the radar. However, work in conjunction with aircraft/UAVs and EP seems to be an ideal solution.
I consider the dispute closed, due to the exhaustion of strong arguments, but if you find something beyond those given, I will be glad to look at it and respond.

[shocktrooper]

You have described the capabilities quite well, your description looks quite tasty to my unprofessional eye, although there are certain questions about the defensive capabilities - below, also about the "aircraft" part - well, here IMHO you have slightly waved in praise, also wrote criticism below. But the main question then remains this: why in the world over these 35 years no one has done anything in the direction of EP, if they are generally so promising? This confuses me greatly, all my life experience shows that all these "wunderwaffes" usually either spread very quickly to everyone and become ordinary conventional weapons, or turn out to be not wonderwaffes at all and have a lot of pitfalls. EP is far from a new thing, the concept itself is almost 100 years old, but with the exception of the USSR programs, no one has ever made anything heavier than patrol boats. This is what confuses me greatly in this whole ekranoplan epic and makes me perceive them with serious skepticism.

With what BEKs? Have you even followed the course of events? Army aviation is fighting them, but not the NK.

Well, in the ports and near them (at anchor?) they certainly shot back, or at least tried to.

and to mount powerful guns on 240-300 tons of st. vi. is not a problem. I hope you know what the AC-130 "Gunship" is?

A very dubious thing, and even then, in terms of power there is in fact a 105 mm light howitzer and a 20/25 mm aircraft cannon. It is not comparable with the same Phalanx, which is installed on ships.

No AU will provide 360 ​​degrees of fire. But two will be close. "Lun" has two AU. Radar sight on the bow can also be installed, but they did not consider it necessary, most likely due to the typical tactics of RK/MRK.

Here I also implied that the 23 mm Ukushka and the 30 mm Ak630 still have big differences in the mass of the salvo, and also in the rate of fire.

They are detected by AWACS aircraft, without any measures to reduce visibility, from 300-400 km away.

That's the point, now only the lazy don't take these measures.

I wrote this because for an aircraft at least half of the threats from detection come from the lower hemisphere. Obviously, for an EP the lower hemisphere is not a threatened direction.

Which gives nothing. You can't fit engines, antennas, or launchers in there. As a result, it's like the planes in front and below, and the EP in front and above. I don't see any radical improvement.

The plane - especially the B-2 - is a big wing.

An extremely specific shape, which, by the way, pretty much kills their aerodynamic characteristics. Actually, that's why no one makes flying wings anywhere except for these narrow applications.

does not make it the main culprit of EPR.

Because there are worse sources, for example engines.

However, a small sweep along the leading edge will not hurt in this regard.

So what is needed there is not 5-10 degrees, but much more.

The engines are not a problem at all, they are already well cowled and a small beak, especially in combination with measures against splashing, will completely cover them.

Well, I'll just say here: "I don't believe it." Honestly, only when I see how this whole garland of at least 3, and most likely all 5-10, is hidden, then I'll at least talk about something, for now - excuse me, this is something on the level of fantasy and "paper wishes." Plus if they also slap a turboprop in there...

The keel is the main problem, but it is comparable to the towers/masts of classmates

Again, aerodynamics. The keel in the EP is the most aircraft-like part, and considering that it is responsible for all maneuvering and cannot be optimized to the level of two planes... In general, it is the same as with engines - only when I see a working flying prototype, then I will believe it.

And the wing, by area

Well, airplanes, after all, fly with more than just one area, otherwise they would have made squares and rectangles a long time ago, fortunately, it is much more convenient to make hangars for such things. Well, then gliders would not hover for hours without a motor, but would fall, if we were talking about one wing area. The further from the leading edge, the less the "yield" from the pressure difference and, accordingly, from a point not very far from the edge of the wing, it begins to be "loss-making". In the EP, with its VERY wide wing (since on the screen everything is the other way around, the wider the wing, the greater the yield) as you can easily guess, in this regard everything is very bad.

Accordingly, the reduction of the takeoff weight will have a beneficial effect on the takeoff characteristics of the EP, and the cruising thrust of even all engines will be quite sufficient for horizontal flight at a low altitude. In addition, a straight, albeit short, wing shows itself well at such speeds and altitudes.

Take the same Lun - with a wingspan of 44 meters, a wing area of ​​550 m2 and a takeoff weight of at least 280-300 tons with a minimum of fuel (on which it will fly very far) there is simply no chance when compared with the same AN124, which has a wingspan of 77 meters, a wing area of ​​630 m2 and with a tank for the same 2500 km without a load, the mass will be somewhere around 200 tons. I think it is obvious that there is a huge difference in the required and real parameters of the EP for an airplane flight - an airplane EP is just an iron on jet engines, there is no point in seriously considering such a flight.

What practice are we talking about? The Khikhlys operate from distant runways, and they have not struck our runways, only parking areas, and with very limited means. There is no practice of massive strikes on runways.

The same WWII. And there is no practice because it is much more ineffective to hit the runway than to hit fuel, equipment, equipment, barracks, command posts, etc. I can't say about NATO, but almost all of our aircraft can take off from prepared unpaved airfields, so if the airfield management is not smoking mushrooms, but at least brings a hundred conscripts or, even better, repairmen with a tractor, then it will take a couple of hours to eliminate almost any damage to the runway. It would be better to throw mines if you need to delay, rather than destroy the airfield, and it will take longer to clear mines than holes in the runway.

Also, do not confuse the airfield network of the center-south of Russia and the Far East, and especially the equipment.

That's true, but again, I honestly don't see a future for the Pacific Fleet without the support of the Air Force, it would just be a beating from Alaska and the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" of Japan. Here it would be more likely necessary to intensively develop the airfield network.

But objectively, the runway cannot be moved, but the EP can, and quickly, much faster than the NK.

And the planes can take off even faster, like the Ukrainians did on February 24. Here, too, not everything is so clear.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: shocktrooper

But the main question then remains: why has no one in the world done anything in the direction of EP over the past 35 years, if they are generally so promising?

Because those who can, do not need SMALL SHIPS in the fleet. Small ships in such countries start from 1500 tons. And those who need them cannot, and since they do not build EP, they cannot buy them.

Quote: shocktrooper

This really confuses me, all my life experience shows that all these "wunderwaffes" are usually

I'm embarrassed to ask about experience...

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, in the ports and near them (at anchor?) they certainly shot back, or at least tried to.

Confusing self-defense, which is not always successful, with fighting is not so...

Quote: shocktrooper

A very dubious thing, and even then, in terms of power there is in fact a 105 mm light howitzer and a 20/25 mm aircraft cannon. It is not comparable with the same Phalanx, which is installed on ships.

That is, a 105 mm howitzer on an 80 ton plane is nothing, but a 76,2 gun on a 400 ton ship is the Ultima ratio... For God's sake!
Well, I like the 105, let me remind you of the GAU-8 Avenger, and my favorite is the 30 mm on the Thunderbolt.

Quote: shocktrooper

Which gives nothing. You can't fit engines, antennas, or launchers in there. As a result, it's like the planes in front and below, and the EP in front and above. I don't see any radical improvement.

No. The plane is both above and below, unlike the EP, which is only above. And this means, if you still haven't figured it out, that neither the body nor the wings with the stabilizer below the EP require any measures to reduce the RCS. Unlike.

Quote: shocktrooper

Actually, that’s why no one makes flying wings anywhere except for these narrow applications.

Does this rule out the presence of wings on other stealth aircraft? This is simply an example of a huge wing that is barely noticeable, and not because it has some kind of nano-coating, but because of elementary physics.

Quote: shocktrooper

So what is needed there is not 5-10 degrees, but much more.

Why? This measure will simply split the large forehead of the wing into two smaller ones. One of the measures, by the way.

Quote: shocktrooper

Honestly, only when I see how this whole garland of at least 3, and most likely all 5-10, is hidden

Have you even seen a photo of Lun, a question arises? There is no need to even extend the air intakes, a beak/or a visor, if you like, is enough to cover the compressor disk from above... And I also meant measures against flooding, which would completely block them from the front. Look at the early MiG-29, if it is not clear from the description what I am talking about.

Quote: shocktrooper

Plus if they also slap a turboprop in there...

It is not needed in a combat theater of operations, Orlyonok is not an indicator. Moreover, the theater of operations as a traction and lifting device will not work on large EPs with a lower wing, and a high wing turns a seaworthy EP into a profanation.

Quote: shocktrooper

and you can't optimize it to the level of two planes

Yes? So there are two planes - the fin itself and the stabilizer plane, which is essentially a wing, etc... And as I already wrote, it is the fin that needs the most serious measures to reduce the EPR. And if the shape cannot be changed, then the materials must be changed. I hope you will not deny the possibility of creating a fin with radio-absorbing materials?

Quote: shocktrooper

it is already starting to be "unprofitable", for the EP, with its VERY wide wing (since on the screen everything is the other way around, the wider the wing, the greater the output) as you can easily guess, in this regard everything is very bad.

No, not everything is very bad, worse than airplanes but not fatal. Because what? To increase the lift force (LF) at low speeds, the wing is made WIDDER with the help of mechanization, because there are many examples of flying airplanes with a very wide wing, because there is such a concept as "integrated circuit", when the fuselage becomes the source of LF and finally, that the source of LF in EP is both the upper and lower planes of the wing. The problem is solved elementarily by the angle of attack. So no need to exaggerate.

Quote: shocktrooper

there is simply no chance when compared to the same AN124... ...the aircraft EP is just an iron on jet engines, there is no point in seriously considering such a flight.

This is not the first time I write that an EP is not an airplane, and its flight within the framework of an inter-theater maneuver is a forced measure, in which fuel efficiency can be neglected.

Quote: shocktrooper

The same WWII.

It's not funny, short dirt roads and kilometer-long concrete structures...

Quote: shocktrooper

The runway is much less effective than hitting fuel, equipment, vehicles, barracks, command posts, etc.

Even better, the regiment flew to the Far East, to a brand new strip, among the hills. But there is no fuel, no weapons. He reinforced it, so he reinforced it. Until the next strike...

Quote: shocktrooper

but almost all of our aircraft can take off from prepared unpaved airfields

There are no such strips in the Far East. Hills and swamps, and where it is flat, there are no warehouses or reservoirs, because it is very far. From the sea. But besides, landing and takeoff from such a strip of a bomber, and a fighter will not cope with heavy anti-ship missiles and tanks, to put it mildly, are questionable.

Quote: shocktrooper

and if he even brings in a hundred conscripts or, even better, repairmen with a tractor, then it would be a matter of a couple of hours to repair almost any damage to the runway.

Somehow I doubt that you know more about aviation than about the navy...

Quote: shocktrooper

and it will take longer to clear mines than the holes in the runway

So, in the anti-airfield submunitions of the cruise missile there is such a function. Delayed detonation.

Quote: shocktrooper

And the planes can take off even faster, like the Ukrainians did on February 24. Here, too, not everything is so clear.

Especially those warned in advance. But when there is no warning, as was the case with us at first, that's all... But the thing is that the runways can be damaged not before takeoff, but before landing of planes from the mainland with empty tanks.
However, this no longer concerns EP.

Quote: shocktrooper

That's true, but again, I honestly don't see a future for the Pacific Fleet without the support of the Air Force.

There is nothing to say here, except that small surface ships have been and will be used by the Pacific Fleet.

[Vladimir_2U]

By the way, if the locks are damaged, the NK will not be able to complete the ChM-Baltic-White Sea crossing at all. But the EP, at least theoretically - please.

[t7310]

Even they had a hard time going beyond experimental samples

For example, in the Bahamas, eleven Amphistar US Xplorer ekranoplans have been used for commercial transportation since 1998.


And also of those that are currently hovering there is AirFish - 8, and also Panagiotis Zagklis (Greece) WSH-500, and also CYG-11 Hainan England WIG Manufacturing Company (Hainan company "Inge", Hainan province) and is a clone of the Russian device EK-12P "Ivolga" developed by the Russian NPK TREK and also some number of Russian ekranoplans...

In the USA this topic has been studied for a long time. The “Aerofoil Boat” X-112 of the German designer Lippisch was steamed in 1964.

And even the Chinese are producing ekranoplans for the PLA Navy

[shocktrooper]

Yes, they do, and they even fly well and are generally not bad. One problem is that these are all LIGHT ECRAIN PLANES with characteristics suitable for replacing patrol boats only and usually created according to the Lippisch scheme. But the dreamers are not talking about them, the dreamers want to shove entire missile divisions onto the EP, and for it to fly not 100 km/h, but all 500, and also carry a company as a load! And these are already fundamentally different devices, about the same way as the AN-124 differs from the AN-2.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

There is no need to get ahead of the world - ekranoplans in the Navy are a dead-end idea (my opinion). Everyone would have built them already.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

There is no need to get ahead of the world - ekranoplans in the Navy are a dead-end idea (my opinion).

My opinion is that your opinion on this issue is wrong.
A small ship that is superior in armament and equipment to another ship, and is comparable to its opponent in seaworthiness and probably in price, is no longer a dead end, but an alternative, and if it also surpasses it in speed TEN TIMES, and at cruising speed, it is definitely not a dead end.
Compare the EP-MRK (official classification) "Lun" and the RK "Molniya"...

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

Everyone would be building them already.

They could, and they built aircraft carriers, nuclear power plants, orbital stations, tiltrotor aircraft and much, much more, but they can’t, and you can be sure that they REALLY want to.
Those who can, don’t need small ships at all, and those who need them, can’t.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Doubtful, given their technological, scientific and financial superiority (especially the latter). They simply don't consider it necessary.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

They just don't think it's necessary.

That's right. Countries that are financially or technologically capable of equipping ships with turbojet engines do not consider small surface combatants necessary in their fleets.
The tonnage of warships of such countries starts from a couple of kilotons.
And those countries that are content with small ships are not able to build EP.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

"Capable of equipping ships with turbojet engines" - I don't get it

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

"Capable of equipping ships with turbojet engines" - I don't get it

A combat EP is pointless without such engines. NKs are equipped with gas turbine EPs, and this, as you understand, is not the same as a turbojet aircraft engine. Turboprops are also not suitable, because they will not provide the underwing airflow necessary to improve seaworthiness during takeoff and landing.

[Eug]

Looks very attractive, let's see how it goes in operation. The diesels surprised me - I wonder if they are domestically produced or imported?

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

The main one has been in operation for three years already. Diesel engines of our own production (licensed or unlicensed copies).

[Dutchman Michel]

The ships have a somewhat non-standard design for warships - a catamaran

I read a long time ago that catamarans have a very small roll, which is probably very convenient for launching missiles. And for saving fuel too.

[Brylevsky]

. I read a long time ago that catamarans have a very small roll, which is probably very convenient for launching missiles. And for saving fuel too.

Not quite so. A vessel (in this case it does not matter whether it is a "vessel" or a "ship", the mathematics here are the same) with a "catamaran" type hull will have a significantly smaller list IN CIRCULATION than a vessel with a traditional hull, at the same speed, due to increased initial stability. But here it should be understood that the initial (static) stability "works" only as long as the center of the magnitude of the submerged volume moves along the arc of a circle, which is described by the transverse metacentric radius. The center of this circle is the transverse metacenter. All inclinations are equal-volume. For a conventional sea vessel, these are angles of approximately 10 - 15 degrees. Then the bilge belt of the hull begins to emerge from the water, the inclination becomes unequal-volume, and the center of magnitude begins to move along a trajectory that cannot be replaced by a section of the circle - dynamic stability, or stability at large angles of list, comes into play. Let me remind you that these angles for a regular sea vessel start from 10 - 15 degrees. And here, as they say, for a catamaran, "not everything is so clear-cut". Let's say it's not for nothing that ships and vessels are designed as single-hulled. For a single-hulled vessel (or ship, in this case it doesn't matter, the mathematics here are the same), with a normal transverse metacentric height, a list of 25 - 40 degrees is not fatal. But for a catamaran, this is a big, very big question... And if you look into it, you will understand that the stability of a catamaran at large list angles (and this, let me remind you, is from 10 - 15 degrees) .... LOWER, that is, worse than that of a single-hulled vessel. Can a ship get such a list during a combat mission? Yes, it can. And much more than that. The conclusion from all this is as follows: the production of ships capable of going out to the distant sea, and, especially, to the ocean, with a "catamaran" hull type is dangerous nonsense. To which the world shipbuilding has come, first by trial and error, then by calculation. The tactical "niche" of such ships is the near sea zone, practically the "coastal", where there are no big waves. In fact, this is a task for a missile boat, of which all the world's fleets, at one time, riveted a great many, for much less money, with practically equal combat capabilities. But they are Iranians, they can do it.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

I disagree. The Australian company Austal has built many large aluminum catamarans both as transports for the Navy (particularly the American one) and as ferries. They sail in the ocean and in storms and are quite successful.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Bravo! And I almost forgot about it.

[Brylevsky]

. Bravo! And I almost forgot about it.

Something still remains in my head... at least the main points. I also don't remember the whole theory, although it is valid. When stability was calculated manually, I had to remember everything. But for 30 years now, either a specialized program on a computer or a homemade script in Excel has been calculating it. Therefore, I have to remember everything during recertification, once every 5 years :-).

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

I admit honestly - I calculated stability only in two of my completed seminars - in one I even designed a rescuer's EI - a course-

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

I still remember the teacher of TUK - in impeccable form Tomasiunas

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Beautiful woman and good science

[Brylevsky]

. And fuel economy too.

No. At speeds over 20 knots, there can be no talk of any fuel economy. Because in addition to hydrodynamics, aerodynamics will also come into play. From the point of view of common sense - with comparable displacements, which vessel will have a larger wetted surface area, a single-hull or a catamaran? At such speeds, a multi-speed diesel (and others are not installed on such ships) will guzzle fuel by the bucketful and use up its engine life in about the same way. And what it means to "spread out" a marine diesel to give it a "major overhaul" will probably only be understood by a practicing mechanic...

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Brylevsky

At speeds above 20 knots, there can be no talk of any fuel savings.

The catamaran's hull architecture successfully combats heeling, which eliminates unnecessary fuel consumption to overcome it.

[Brylevsky]

The catamaran's hull architecture successfully combats roll,

Exactly ;-)? It's just that I was taught at one time that the list of a ship is caused by forces and moments :-). Well, then, apparently, with a ship.... With a ship, apparently, everything is different :-).

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

What is correct (a tricky question): "Ship theory" or "Vessel theory"

[Brylevsky]

It would be more correct to answer that the theory of stability is applicable to both ships and vessels. Because its "legs" grow from Euler's theorem. The one about equivolume inclinations. Mathematics is generally the same everywhere. If we consider the history of the issue, then first the vessel appeared, and then the ship. Therefore, my opinion is "Theory of the vessel". But the military will obviously be against it :-).

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

A ship is understood as: a theoretical concept (ship theory), a sailing ship with direct armament on at least three masts and a combat ship (not to be confused with a naval vessel)

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Mechanics don't "throw these diesels around" on board, but repair them on shore. And the fuel consumption of modern high-speed diesels is not that different from low-speed ones. I don't count "Russian miracles" of "Zvezda".

[Brylevsky]

A ship for fair weather. I hope its builders knew what they were doing. It wasn't that simple, since time immemorial, to build single-hulled sea vessels. A catamaran has a high chance of getting "punched in the gut" when a wave of the appropriate height creeps under its "belly". And waves in the sea can be quite normal, of the appropriate volume and weight... And these shock loads, they are, to put it mildly, not good for either the hull or what is in it. Yes, you can select the appropriate running mode, choose the optimal course in relation to the wave, but... why? What for? They (the builders) voluntarily imposed restrictions on seaworthiness on themselves by choosing such a design scheme of the hull. The destiny of such a ship is to jump out of the base by 50-100 miles, shoot off and immediately go back, preferably in good weather. Because in bad weather, sailing on a catamaran turns into an attraction. This is a coastal ship. 5000 nautical miles and a possible exit to the Indian Ocean, this is for girls in military uniform. And the motto is "I'll be lucky!"

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

American and Australian catamarans sailed quite successfully across oceans and in stormy weather. Personally, I also had to ride in a storm in the Atlantic. It shakes, but it is bearable.

[Brylevsky]

American and Australian catamarans sailed quite successfully across oceans and in stormy weather.

This is not an indicator. Did they go or do they go? And if they did, then where and from where? And what is their displacement?

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

They sailed and sailed, and under their own power from the Austal shipyard in Australia across the oceans to customers in Europe and on both coasts of North and South America. American aluminum catamaran transports of Australian construction carry troops and equipment, including tanks, across the oceans. Details: www.austal.com

[solar]

The shape of the lower part seems to be taken from Chinese missile boats. Taiwan also has such ships.

[D16]

I look at this heavily armed aluminum miracle with a VI of 600 tons, at all sorts of Rubezhi, Zaslony, Pozitiv, Monolithy and think: "What, was that even possible?"

[Alexey RA]

Quote: D16

I look at this heavily armed aluminum miracle with a VI of 600 tons, at all sorts of Rubezhi, Zaslony, Pozitiv, Monolithy and think: "What, was that even possible?"

It is possible. Until the first fire. "Monsoon" is an example of that.

The Iranians have built a classic "glass hammer" - complete lack of survivability despite strong armament.
By the way, the Yankees are writing off their light-alloy littoralniks precisely because they can be lost from the first hit. They were built based on the calculation of work due to the radius of the enemy's weapons, when there will be no retaliation of 146% - but, with the beginning of the use of anti-tank missiles even in local conflicts, this concept no longer works.

[D16]

I'm not only talking about flammability, but also about the lack of their own radar systems for guiding anti-ship missiles and air defense missiles. How are they going to use them at the stated range? What a nightmare of reason. There's not even an artillery radar in sight.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Fully equipped ships display a phased array radar antenna

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

The Americans write them off for completely different reasons.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

The Americans write them off for completely different reasons.

But aren't they written off because the concept is unviable?
After all, it was initially assumed that the LCS would remotely destroy the enemy's threatening fire weapons beyond their effective fire range. At the same time, the enemy was considered to be wild Zusuls, who had never seen anything cooler than ATGMs, D-30s and T-55s. The unpunished remote destruction of such targets was considered possible, and therefore survivability was neglected.
After the first anti-ship missiles were used by third world countries, the Yankees decided to first work on strengthening the LCS's defensive capabilities. But it soon became clear that the minimum required to protect against new threats was an Aegis. Which wouldn't fit into the old hull.
It turned out to be impossible to use the LCS with the air defense systems that fit on them precisely because of their zero survivability - this air defense could not provide normal protection, and the ship did not survive the first hit.
I still remember how the Americans were upset that in order for LCS to work even in low-intensity conflicts, they needed to be covered by full-fledged guided missile destroyers. Despite the fact that LCS was initially created in order to free these same guided missile destroyers from participating in such conflicts.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Look at the actions of the Houthis

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

Look at the actions of the Houthis

This is what I wrote about: the unviability of the concept of safe remote destruction of an enemy.
As soon as the LCS's opponent gets weapons comparable in range to the LCS's onboard weapons - that's it, the littoral ship is finished. It has very little active defense, it's impossible to strengthen it, and constructive defense is nonexistent as a class. It's not even a "glass hammer", but a "glass bubble".

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexey RA

The Iranians have built a classic "glass hammer" - complete lack of survivability despite strong armament.

What do you want, from 600 tons?

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

It seems like the Moskva was sunk by one missile, but the hull was made of steel!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

It seems like the Moskva was sunk by one missile, but the hull was made of steel!

I highly doubt that it was just one, it's just nonsense. And it looks like the fight for survivability was wasted.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

According to the history of military operations and my personal opinion - if a ship smaller than a frigate could not repel a missile attack with a solid warhead (shoot it down or successfully jam it), then 90% of the time it's screwed. No amount of survivability testing will help.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Full guarantee - US aircraft carrier - only nuclear strike

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

if a ship smaller than a frigate could not repel a missile attack from a missile with a solid warhead

???? Is the missile cruiser "Moskva" smaller than a frigate?

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

The story is shrouded in complete darkness. There are a lot of insinuations on this topic. Or does the Black Sea Fleet itself not know or is it a secret? And from here they write all sorts of nasty things or lies about the fleet, or the truth?
The Black Sea Fleet has screwed up, so what next?

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Or maybe it really isn't a missile, but a short circuit in the electrical system - the ship is ancient, without proper repairs, and the people are stupid conscripts. You can't teach a moron in a year - I spent half a century at sea and studied in two seminaries, and even then I often end up in a dead end

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

The phrase turned out funny

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Personally, I don't believe in 600 t, I think it's more

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

Personally, I don't believe in 600 t, I think it's more

Why not, given the all-aluminum body?

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

The much smaller corvette "Shahid Nazeri" gives 800 tons

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov

The much smaller corvette "Shahid Nazeri" gives 800 tons

This is in Wikipedia, I found only 240 from the Iranians, and this is more believable, especially if it is dry weight.
https://iranpress.com/shahid-nazeri-vessel-symbol-of-advanced-offshore-structures

[KrolikZanuda]

Buy a license and release dozens for each fleet. Or order construction, since we don't know how to do it ourselves.

[tralflot1832]

Have you heard of these fishermen trawlers - catamarans (built in Kaliningrad), Experiment and Experiment 2. They worked from Kaliningrad in the Norwegian and Barents Seas - and there is very little "water in a swamp" waves. They withstood storms perfectly. There was also a third, smaller "Skat". It seems that it was already standing on the "barrel" when I came to MTF. According to reviews, they are interesting vessels. How to "christen" a two-hull trawler? That's a question!!

[tralflot1832]

The first Experiment was written about in 1968 in the NYT.

[tralflot1832]

It seems that Skat belonged to Murmansk Industrial Intelligence, it was written off to storage after a couple of trips. The smart guys installed a single-rotation diesel engine, but it didn't want to turn left. The engine had to be worked on to make it turn.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: tralflot1832

They withstood the storms perfectly

Why shouldn't they hold it, given the full-fledged cases?
Compare them with the Iranian's "skates".

[air wolf]

If the Iranian ship could dive underwater, even for up to a day, it would be a bomb.

[fiberboard]

The Swedes also seem to have such catamarans-corvettes, or the Finns. They showed them on TV once. They have good speeds.

[solar]

Despite the external similarity, the Swedes and Finns have a different type of boat - skegs. This is a type of hovercraft.

[tralflot1832]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"skates" of an Iranian

When the waves are 10 meters high, you can wear NHL skates, but it’s better to have a pair of fins nearby.

[Brylevsky]

American and Australian catamarans sailed quite successfully across oceans and in stormy weather.

Curious. Please send me a link. I want to learn about the experience of sailing.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

You can see some of it here: www.austal.com, https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/westpac-express-high-speed-vessel/?cf-view

[Brylevsky]

I looked. I didn't find any specifics in the first link, except for the cost, the second link doesn't have much more information than the first. What kind of experience do you have with operating these ships? Is there any information? I know that sea catamarans exist, including high-speed ones. I'm interested in their operating experience.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Read carefully. The first link contains technical data on all ships and vessels built and under construction by this company. The second link contains operational experience. For details, ask the Marine Corps and the US Army - these are their ships.

[Brylevsky]

. Read carefully.

Okay, I looked more closely. A catamaran slightly over 100 m long, with a maximum deadweight of 1000 tons.... Are you trying to convince me that an aluminum vessel of this displacement will safely cross the ocean? I'll tell you right away: don't waste your time and mine.
I have looked at enough beautiful photos on that site, where their catamarans effectively glide along the surface of the sea at a speed of 30+ knots; for me this is not news, I have seen enough of high-speed vessels in the Mediterranean. But I want to note that I have not seen a single photo where a catamaran would go at the same speed during a storm. That is the whole secret of the "success" of such vessels: they realize their potential in calm water. Let them try to accelerate to 30+ with a wave height of at least 3-4 meters, I will see what is left of their aluminum hulls at such a speed. And in the ocean, waves can be much higher, and not only in the ocean ... even in our Far Eastern seas, waves 5 - 7 meters high are not uncommon. And you think that with such a wave, a vessel is capable of going at a speed of over 30 knots, even with a steel hull? You are mistaken.

The secret of these vessels is that at high speed they acquire some stability according to the law of inertia. And therefore they rock less than ordinary vessels. Because of this, a person may have a dangerous illusion in the reliability of such a vehicle. But this is not so, far from it... I will repeat my main idea once again: these are fair-weather ships and vessels. In stormy conditions, if they try to move at high speed, they will ruin themselves.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Naturally, the speed is reduced, but we arrived on schedule, only everyone was asked to move away from the forward illuminators (large windows). There were 8 points

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

The view around was amazing - the waves were higher than the village council, and everything was in white foam. I spent half a century on big spikes - but this is an impression!

[storm]

When anti-ship missiles are launched from inclined launchers, the helicopter will simply be "blown away" from the deck...

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

The jet will obviously miss, and there is no provision for permanent basing of a helicopter there (there is no hangar)

[storm]

The axes of the inclined launchers precisely intersect the helicopter pad; of course, it would have been possible to provide protective screens, but they are also missing...
Until the helicopter takes off, it is impossible to use the anti-ship missile???
"as soon as you take a piss, you can take off your shoes"...

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

They didn't look well, there is a corresponding configuration of the upper deck, and this ship clearly won't go into battle with a helicopter on board.

[Brylevsky]

The interest of shipbuilders in ships with such hulls is explained by the following:
1) they have a smaller draft compared to a conventional hull;
2) the catamaran does not capsize during circulation at high speed, as happens on a ship with a conventional hull.
The first is important when using a ship in shallow water (i.e., in coastal waters), the second can be important when the ship uses its weapons.
It follows from this that the main variant of combat use of such a ship is the tactics of the "jump out - hit - run away" type, at high speed, in order to get as close as possible to the target of attack, use missile weapons on it, and then quickly leave the zone of possible return fire, because combat damage to such a ship would be fatal. And in the near sea zone, in the absence of any significant waves, such tactics will make sense. Although, I repeat, the same problem is solved by a conventional missile boat, which will have an advantage in the criterion of "efficiency - cost". And if the "efficiency" is the same, why pay more?
In rough seas, there is no talk of 30-40 knots for a catamaran. Moreover, with a displacement of 600 tons (or even 800, it will not change anything in principle), its hull will experience too much dynamic load and will most likely be damaged. There is only one way out: to increase the displacement. But this will give rise to a whole bunch of related problems, from the increased draft to the cost of such a hull. Thus, I will repeat my main conclusion: the Iranians created a ship for good weather, with limited seaworthiness, with a very narrow tactical niche.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

I don't know the Iranian navy's doctrine in detail, but I've been in the Persian Gulf in all seasons - there have never been storms in my memory. And in the Indian Gulf, there are storms only during the monsoon season (north of the equator) - in my memory.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

And no one is engaged in war with 6+ points - we aim our nose at the wave or we slow down

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

Or better yet, both - worked for the fishermen

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

I don’t understand, what topic are we discussing?

[Brylevsky]

. I don’t understand, what topic are we discussing?

Personally, I am discussing the topic of seaworthiness of ships and vessels with the "catamaran" hull type :-). I would like to understand why this particular design scheme was chosen. Without knowing this for sure, one can only make assumptions.

[Alexander Mitrofanov]

And others are ekranoplans, and that is clearly a different topic.