Domestic ekranoplans

10 292 97
Domestic ekranoplans

In the 20s of the last century aviation We first encountered the ground effect during airplane landings. Sometimes, as the aircraft approached the ground, it seemed as if it were floating on a kind of air cushion and stubbornly refused to land.

The ground effect occurs when an aircraft flies close to the ground or water surface (from a few centimeters to several meters), maintaining its aerodynamic lift primarily due to the aerodynamic lift generated by the wing and body as a result of interaction with air reflected from the underlying surface. When using the ground effect, lift increases by 40%.



Since the 30s, research has been underway both abroad and in the USSR to develop ground effect vehicles. Two schools of ground effect vehicle design can be distinguished: the Soviet (Rostislav Alekseyev) with a straight wing and the Western (Alexander Martin Lippisch) with a forward-swept delta wing with pronounced inverse dihedral. R.E. Alekseyev's design requires more stabilization, but allows for higher speeds and airplane mode. The third proposed design was the tandem configuration of G. Jörg (West Germany), which has several advantages (such as automatic stabilization).


Layout diagrams of ekranoplans: A - Alekseev's diagram, B - Lippisch's diagram, C - Jörg's diagram

Soviet ekranoplan developments can be divided into three main groups:

• Designs of the Central Design Bureau for SPK under the leadership of R.E. Alekseev
• Designs by Robert Bartini at the G.M. Beriev Aviation Design Bureau in Taganrog (1968-1974)
• Small ekranoplans, in the development of which various design bureaus took part.

In 1958, the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau (TsKB po SPK) in Gorky began laboratory research into the ground effect on towed models and self-propelled manned vehicles. For this purpose, an IS-2 test facility was built on the Gorky Reservoir.

The work was carried out under the supervision of the famous shipbuilding engineer Rostislav Evgenievich Alekseev (1916–1980), the creator of many projects for boats and hydrofoil vessels for both military and civilian purposes, such as “Rocket", "Meteor", "Comet".


Rostislav Evgenievich Alekseev

In 1961, the first self-propelled ekranoplan model, the SM-1, was built. This three-seat craft, weighing 2830 kg, was equipped with a turbojet engine, providing a speed of up to 270 km/h at an altitude of 0,5 m above the water surface. The SM-1's maiden flight took place on July 22, 1961, with Alekseyev himself piloting the ekranoplan.

Between 1962 and 1970, more advanced self-propelled models of the SM-2, the SM-6, and the SM-8, were built. One of the innovations was a turbojet booster engine, the exhaust gases of which were fed under the ekranoplan's wings during takeoff, increasing lift at low speeds. A flight test service was established at the Central Design Bureau to test ekranoplans, staffed by professional test pilots.


CM-2

In May 1962, at the Khimki Reservoir, the SM-2 was demonstrated to the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, N.S. Khrushchev, who was favorably impressed, which significantly contributed to the further development of this area of ​​technology.

In 1963, the SM-5 ekranoplan entered service. It was a scaled-down model (1:4) of the giant KM ("Caspian Monster") ekranoplan that was under development. The SM-5's lifespan was short-lived: in August 1964, it crashed, the first of its kind. stories family "SM".

During testing, the vehicle encountered a strong headwind, its nose began to lift, and due to improper crew control, it broke away from the screen, hit the water, and was destroyed. The entire two-person crew perished.

After the 1967 disaster, taking into account all the previous shortcomings, the SM-8, another KM-like vehicle, was built. In the summer of 1968, the ekranoplan landed on a grassy beach, demonstrating its amphibious capabilities. Traveling at approximately 60 km/h, it easily overcame ground irregularities up to 0,2 m.

Following the start of design work on the Orlyonok ekranoplan in 1968, a two-seat equivalent, the SM-6, with a takeoff weight of 26,5 tons, was developed in 1970. The SM-6 flew at a speed of 350 km/h at an altitude of 1 m. Tests were conducted not only on the Volga, but also on the Caspian Sea.


CM-6

While testing of self-propelled models continued, designers at the Gorky Central Design Bureau were working on the giant ekranoplan KM (Korabl-Maket), designated Project 1133. In the West, this craft was nicknamed the "Caspian Monster," as American space reconnaissance assets first detected the KM during tests in the Caspian Sea. The chief designer of this ekranoplan was R.E. Alekseev, and the lead designer was V.P. Efimov.
Many Soviet enterprises were involved in the construction of the KM ekranoplan, including those in the Gorky region—the Krasnoye Sormovo plant and the Sergo Ordzhonikidze Aircraft Plant. The KM was laid down in 1963 and launched in March 1966.




KM

It was decided to conduct tests of the mock-up ship in the Caspian Sea. For nearly a month, with its wing detached and covered with camouflage net, the "monster" was towed in a floating dock along the Volga River in strict secrecy.

A rather curious incident involving the KM occurred. Pressure was coming from above, demanding its testing begin as soon as possible. Alekseyev found an ingenious solution. Although the ekranoplan was still being assembled in the floating dock, Rostislav Evgenievich surprised his staff by taking the flight log and writing, "Flight in dock." All 10 engines roared, with thrust at 40% of nominal, and the dock began to break free of its moorings. Only then were the engines stopped.

On October 18, 1966, the ekranoplan completed its maiden 50-minute flight, in which Alekseyev participated. The KM was used for various tests until October 15, 1980, when, due to pilot error, the ekranoplan crashed; the crew managed to escape.

The forward pylons housed eight VK-7B turbojet engines, each producing 11 tons of thrust, and the vertical stabilizer housed two VK-7KM cruise engines. The Lun's hull was divided into ten watertight compartments and had three decks.

Based on the KM design, work on the Project 903 Lun missile ship, led by V.N. Kirillov, began at the Central Design Bureau for Hydrofoil Design in the early 1970s. Construction of the lead Lun began in 1983 at the Volga experimental plant in Gorky, and in the summer of 1986, it was launched and towed to Kaspiysk, Dagestan, for completion and testing. Following a series of tests and operational trials, the ship joined the 236th ekranoplan division of the Caspian Flotilla in 1991. Construction of eight Lun-class ekranoplans was planned, but these plans were never realized.

Unlike previous ekranoplan types, the Lun was armed with powerful armament. Three twin launchers for 3M-80 Moskit anti-ship missiles were mounted on its back. The missiles had a firing range of 10 to 120 km at low altitudes, or 250 km at high altitudes. The warhead contained 150 kg of explosive, allowing it to target ships displacing up to 20 tons.

For self-defense, including from an air enemy, two were used artillery UKU-9K-502-II mounts with twin 23-mm twin-barreled GSh-23 aircraft cannons and a Krypton radar sight. Similar mounts were used on the Il-76M/MD and Tu-95MS aircraft.








"Lun"

In 2020, the Lun was delivered from Kaspiysk to the Patriot Park under construction in Derbent, Dagestan, which is scheduled to open in 2023.

Following the April 7, 1989, disaster on the Komsomolets nuclear submarine, which killed 42 crew members, a decision was made to develop a ground effect vehicle (GEF) for rescue. The second, unfinished Lun was used for this project. The "Spasatel" was to be equipped with optical, television, infrared, and radar search equipment, rescue gear, and a medical unit. It could accommodate 150-500 rescued people, and had a range of 2160 miles. In the 90s, work was halted due to lack of funding, with the project 75% complete.

In 1964, the Central Design Bureau for Landing Craft (TsKB) began design work on the T-1 Project 904 (codename "Orlyonok") landing ekranoplan, under the direction of P. E. Alekseev and later V. V. Sokolov. The "Orlyonok" was designed to transport troops up to 1500 km and land them on unmanned beaches. In the Navy, it was classified as a Small Landing Ship-Ekranoplan (MLD). Unlike the aforementioned ekranoplan types, the MLD could fly not only on an ekranoplan but also like an aircraft at altitudes of up to 3000 meters.


"Eaglet"

The power plant consisted of two NK-8-4K turbojet engines mounted in the nose and an NK-12MK turboprop engine mounted on the tail. These engines are marine modifications of the production engines used in the Tu-154, Il-62, and Tu-95 aircraft.

The ekranoplan could carry up to 200 paratroopers or up to 28 tons of cargo or two armored vehicles (APC, BMP, танк PT-76). They were loaded and unloaded through a side-hinged nose and two side doors. Armament consisted of a turret-mounted machine gun mount (two NSVT Utes-M 12,7mm machine guns).


Unloading an armored personnel carrier from the Orlyonok

The crew consisted of a commander, co-pilot, mechanic, navigator, radio operator, and gunner. When transporting troops, the crew also included technicians.


In the cockpit of the Orlyonok

During the construction and operation of military ekranoplans, disputes arose over their builders (the USSR Ministry of Aviation Industry or the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry) and their affiliation (the Air Force or the Navy). That is, were they ships or aircraft? Ultimately, it was decided that the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry would build them, the ekranoplans would belong to the Navy, and they would be piloted by naval aviators. The Orlyat aircraft were built at the Volga experimental plant, located near the city of Gorky (now Nizhny Novgorod).

According to the definition set forth in the "Interim Safety Guidelines for Ground Effect Vehicles" adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a ground effect vehicle is a multi-mode craft that, in its primary operational mode, flies using the "ground effect" over water or another surface without maintaining continuous contact with it... Thus, ground effect vehicles are subject to IMO requirements. Ground effect vehicles capable of leaving the ground for extended periods and entering "airplane" mode are called ground effect vehicles and are subject to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements during flight in airplane mode.

According to the IMO classification, ekranoplans are divided into three types:

• Type A – ekranoplans that can only be operated at altitudes where the “screen effect” is present (flight altitude no greater than the wing chord size);
• Type B – ekranoplans capable of briefly and for a limited amount (a distance from the surface not exceeding 150 m) increasing the flight altitude above the screen;
• Type C – ekranoplans capable of lifting off from the screen for a long time to a height exceeding 150 m (ekranoplans).

In 1972, testing of the experimental Orlyonok began on the Volga, and the following year they moved to the Caspian Sea. The third and first serial MDE-150 entered service with the Navy on November 3, 1979. A total of 100 were built by the end of 1983. the fleet Three production Orlyonok ekranoplans were delivered. A total of 24 Project 904 ekranoplans were planned for construction, but only three were built. In 1984, Defense Minister D.F. Ustinov, who had supported the construction of such vehicles, died, and the program was canceled. The production ekranoplans were assigned to the 236th ekranoplan Division of the Caspian Flotilla's Landing Ship Brigade, and in late 1986, to the 11th Separate Air Group of the Black Sea Fleet. In 1984, the division was supposed to be redeployed to the Baltic Sea under its own power at altitudes of up to 1500 m. However, the flight never took place.

In 1975, a serious accident occurred: the aft section, along with the main engine, was torn off in flight. Thanks to the skillful and decisive actions of the crew and Alekseyev, who was on board, the ekranoplan was saved. The cause of the accident was the fragility of the hull material (later replaced with a different alloy). R. Alekseyev was removed from his position as chief ekranoplan designer and demoted to department head, with V.V. Sokolov becoming the new chief designer.
In 1988, two Orlyonoks participated in exercises to transfer troops from Baku to the Krasnovodsk area, alongside conventional landing ships and hovercraft. The ekranoplans took two hours, the hovercraft about six, and the conventional ships about a day.


Main performance characteristics of the USSR ekranoplans (developed by the Central Design Bureau for the SPK)

On August 28, 1992, the MDE-150 crashed and partially disintegrated in the Caspian Sea, killing one crew member. In stormy conditions, the ekranoplan capsized and was later sunk by Caspian Fleet ships. The surviving Orlyata craft were subsequently mothballed. In 2007, the MDE-160 was towed from Kaspiysk to Moscow, where it is on display at the Severnoye Tushino Museum and Park Complex.


Eaglet Museum, Moscow

The experimental ekranoplan SM-9 and the training aircraft UT-1 and Strizh were also built based on the Central Design Bureau for the SPK projects.

Work on projects for cargo and passenger ekranoplans was also carried out by other scientific organizations in the USSR, such as the P.O. Sukhoi Design Bureau and the G.M. Beriev Aviation Design Bureau in Taganrog under the leadership of Roberto Bartini (1968-1974).

Currently, the R.E. Alekseev Central Design Bureau for Special Design Bureau continues work on developing next-generation ekranoplan designs, such as the A-020-538, A-050-538, and A-300-538, among others. These ekranoplans are designed for passenger and cargo transportation, forest firefighting, rescue operations, and military missions.

The main technical characteristics of some modern ekranoplan projects of the Central Design Bureau for the Special Design Bureau named after R.E. Alekseev.




Ekranoplan project A-005-514


Ekranoplan project A-300-538


The Chaika-2 ekranoplan project

The Orion-10, Orion-12 (EK-12P Ivolga), Orion-14, Orion-20, and Orion-25 ground effect vehicles are manufactured in Petrozavodsk by the Orion Association. The Ivolga ground effect vehicle, which has been in trial operation at the Karelia Federal Security Service Directorate since November 2011, demonstrated a maximum range of 1150 km at an altitude of 0,8 m, and 1480 km at an altitude of 0,3 m with the same payload. (The Federal Border Service of the FSB of Russia received seven EK-12P Ivolga vehicles in the early 2010s.) Orion ground effect vehicles have also been exported, and the EK-12P Ivolga is manufactured in China under the designation CYG-11. Other Russian companies also build small ekranoplans in small quantities.


EK-12P "Ivolga"


Orion-20, Petrozavodsk


Orion 14


Orion 25


Russian ekranoplan "Aquaglide-2"


Russian ekranoplan "Aquaglide-5"

The development of ekranoplans is also underway in China, the USA, South Korea, Iran and other countries, with Soviet developments in this area being widely used.


Development of ekranoplans in China


The development of ekranoplans in China can be traced back to 1967, when the China Ship Scientific Research Center (CSRCC) in Beijing began designing and piloting the first ekranoplan, Project 961. Built and test-flown between 1968 and 1969, it was a single-seat, twin-fuselage aircraft. Its design was an original, purely Chinese development and had nothing in common with the Lippisch-type design.

In 1969, the CSSRC was relocated to Jingmen, Hubei Province, where it remains to this day. Today, it is China's most powerful research center for seaplanes and amphibious technology, boasting significant research and development capabilities and a testing laboratory in the northeast of the country.

In the early 80s, the 708th Research Institute of the China Shipbuilding Corporation, located in Shanghai and better known in the West as the Hovercraft Department of the Marine Design and Research Institute of China (MARIC), joined the problem of developing devices that use a dynamic air environment.

The Ekranoplan Development Center (presumably the 605th Research Institute), known in the West as the China Academy of Science and Technological Development (CASTD), was founded in August 1995 by order of the Chinese government. In the 1990s, private Chinese companies were also brought into the project.

Between 1968 and 2002 alone, no fewer than 18 types of ekranoplans were designed and built in China, and this work continues successfully. Furthermore, ekranoplans are widely exported. For example, in the spring of 2025, it was announced that 17 ekranoplans produced by the Jiangsu Hengchuan Company would be exported to the United Arab Emirates. The total contract value will reach several billion yuan.






Bohai Sea Monster

In the spring of 2025, a huge aircraft was spotted for the first time in a bay on Hainan Island. It is believed to be a military ekranoplan, although it is possible it could also be a seaplane-flying boat. Its wingspan is nearly 39 meters, its length is approximately 37 meters, and it is powered by four turboprop engines. In the West, it has already been dubbed the "Bohai Sea Monster."
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -12
    3 October 2025 04: 26
    Riddle: flies like a ship, floats like an airplane, eats slop like a pig?
    1. 10+
      3 October 2025 04: 39
      Quote: Anglorussian
      Riddle: flies like a ship, floats like an airplane, eats slop like a pig?

      Definitely not an ekranoplan. Because it flies like a bad airplane, but it's an airplane, it floats like a decent ship, and it consumes less fuel per kilometer than hovercraft or hydrofoils.
      1. +2
        3 October 2025 05: 00
        Oh yeah, the seaworthiness listed in the table is the seaworthiness at takeoff, not the ultimate seaworthiness for being on the water or for durability, except for the Orlyonok. That one is only on the water due to the low position of the booster engines.
      2. +2
        3 October 2025 06: 18
        A bad plane crossed the Atlantic back in 19, 15 years after the birth of the first airplane.
        1. +3
          3 October 2025 07: 00
          Quote: Tlauicol
          A bad plane crossed the Atlantic back in 19, 15 years after the birth of the first airplane.
          3000 km? Great, not such a bad plane. What wave did it take off from? How long had it been on the water before that? But the An-24, just for reference, turns out to be a poor plane, because even with its ferry range, let alone practical, it wouldn't have made it across the Atlantic.
          What did they want to say by this?
          And the photos are beautiful, what exactly were you trying to say with them? That there's a wave like that 24/365 days a year across the entire water surface. wink on planet Earth?
          Here are some beautiful photos for you too:
          1. +3
            3 October 2025 07: 18
            Alaverdi. "A terrible storm" on the Caspian Sea.
            1. +2
              3 October 2025 07: 25
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Alaverdi. "A terrible storm" on the Caspian Sea.

              Storm? What storm?
              During testing, the car was hit by a strong gust of headwind, its nose began to rise, and due to improper actions of the crew It came off the screen, hit the water and broke apart.

              The KM was used for various tests until October 15, 1980, when because of
              pilot errors The ekranoplan crashed, the crew managed to escape."

              The cause of the accident was the fragility of the body material (later replaced with a different alloy).


              Or maybe this one?
              On August 28, 1992, the MDE-150 crashed in the Caspian Sea and was partially destroyed, killing one crew member. In stormy conditions, the ekranoplan capsized and was later sunk by Caspian Fleet ships.

              Well, it wasn't him either, because according to one, official version, it was again a mistake, a gross one, on the pilot's part, while according to the second, unofficial, but likely real, version, it was a malfunction of the vertical control system. Real because the pilot wasn't even punished with a demotion.
              So what storm?
              1. +5
                3 October 2025 07: 29
                "Storm" which is in quotation marks.
                Because in a real storm the ep won’t stick its nose out to sea and won’t be able to save anyone (search, protect, destroy, transport).
                Maybe you could also tell me how the EP flipped on the wave in Nizhny? You're doing a good job.
                1. 0
                  3 October 2025 07: 41
                  Ah, beautiful, but stupid, stupid as an example, the photo doesn't count anymore, the lie about the EP's destruction due to the storm didn't work, now you're bringing up some of your own speculations...
                  But let's assume the Spasatel couldn't have landed in a storm, or the Lun launched missiles, or even survived. Even ships of similar tonnage aren't guaranteed to survive a storm. For example, the 400-ton Molniya had a safe seaworthiness of force 8 (not a storm, really) at low speed. And such ships can't even conduct any operations in waves above force 4-5; a force 5 weapons limitation is a limitation even for frigates.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Because in a real storm the ep won’t stick its nose out to sea and won’t be able to save anyone (search, protect, destroy, transport).


                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Maybe you could also tell us how the EP capsized on the wave in Nizhny?
                  I don’t know, I’m not aware of this fact.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  You're good at
                  Using fiction as arguments is more your thing. I prefer facts and logic.
                  1. +4
                    3 October 2025 08: 07
                    Your thinking is certainly sophisticated.
                    Silly photos seem to suggest that many tasks are beyond the EP's capabilities. And they need to be solved even in difficult situations (like rescues).
                    "Terrible Storm" was originally written in quotation marks, and it's a dig at the episode. But you're pretending not to understand that. Next time, I'll add "shovel."
                    "Collision" with Meteor in Nizhny Novgorod and the death of a passenger plane. (Collision in quotation marks, shovel).
                    In fact, it didn't come to a collision, the EP simply capsized on the wave.
                    1. 0
                      3 October 2025 09: 12
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Silly photos seem to suggest that many tasks are beyond the EP's capabilities. And they need to be solved even in difficult situations (like rescues).

                      So, with these photos, you're showing that small ships are capable of performing such tasks in the waves? It's not really clear...

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      "Terrible Storm" was originally written in quotation marks, and it's a dig at the episode. But you're pretending not to understand that. Next time, I'll add "shovel."

                      Actually, the word "shovel" is a really lame joke or anecdote, so don't use those words... Because the words "terrible storm" under a photo of an EP that crashed and sank as a result of a serious piloting error are lame and illogical, both as a joke and as an example.

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      "Collision" with Meteor in Nizhny Novgorod and the death of a passenger plane. (Collision in quotation marks, shovel).
                      "Clash" in quotation marks is a bit of a joke. Because according to more or less official sources, that's exactly what happened.
                      https://regnum.ru/news/137426?ysclid=mgaelcfcph555106955
                      The ekranoplan sank 5-8 minutes after the collision. Yachts and a motorboat arrived at the scene, taking on seven passengers, including two children.

                      How do you imagine leaving a CLOSED cockpit in an overturned and sinking aircraft?
                      And how do you imagine FALLING out of a closed cabin?
                      The official press release from the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Emergency Situations for the Nizhny Novgorod Region stated that 7 people, including two children, fell into the Volga River as a result of the ekranoplan capsizing.

                      So, here too, the disaster was the result of someone's negligence and the description is contradictory. And the fact that the apparatus weighs three tons with passengers doesn't exactly qualify as a seaworthy vessel. But you don't care about such trifles, whether it's three or four hundred tons—it's all the same, right?
                    2. +3
                      3 October 2025 09: 30
                      Sorry, I forgot to add that I personally consider light EPs to be a dangerous toy.
                      1. +2
                        3 October 2025 10: 31
                        They rushed to create large devices, especially military ones.
                        It was necessary to first fine-tune the controls under all conditions.
                        Build some kind of clean transport aircraft and operate it with minimal risk to people for several years on hundreds of flights, gaining experience. It was the rush that made the devices dangerous.
                        The hydrofoil field is still far from fully understood. First, it was necessary to determine how to make the craft safe in obvious problematic conditions—wave snagging in flight, headwinds, and various extreme roll angles.
                        Nowadays, many problems can be solved by automated systems for compensating for undesirable conditions.
                      2. +2
                        3 October 2025 10: 45
                        Quote: multicaat
                        It was because of the rush that the devices turned out to be dangerous... ...how to make the device safe in obvious problematic conditions - wave snagging in flight, headwinds and various extreme bank angles.

                        In general, large electric power plants don't seem dangerous. All accidents are due to human error, and, compared to aviation, there are minimal casualties.
                        By the way, tailwinds are more dangerous for small electric vehicles than headwinds. For large ones, only very strong gusts are dangerous.
                      3. +2
                        3 October 2025 10: 49
                        That's exactly it. We needed operational experience to accumulate incidents, and we needed to think through the safety of the crew and the vehicle.
                        but decided to skip this moment.
                      4. 0
                        16 November 2025 17: 07
                        There is one interesting patent, "Ekranoplan with a propulsion system based on a multicopter design," Patent for invention No. 2 833 275 of the Russian Federation, where a propulsion system based on a quadcopter design is used as a similar system.
                  2. 0
                    11 November 2025 20: 27
                    Project 7 and 7U destroyers broke apart beautifully in storms. God forbid they ever end up in the Atlantic! Even the much more advanced and robust "British" destroyers had constant hull problems in the Atlantic.
                    1. 0
                      12 November 2025 03: 20
                      Quote: Alexander Mitrofanov
                      Project 7 and 7U destroyers broke apart beautifully in storms. God forbid they ever end up in the Atlantic! Even the much more advanced and robust "British" destroyers had constant hull problems in the Atlantic.

                      The prototype of the 7-class destroyers wasn't the strongest, and they were also designed with some strength and structural flaws. Plus, the destroyers of that era were very narrow ships.
                      Unlike a destroyer, even the fastest one, not to mention boats and small ships, an EP can easily escape a storm. Plus, with its thick, pontoon-like wing, an EP has a very high degree of stability and, if necessary, buoyancy.
                      So who will drive a small ship in a storm?
      3. +2
        3 October 2025 10: 25
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        consumes less fuel per kilometer than hydrofoil ships.

        a rather controversial statement
        1. +2
          3 October 2025 10: 39
          Small anti-submarine ship "Alexander Kunakhovich"
          TTD:
          Displacement: 465 t.
          Full speed: 52 knots.
          Navigation range: 1230 miles with 8 nodes, 850 miles with 50 nodes
          Fuel capacity is approximately 100 tons

          Small anti-submarine ship, Project 1145.
          "Sokol-2" Tactical and technical data:
          Displacement, t:
          standard: 364
          full: 470

          Full speed, knots: 60,5
          Cruising range: 1230 miles (12 knots), 750 miles (50 knots)
          Fuel capacity 105 tons

          As we can see, the reserve of the ECONOMIC MPC PC cruising speed is comparable to the reserve of the CRUISE cruising speed of the Lun, with probably (according to estimates of aerodynamic quality) a smaller fuel reserve of the Lun and a comparable weight of weapons and equipment.
          1. +1
            3 October 2025 10: 45
            There are many controversial points regarding the data provided
            For example, the Lunar has a huge fuel consumption when entering gliding mode.
            and "experienced" people have serious doubts about the veracity of the data provided on fuel consumption
            Personally, I believe large ekranoplans should have been made with a combination of hydrofoil and hydrofoil modes. This would have solved a number of problems.
            Lifting such a carcass out of the water is a problem from Marshak's fairy tale about a hippopotamus from a swamp.
            1. +4
              3 October 2025 15: 42
              Quote: multicaat
              Personally, I believe large ekranoplans should have been made with a combination of hydrofoil and hydrofoil modes. This would have solved a number of problems.

              Alekseev took a more elegant approach. He channeled the airflow from the nose engine under the wing, creating a dynamic air cushion for the Orlyonok during takeoff, facilitating liftoff while simultaneously creating an oncoming flow over the wing, generating lift.

              Implementing hydrofoils requires a traditional propulsion system with very high-power propellers. Currently, there's talk of an auxiliary power plant giving the ground-effect craft a normal sea-going propulsion system for maneuvering.
              1. +1
                6 October 2025 10: 54
                Quote: abc_alex
                He directed the air flow from the nose power plant under the wing.

                We're talking about all the intermediate modes, where pure hovering isn't possible, because it's in these modes that some accidents occur. The "elegant solution" resulted in excessive engine power and a narrow range of "normal" modes, making operation dangerous.
                Quote: abc_alex
                To implement hydrofoils, a classic propulsion system with propellers is needed.

                No need. What we had was quite sufficient. We weren't talking about achieving any incredible speeds, just about getting out of the water. Moreover, even a modest-sized sail would have been sufficient for this.
    2. +2
      3 October 2025 04: 52
      Quote: Anglorussian
      Riddle: flies like a ship, floats like an airplane, eats slop like a pig?

      This is an F-35. smile...a prize for the studio.
    3. +1
      3 October 2025 08: 04
      The answer is Anglorussian. laughing
  2. +3
    3 October 2025 04: 52
    The nose pylons housed 8 VK-7B turbojet engines with a thrust of 11 tons each, and the fin housed 2 VK-7KM cruise engines.

    If VK-7b is VD-7b, ​​then it has a thrust of 9,32 tons.
    The cause of the accident was the fragility of the body material (later replaced with a different alloy).

    Transferred to regular ship AMg.

    In the spring of 2025, a huge aircraft was spotted for the first time in one of the bays of Hainan Island, presumably a military ekranoplan, although it is possible that it could also be a seaplane-flying boat.
    It's possible this seaplane is used for work on ekranoplans. But it's definitely not an EP.
    1. -2
      3 October 2025 04: 59
      Question...is the ground effect vehicle detected on radar?
      1. +5
        3 October 2025 05: 03
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Question...is the ground effect vehicle detected on radar?

        Like any ship, yes. Although, according to the deputy commander of the EP detachment, during tests, the MiG-19-21's radar sight couldn't lock onto the Orlyonok due to the water tail.
        1. +1
          3 October 2025 15: 34
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Like any ship, yes. Although, according to the deputy commander of the EP detachment, during tests, the MiG-19-21's radar sight couldn't lock onto the Orlyonok due to the water tail.

          The problem is that even back then, the enemy wouldn't have used fighter radars to detect EA. Either AWACS aircraft or base patrol aircraft would have detected EA.
          For them, a target the size of a small missile ship moving at the speed of a piston-engine bomber would not have presented any problems - the radar cross-section is enormous, and even a Doppler radar could have distinguished a reflected signal of such power from the background reflections from the sea surface.
          1. +1
            3 October 2025 17: 26
            Is interference from the ekranoplan taken into account?
          2. 0
            3 October 2025 17: 44
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The problem is that even back then, the enemy wouldn't have used fighter radars to detect EA. Either AWACS aircraft or base patrol aircraft would have detected EA.

            That's not a problem. Because an AWACS aircraft is an anti-aircraft missile, and patrol aircraft are close to the enemy coast. So where's the place for a small missile ship, and a Lun is a small missile ship, in such a scenario?
            By the way, I didn’t write, and the deputy commander of the detachment didn’t talk about detection, but about capturing it in the sights.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And for them, a target the size of a small missile ship moving at the speed of a piston bomber would not pose a problem.
            Really? Are low-flying air targets shot down by AWACS/UAV aircraft? Or maybe with air-to-air missiles with less powerful ARVs?
            Moreover, the tactics of the MRK assumed a stealthy approach/ambush (which the EP is quite capable of) and a launch from beyond the horizon, including from external targeting devices and a high-speed retreat (in which the EP is an order of magnitude superior to the NK).
            1. +2
              6 October 2025 10: 49
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              That's not a problem. Because an AWACS aircraft is an AG.

              Nope. It's our Air Force that's pining away over its AWACS like Koschei. And on soulless and decaying NATO air force AWACS aircraft also patrolled over maritime theaters of operations, primarily to detect our MRA and the DD anti-ship missiles so beloved by the USSR.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Moreover, the tactics of the MRK assumed a stealthy approach/ambush (which the EP is quite capable of) and a launch from beyond the horizon, including from external targeting devices and a high-speed retreat (in which the EP is an order of magnitude superior to the NK).

              In general, everything is the same as MPA, but at a much lower speed.
              And the Navy, naturally, had a question: why do we need this miracle-monster when we can use the existing and mass-produced anti-ship missile carrier aircraft instead.
              1. 0
                7 October 2025 10: 24
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And NATO air forces used soulless and decaying AWACS aircraft to patrol, including over maritime theaters of operations. Primarily to detect our MRA and the DD anti-ship missiles so beloved by the USSR.

                And how far from HIS coast did these AWACS patrol? And how did they threaten the small missile/rocket ships? I don't recall any small missile/rocket ship missions involving strikes near enemy shores.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                In general, everything is the same as MPA, but at a much lower speed.

                It's amazing how many years I've been alive, and this is the first time I've seen anyone write about naval missile-carrying aircraft being able to perform the same tasks as small surface ships. What kind of aircraft could patrol for days at a time at any point in the coastal and near-sea zone, providing electronic reconnaissance?
                You stubbornly refuse to see that EP Lun was a SHIP. It's not a good sign, you know—ignoring the obvious.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                At the bewildered request of the designer, the Commander of the Navy Aviation in early May 1989 informed the Ministry of the Court of Industry that the An-12PS complex had been removed from the fleet aviation forces on duty.

                So, the high shoulder straps with anchors have cut off two directions, one highly specialized, the other with wide potential applications. But in one case, the admirals are practically geniuses, while in the other, they're clearly far from geniuses. Why is that? In my opinion, in both cases, they're far from geniuses...
      2. 0
        3 October 2025 15: 45
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Question...is the ground effect vehicle detected on radar?


        There's a subtlety here. The ground effect craft flies at extremely low altitude and is hidden by the horizon until the very last moment. Once it rises above the horizon and is detected by radar, it's usually too late for the ship being attacked.
        1. +2
          6 October 2025 10: 51
          Quote: abc_alex
          There's a subtlety here. The ground effect craft flies at extremely low altitude and is hidden by the horizon until the very last moment. Once it rises above the horizon and is detected by radar, it's usually too late for the ship being attacked.

          That is, the ekranoplane is an ideal weapon against the Soviet/Russian Navy, which relies solely on ship-based radars for air defense. smile
  3. +1
    3 October 2025 05: 09
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    because of the water tail-suspension.

    Very interesting...couldn't this principle be used to protect ships by artificially creating this phenomenon from threatened attack directions?
    1. 0
      3 October 2025 06: 14
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Very interesting...couldn't this principle be used to protect ships by artificially creating this phenomenon from threatened attack directions?

      So, a special system would have to be built, although previously, I don't know now, there was a sprinkler system against radioactive fallout, maybe based on that. But is it worth it? After all, deploying dipoles and IR decoys happens much faster. And then again, in freezing temperatures, creating ice on yourself isn't ideal. And there are probably some technical nuances to consider.
    2. +1
      3 October 2025 17: 27
      The Kirov had a universal water protection system (USVZ), with tubes and sprayers throughout the superstructure. Those who saw it in action describe it as beautiful—the ship sails in a cloud of water spray. It was designed to decontaminate the ship while underway and reduce the risk of fire. I can't comment on its radar-stealing properties.
  4. +3
    3 October 2025 05: 15
    I would say
    What a scheme a la "Bartini" / "Volga" Alekseev
    And the duck type scheme
    differ from those shown.

    I would experiment with a combination of these, coupled with adjustable blowing/blowing of the central wing (if I had such an opportunity).
    1. 0
      3 October 2025 05: 58
      Quote: Eng Mech
      What a scheme a la "Bartini" / "Volga" Alekseev
      And the duck type scheme
      differ from those shown.

      Bartini looks like Lippisch, probably, but I didn't see any "seagulls" here at all (engines in the nose - not a "seagull").
      1. 0
        3 October 2025 08: 24
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Quote: Eng Mech
        What a scheme a la "Bartini" / "Volga" Alekseev
        And the duck type scheme
        differ from those shown.

        Bartini looks like Lippisch, probably, but I didn't see any "seagulls" here at all (engines in the nose - not a "seagull").


        Looks like him, but it's not him.
        Fedot is not the same (in my opinion)
        I don’t understand at all which chord Comrade Lippisch should use for orientation (the middle one along the triangle?)

        I don’t remember reading about a seagull with that exact name unless it was about Regent, Pelican, etc.
        1. 0
          3 October 2025 09: 15
          Quote: Eng Mech
          I don’t remember reading about a seagull with that exact name unless it was about Regent, Pelican, etc.

          Oh, pardon me, not "seagulls" - "ducks." I didn't see the "duck" pattern in this article. And there are no electronic devices with such a pattern, if my memory serves me correctly.
          1. +1
            4 October 2025 06: 26
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: Eng Mech
            I don’t remember reading about a seagull with that exact name unless it was about Regent, Pelican, etc.

            Oh, pardon me, not "seagulls" - "ducks." I didn't see the "duck" pattern in this article. And there are no electronic devices with such a pattern, if my memory serves me correctly.


            As far as I understand, theoretically the Duck is a "sub-tandem" with corresponding longitudinal stability.

            Projects and models of ekranoplans by A.P. Panchenkov, Irkutsk
            https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/osobennosti-konstruktsii-ekranoplanov-a-n-panchenkova/viewer

            Plus, as I understand it, Comrade Panchenkov’s followers conducted research, for example:
            https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/aerodinamicheskie-osobennosti-i-harakteristiki-komponovok-ekranoplana-shem-utka-i-tandem/viewer

            Again, if you attach relatively small wings (compared to the main ones) to the Alekseev designs' forward power unit, it's nothing more than a canard. And that's almost exactly what I mean.
            (Except for the
            relative to (Bartini schemes, etc.) the small chord of the wing => self-limitation of the maximum height of the screen
            И
            Using jet engines to blow air onto the wing (which I would replace with a multi-propeller along the central wing (at least) like the Regent, in ring nozzles with adjustable outlet flow direction like the Volga and with counter-rotation of each pair of propellers like the Tu-95))

            Well, naturally it makes sense to build

            something big with a large chord (screen height)

            With retractable hydrofoils (the front part of which can theoretically play the role of the front wings of a "duck") with a water propeller to ensure maneuvering at low altitudes, easier exit from the water of a straight hull, and movement with overload/"underthrust".

            Well, movement on snow, ice and sand is solved by skis with pneumatic inflatable suspension.

            Something like that is what makes sense to experiment with from the depths of my amateurism.
          2. +1
            5 October 2025 07: 52
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: Eng Mech
            I don’t remember reading about a seagull with that exact name unless it was about Regent, Pelican, etc.

            Oh, pardon me, not "seagulls" - "ducks." I didn't see the "duck" pattern in this article. And there are no electronic devices with such a pattern, if my memory serves me correctly.


            Here are some more studies (including links at the end of the article) on the topic of "duck".

            https://journals.istu.edu/vestnik_irgtu/journals/2018/02/articles/17?view=1
            1. +1
              5 October 2025 16: 32
              Thanks, I've bookmarked it. I'll read it for general knowledge. But I think it's good for small EPs.
              1. +1
                6 October 2025 09: 18
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Thanks, I've bookmarked it. I'll read it for general knowledge. But I think it's good for small EPs.


                It should be regardless of the overall dimensions of the vehicle.

                The ratio of the areas of the front and main wings and the shoulder of the front wings (≈the distance between them) must be important.

                Again, this is a matter of personal taste and preference as a fan of self-stabilizing systems, Composite Subsonic Wings, Hydrofoils, propeller-assisted wing blowing/blowing, Burnelli, Bartini, Regent, Volga-2, Baikal-2, etc.
                1. 0
                  6 October 2025 10: 21
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  It should be regardless of the overall dimensions of the vehicle.

                  As I understand it, this layout/design improves maneuverability and stability at low speeds. And this applies to maneuvering on rivers.
                  For large, and therefore sea-going, WIG craft, this advantage isn't critical, but structural strength is crucial for maintaining seaworthiness. And here, the weight of the front wing outweighs the increase in maneuverability.
                  Personally, I think so. hi
                  1. 0
                    7 October 2025 06: 26
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    Quote: Eng Mech
                    It should be regardless of the overall dimensions of the vehicle.

                    As I understand it, this layout/design improves maneuverability and stability at low speeds. And this applies to maneuvering on rivers.
                    For large, and therefore sea-going, WIG craft, this advantage isn't critical, but structural strength is crucial for maintaining seaworthiness. And here, the weight of the front wing outweighs the increase in maneuverability.
                    Personally, I think so. hi


                    In general, the design probably has one central body with low-lying wings => mainly cantilever loads on the fuselage and wings.

                    With the catamiran/trimaran design - a flying volumetric frame - the wings between the side hulls are no longer subject to cantilever loads (again, if the side airplane wings are joined at the ends to the rear horizontal tail, then this is also a simple frame and also with potentially reduced parasitic vortices at the ends of the wings).

                    With the successful implementation of the forward underwater fins on the forward-rotating vertical struts along the side hulls, theoretically it would be possible to obtain the very same sought-after, albeit "half-duck", but with improved longitudinal stabilization characteristics.

                    Something like that, from the depths of my amateurism.
                    1. 0
                      7 October 2025 08: 55
                      Here is another EP diagram, quite interesting, at the end of the article.
                      https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/801335.html?ysclid=mgg59jot2i366424643
                      1. 0
                        7 October 2025 09: 40
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Here is another EP diagram, quite interesting, at the end of the article.
                        https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/801335.html?ysclid=mgg59jot2i366424643


                        I saw this ekranoplan design about 10 years ago (as far as I remember, it wasn't a canard/tandem aircraft back then, and it wasn't "Flight" as such. That is, it didn't have wings as such).

                        But if we look closely we see:
                        * double-hull design ≈ catamaran
                        * long-chord central wing
                        * Duck/tandem configuration on side wings
                        * side wings for flight on an airplane
                        * Controlled wing blowing/blowing
                        * use of propellers instead of jet propulsion

                        Since this is not an amphibious vehicle, it does not have a displacement hull, wings shifted to the center/upper fuselages, or hydrofoils.

                        I.E. This is a very interesting concept for a non-amphibian.
                      2. 0
                        7 October 2025 09: 58
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        This is not an amphibious vehicle, meaning it does not have a displacement hull, wings shifted to the center/upper fuselages, or hydrofoils.

                        Why wouldn't it be amphibious? A catamaran provides ample buoyancy. And a good air intake combined with wheels (Orlyonok) will easily allow for exiting and re-entering from land.
                      3. 0
                        7 October 2025 10: 08
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        This is not an amphibious vehicle, meaning it does not have a displacement hull, wings shifted to the center/upper fuselages, or hydrofoils.

                        Why wouldn't it be amphibious? A catamaran provides ample buoyancy. And a good air intake combined with wheels (Orlyonok) will easily allow for exiting and re-entering from land.


                        According to the article, it is not designed to be waterborne from the start. However, it can naturally be modified to become so.

                        This may be indirectly indicated by the rather low position of the screws.

                        And I would point out that in the center of the structure we most likely observe the so-called arched wing.
                      4. 0
                        7 October 2025 10: 32
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        According to the article, it is not designed to be waterborne from the start. However, it can naturally be modified to become so.

                        Not exactly seaworthy—more than adequate for a lake/river/calm sea. Let's recall the amphibious assault craft.
                      5. 0
                        7 October 2025 21: 51
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        According to the article, it is not designed to be waterborne from the start. However, it can naturally be modified to become so.

                        Not exactly seaworthy—more than adequate for a lake/river/calm sea. Let's recall the amphibious assault craft.

                        So be it.
  5. 0
    3 October 2025 05: 30
    Excellent article, but I would like to expand a bit on the diving ekranoplan theme, since in our age of developing back-up aircraft and UAVs, the situation with the surface fleet is only getting worse, and so it flies over the water, they spot a UAV, dive and go underwater, and all this already happened under Stalin, diving aircraft, and ekranoplans are flying ships. hi
    1. IVZ
      +3
      3 October 2025 06: 00
      there were diving planes under Stalin,
      I've read a lot about pre-war Soviet diving torpedo boat designs, but I've only come across diving aircraft designs from abroad. If you have any readily available information, please share a link.
      1. +2
        3 October 2025 19: 04
        Popular Mechanics magazine, on the website you'll find diving planes.
  6. +1
    3 October 2025 06: 16
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Is there any point? After all, deploying dipoles and IR decoys happens much faster.

    The question of efficiency and economics...here we need to delve into the details of the issue. what
  7. +5
    3 October 2025 07: 14
    A dead end in development, expensive to maintain and operate, and therefore a useless toy, and also very dangerous.
    1. 0
      11 November 2025 20: 30
      I almost agree, but the future will tell!
  8. Owl
    +3
    3 October 2025 07: 30
    Currently, the use of ekranoplans is limited to transport missions, rescuing aircraft or seacraft crews in areas remote from shore bases, at distances that prevent the use of helicopters, and patrol duties for the Federal Fire Service. All of these missions can only be accomplished in peacetime. Their speed allows them to evade unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), but an attack by a medium-class UAV (like the Geran) on a collision course will result in either destruction or loss of propulsion, which would then lead to the subsequent destruction of the vessel by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or UAVs.
    1. +3
      3 October 2025 09: 25
      Quote: Eagle Owl
      Speed ​​will allow you to escape from the BEK, but an attack by a medium-class UAV (like the Geranium) on a collision course will lead to either destruction or loss of speed, which will lead to the subsequent destruction of the ship by BEKs or UAVs.

      A surface ship can be attacked from ANY direction by any UAV. And this is despite the fact that to attack an EP UAV, it must first be on a collision course, and the seeker heads of anti-ship missiles, anti-tank guided missiles, and other surface-based missiles have significant speed limitations (no more than 100 km/h).
  9. +2
    3 October 2025 08: 03
    Alekseev found an ingenious solution. Although the ekranoplan was still being assembled in the floating dock, Rostislav Evgenievich surprised his staff by taking the flight log and writing, "Flight in dock." All 10 engines roared, with thrust at 40% of nominal, and the dock began to break free of its moorings. Only then were the engines stopped.

    Cunningly!
    The only thing cooler is to roll away the floating dock in this way.
  10. +5
    3 October 2025 09: 07
    "In 2020, the Lun was delivered from Kaspiysk to the Patriot Park under construction in Derbent, Dagestan, scheduled to open in 2023." Judging by this phrase, an article from about five years ago is being used. The Lun is actually parked near Derbent; I saw it last year, even though Patriot Park is still "under construction."
  11. 0
    3 October 2025 09: 54
    Quote: Tlauicol
    "Storm" which is in quotation marks.
    Because in a real storm the ep won’t stick its nose out to sea and won’t be able to save anyone (search, protect, destroy, transport).
    Maybe you could also tell me how the EP flipped on the wave in Nizhny? You're doing a good job.

    Tell me, a non-expert, in what kind of waves/storm conditions are aircraft capable of taking off from an American Nimitz-class aircraft carrier? And in what kind of waves/storm conditions are these aircraft capable of landing on the deck of that carrier?
    The same question about Admiral Kuznetsov.
    And in what kind of waves/storms are our landing ships capable of approaching the shore and landing troops? And what happens to the marines when landing in a storm?
    And in what kind of waves/storms are our newest frigates capable of using missiles?

    The essence of my questions is extremely simple - no sane admiral would land troops or send ships out to sea in a storm unless absolutely necessary.
    And the ekranoplan/ground effect vehicle has its own niche application, at a minimum—landing troops and supplying supplies.
    Yes, there are disadvantages, but there are also huge advantages.
    But there is no absolutely universal ship or aircraft.
    1. +4
      3 October 2025 15: 41
      Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
      Tell me, a non-expert, in what kind of waves/storms are planes capable of taking off from an American Nimitz-class aircraft carrier?

      ...as far as I know, flights up to 5 points are allowed without restrictions, from 5 to 7 - only the most experienced crews, and from 7 points no one flies anymore.
      © Andrey from Chelyabinsk

      There was some excellent video from the AV, where the escort "Burke" was already playing submarine, constantly burying its bow in the waves, while the AV deck was stable, without any rocking.
      Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
      The essence of my questions is extremely simple - no sane admiral would land troops or send ships out to sea in a storm unless absolutely necessary.

      The problem is that when used as a rescue vehicle, the EP's main work will be precisely during a storm.
      1. -1
        3 October 2025 18: 14
        Quote: Alexey RA
        There was some excellent video from the AV, where the escort "Burke" was already playing submarine, constantly burying its bow in the waves, while the AV deck was stable, without any rocking.
        Only flights are not carried out... Most likely.

        Quote: Alexey RA

        The problem is that when used as a rescue vehicle, the EP's main work will be precisely during a storm.
        The Rescuer's landing wave limit is listed as "unlimited." But that's not even the point; with such a landing, the EP will be a one-time thing, I'm afraid.
        The thing is, rescuers don't operate in storms, except for helicopters near the shore, or if you're very lucky and there's a large helicopter carrier nearby. Rescuers still have to make their way to the rescued in a storm, at best at low speeds, but most likely, the storm will blow.
        And here the EP, when the wave decreases to an acceptable level, will simply fly to the place in an hour, two or three hours and immediately begin the rescue.
        Let's recall, for example, the sinking of the Komsomolets—four hours passed from the time the submarine was spotted by an aircraft until the first vessel arrived, without any storm, but with waves. But instead of an aircraft, it could have been an EP... Well, there are rescue aircraft with dropboats, but even in the USSR, they were few and far between, and their use was subject to significant limitations, making them, to put it mildly, incapable of ensuring mass rescue.
        1. 0
          6 October 2025 10: 45
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Let's recall, for example, the sinking of the Komsomolets: four hours passed from the time the submarine was spotted by an aircraft until the first vessel arrived, without any storm, but with waves. Yet, instead of an aircraft, it could have been an EP...

          The Northern Fleet, even without ekranoplans, had an emergency rescue vehicle—the An-12PS. The aircraft could reach a sinking submarine faster than ships, and the boat could help collect and tow rafts dropped by other ships. But the Navy was rather lukewarm about this aircraft.
          A year before the submarine's sinking, a team of industry and Defense Ministry representatives conducted a technical inspection of the An-12PS systems in the Northern Fleet as part of the designer's supervision process. They identified a number of defects that, according to the complaints, were to be addressed by the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry and the Ministry of Aviation Industry. Despite the identified defects, no restrictions were placed on the use of the An-12PS system. Moreover, the defects outlined in the designer's supervision report did not prevent two successful training airdrops of production boats carrying crews from the Northern and Pacific Fleets from an An-12PS aircraft in March 1988.

          At the bewildered request of the designer, the Commander of the Navy Aviation at the beginning of May 1989 informed the Ministry of Justice Industry that the An-12PS complex had been removed from the fleet aviation on duty. And this is instead of issuing claims and informing the industry about the need to carry out repair work within a year from the moment of the author's survey to the operating parts!
          A month later, in May 1989, on instructions from above, a commission was established to examine the An-12PS systems operated in the Northern Fleet. As part of the work of the commission, an interdepartmental team of specialists conducted an examination of aircraft, boats, landing equipment of aircraft and landing equipment and equipment of boats. According to the results of the inspection, comprehensive inspections of the material part and conversations with the personnel, it was found that the equipment and organization of the search and rescue service are in much worse condition than a year ago.
          1. +1
            6 October 2025 10: 51
            There's no point in fantasizing. The Il-15 flew in and hovered over the submarine for two and a half hours! It could have dropped rafts at any moment. Two and a half hours! And several other planes were in the air as a relay station. And all this time, Commander K insisted the situation was under control and that the crew didn't need to be evacuated! The pilots dropped the rafts themselves when they saw the submarine sink and the crew abandoning it.
            1. +1
              6 October 2025 16: 09
              Quote: Tlauicol
              The pilots themselves dropped the rafts when they saw that the boat was going under water and people were abandoning it.

              If I remember correctly, the dropped rafts were blown away from the submarine by the wind. If the An-12PS had been used, and it had performed as it had during the 1988 exercises, the onboard boat could have collected the rafts and towed them to the submarine.
  12. +3
    3 October 2025 10: 11
    The article doesn't even mention the unfinished ekranoplan the size of Lun. Its fuselage has been gathering dust on the open deck of Krasnoye Sormovo for decades. Its tail is clearly visible from the Volga through the foliage; I've admired it many times through binoculars from aboard a ship. It's completely visible in satellite images.
    1. +4
      3 October 2025 10: 50
      It is mentioned... this is the same unfinished "ekranoplan-rescuer" - which they took on after the death of the "Komsomolets" at the Lun base.
      1. +2
        3 October 2025 10: 57
        So I didn't understand, thank you.
  13. +4
    3 October 2025 10: 52
    I once dreamed of transferring to the Orlyonok as a flight engineer... They were promising aircraft. Incidentally, they still are. It's no wonder the Chinese are actively building them.
  14. +3
    3 October 2025 13: 28
    I heard this version of the program's closure. Ultimately, no one wanted to take responsibility for the program. The sailors refused because it was expensive to operate, there was no space to train personnel, there were large investments in infrastructure—slipways and hangars—and the engines simply "burned out" from seawater. The objectives weren't clearly defined, and they could have been solved using conventional methods.
    The air force refused, saying that even though it had wings, it wasn't our job; we trained pilots, not sailors, in academies. Everything wasn't ours; let the navy sort it out; we already had more than enough problems.
    The end of the USSR, they started counting money and decided that they could spend it on other "gaps".
    It turned out to be a useful thing, but not necessary.
  15. +4
    3 October 2025 13: 45
    Ekranoplans are a very narrow and specific field. Their potential lies in serving as platforms for refining various technologies. The article was published on this website nine years ago.
    https://topwar.ru/90960-bespoleznost-ekranoplanov.html
    1. +2
      3 October 2025 17: 02
      Quote: Alex013
      Ekranoplans are a very narrow and specific area.

      Ekranoplans - possibly.
      Ekranoplans are more widely used; they are not tied to the coast and waters.
      Both platforms are excellent as high-speed carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles. The ekranoplan is also a good landing craft for marines. The Orlyonok could carry 200 troops and equipment or two armored personnel carriers. It could also land on unmanned beaches. Moreover, because it flies over water, it is immune to mines in the waters and coastline. Furthermore, it could launch from any airfield, even in relatively deep waters. And at 400 km/h, it is invulnerable to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and most UAVs.
      Our army currently has Odessa and Mykolaiv as its target. They can be taken solely from land, without any naval support whatsoever. But in that case, the Black Sea Fleet should simply be disbanded, as it's completely pointless. For an amphibious operation, for example, in Odessa and the surrounding region, a highly mobile landing craft with the characteristics of the Orlyonok would be more than useful. A fleet of 10-15 such vehicles would easily support the landing of an advance detachment of marines with a decent complement of light armored vehicles, which would then support the landing of the main forces and provide operational support for the landing force. Only aircraft can counter ekranoplans; blocking a landing from the sea would be extremely difficult; neither ships nor unmanned aerial vehicles would be of any help. Under current conditions, the use of other landing craft is simply unrealistic.
      1. 0
        3 October 2025 17: 09
        Mining the coast isn't scary? Any anti-landing mine near the coast or a heavy mine on the beach will send it to the moon along with the landing force. A hedgehog would be enough there.
        1. +1
          3 October 2025 18: 20
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Any anti-landing mine near the shore or a TM on the shore will send him to the Moon along with the landing party. A hedgehog would be enough there.
          Like any other small landing ship.
          1. 0
            3 October 2025 18: 23
            At least they don't lie about the ship, saying it's not afraid of mines.
            1. -1
              3 October 2025 19: 31
              Quote: Tlauicol
              At least they don't lie about the ship, saying it's not afraid of mines.

              Where did you see the lie that EPs aren't afraid of mines when going ashore? Did you invent and debunk this lie yourself?
              But when crossing, they are not scary.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. 0
                  4 October 2025 14: 35
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Don't distort quotes, it's already become a habit for you.
                  "He's not afraid of mining the waters and coastline" (c)

                  Now I will quote it in full and it will become clear who is distorting it.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  At least they don't lie about the ship, saying it's not afraid of mines.

                  And yes, I missed the part about the coast.
                  But he didn’t miss the point about “indignant voices.”
                  1. 0
                    4 October 2025 16: 50
                    "Where did you see the lie that EPs aren't afraid of mines when going ashore? Did you invent and debunk this lie yourself?" (c)
                    Did autumn write this for you? Or did voices dictate it?
                    1. 0
                      4 October 2025 17: 53
                      No, it’s not voices, and it’s not autumn, but a certain inattention.
                      And the words that got you excited:
                      Quote: abc_alex
                      he is not afraid of the mining of the water area and coast.

                      could be considered related to coastal waters, or simply a mistake.
                      And not a lie, as you imagined, it is possible that under the influence of the voices of autumn.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      At least they don't lie about the ship, saying it's not afraid of mines.
                      1. 0
                        4 October 2025 18: 09
                        "At the same time, it could take off from any airfield, even in the relative depths of the territory" (c)
                        Yeah. Lies upon lies, pardon me: mistake upon mistake. Could be considered related to... Although, no, no lawyer could handle such lies.
                      2. 0
                        5 October 2025 16: 50
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        "At the same time, it could take off from any airfield, even in the relative depths of the territory" (c)

                        Yes, the commenter here wrote something utterly stupid. But if we swap the airfield for a river, it's not so stupid. Although I don't think the Orlyonok could fly fully loaded, and such a capability was needed for ferrying, not for practical use. So it's most likely ignorance. Only positive ignorance towards EP. Opponents, for example, suffer from negative ignorance towards EP. Much more often...
                      3. +1
                        5 October 2025 22: 05
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Yes, the commenter here wrote something downright stupid. But if we swap the airfield for a river, it's not such a stupid thing anymore.


                        There's nothing stupid about this. Just look at the photo. And there's no miracle. A powerful airflow from the nose gear, a low-aspect-ratio but enormous-area wing, advanced wing mechanization, and there you have it, an air cushion beneath this enormous machine. And like any hovercraft, the Alekseev-designed ground-effect craft doesn't care whether it takes off from land or sea, as long as there's a flat surface and the necessary runway. If I remember correctly, this idea (takeoff from an air cushion) was first explored by Bartini on his last aircraft, to increase takeoff distance. But Bartini envisioned creating an air cushion using the supporting fuselage and the overall speed of the aircraft, and I think he messed around with the vertical takeoff system.
                        Bora and Samum operate on dynamic air cushions. They also need to accelerate to get the airflow under their bodies to the desired speed. Alekseev accelerated the airflow using the nose control system, giving the car unique capabilities.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Although I don’t think that Orlyonok could fly under full load, and such an ability was needed for ferrying, and not for practical activities.

                        Why? Leaving the screen required engaging both control systems. Driving a car with three times the fuel consumption? No point.
                        And why do you think the Orlyonok wouldn't have taken off with cargo? It has an area of ​​600 square meters. The Il-76 has 300.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        So it's most likely ignorance.


                        :) More like knowledge. The most detailed information about the aircraft I got from talking to one of the pilots who flew it. However, take that as you will.
                      4. 0
                        6 October 2025 10: 10
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Rather knowledge.

                        I don't like arguing even with my opponents, much less with my supporters. hi my point of view. Therefore, I will replace the word "ignorance" with "honest error." But it exists, and more than one, sorry.

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        And why do you think the Orlyonok wouldn't have taken off with cargo? It has an area of ​​600 square meters. The Il-76 has 300.
                        Many of your assumptions crumble because the Orlyonok's wing is precisely 300 square meters, more or less. This is clear even from a cursory glance at it from above, and knowing its wingspan—31 meters.

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        A powerful air flow from the nose control unit, a low aspect ratio wing with a huge area, advanced wing mechanization, and there you have it, an air cushion under a huge machine.
                        All this is present, except for the huge wing area, but the purpose of creating a cushion is to facilitate breaking through the "power requirement hump" during takeoff from water, and to improve seaworthiness during that same takeoff. Yes, there is also some load relief on the landing gear during landing, but only some, so there can be no talk of a full-fledged air cushion. Twenty tons of thrust without a circular enclosure for a 140-ton aircraft is completely insufficient for "floating" above the surface.

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Bora and Samum ride on a dynamic cushion. They also need to accelerate to get the airflow under their bodies up to speed.
                        You are mistaken, the MRK 1239 project runs on static VP and does not need to accelerate to create VP.

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Why? Leaving the screen required engaging both control systems. Driving a car with three times the fuel consumption? No point.

                        You're very much mistaken here, because one of the main complaints about the EP is its alleged inability to maneuver between theaters. Even frog-like leaps across rivers, a couple of hundred kilometers long, at an altitude of 300-500 meters, with triple the fuel consumption, are fundamentally better and faster than a slow maneuver with a detached vertical stabilizer and wing. Let alone thousands of kilometers and meters.

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        And why do you think that Orlyonok wouldn’t have taken off with cargo?
                        Because the Orlyonok's landing gear is designed for slow landings, not takeoff and landing speeds. I admit that the Orlyonok could have taken off cleanly from a strip prepared for military transport, even though the nose gear looks flimsy, but landing and then taking off from 250-300 km, even on a beach—definitely not.

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        How do you think they got to this airfield?
                        Don't expose yourself like that. A concrete airfield isn't a field airfield, and the photo isn't of an airfield, but of the pads and taxiway of an aquadrome. Orlyonok landed on the water from these pads, down a sloping concrete ramp, and didn't take off from dry land.

                        Once again - not with the aim of arguing, but with the aim of correcting, protecting from mistakes!
                      5. +1
                        5 October 2025 21: 31
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        "At the same time, it could take off from any airfield, even in the relative depths of the territory" (c)
                        Yeah. Lies upon lies, pardon me: mistake upon mistake. Could be considered related to... Although, no, no lawyer could handle such lies.


                        What are you saying?

                        The tests of Orlyonok were essentially not completed, but
                        Here is the landing of troops from Orlyonok on the sand spit.

                        What do you think, our prosecutor, when he went back to sea, truth-tellers like you were harnessed as barge haulers?
                        The Eaglet had transport chassis, and if you'd bothered to research the subject, rather than fly in on a white rhinoceros flaunting your ignorance, you could easily have found a photo like this:


                        How do you think they got to this airfield?



        2. 0
          5 October 2025 21: 17
          Is an anti-landing mine capable of hitting objects flying at a height of three stories? 10 meters is the standard flight altitude of the Orlyonok. That's about the height of a three-story building. Why don't you cut down the sturgeon?
          Moreover, it has been proven that the Orlyonok could fly at an altitude of up to 1 kilometer, detached from the ground effect surface. What prevents it from flying 100 meters higher when landing on the beach? How deep will the enemy fill the anti-landing mines? 100 meters? 200? 400? The Orlyonok has a speed of 400 km/h, which is almost 7 kilometers per minute. It will fly a kilometer of mined coastline at an altitude of 100 meters in seconds. You should study the Orlyonok ground effect surface-effect craft more closely and understand what it was capable of.
      2. +1
        3 October 2025 22: 10
        Quote: abc_alex
        Ekranolyots are more widely used; they are not tied to the coast and waters.

        Do these ground-effect craft actually exist? The article states the Orlyonok's ceiling is 3000 meters. But not a word about actual flights. And what about the payload capacity in this case?
        This sounds very much like advertising bullshit.
  16. +1
    4 October 2025 22: 26
    In short, it looked great on paper, but they forgot about the ravines. A good idea, but during the practical implementation, a number of problems were revealed. Poor maneuverability. Limited seaworthiness. Increased engine wear due to close contact with seawater. Inconvenient and expensive shoreside maintenance, requiring the construction of special facilities for such maintenance.
    1. 0
      5 October 2025 17: 09
      Quote: Jose
      During the practical implementation of this project, a number of problems were revealed. Poor maneuverability. Limited seaworthiness. Increased engine wear due to close contact with seawater. Inconvenient and expensive shore-based maintenance, requiring the construction of special facilities for such maintenance.

      What kind of maneuverability do you expect from a 380-ton vehicle? Like a fighter jet? It's perfectly fine on-screen, about the same as an aircraft of equal tonnage—more than adequate at sea. And on the water, it's no worse than heavy hydrofoil ships, maybe even better.
      Seaworthiness is comparable to that of even heavier ships. A grade 5 wave at takeoff, which translates to 175-200 km/h, is extremely durable, and a low-wing monoplane with floats/washers is a trimaran, which has excellent seaworthiness. And the height from the ground is, at worst, half the wing width.
      On domestic small ships, there's no air filtration before the turbines, nothing at all. And the KM was mercilessly tested for 14 years, without a word about frequent engine replacements. Although there were complaints about aircraft delivering completely worn-out engines after several overhauls.
      What do you even know about maintenance? The dock, a very modest one, was built for a squadron of ekranoplans. Building docks for small, low-volume vessels was common practice in the USSR. Moreover, unlike hydrofoils, ekranoplans are very easily launched onto the shore via a slipway.
      All this is not even about Orlyonok, but about the Moon. hi
      1. 0
        6 October 2025 19: 29
        And another issue: interdepartmental tensions. When the Ministry of Justice was unable to "accommodate" aviation technologies within its industry.
  17. 0
    10 October 2025 00: 13
    The Hengchuan isn't a ground effect vehicle, it's a floatplane. Seaplanes are necessary, but ground effect vehicles are not. At speeds exceeding 70 km/h, water becomes as hard as ice. And a ground effect vehicle crashes into such ice during rough water or splashdown. The result is clear. Upon splashdown, speed drops, so does control, and the airbag under the wing prevents landing. All the prerequisites for an accident (as we observed during ground effect vehicle trials). The advantage in carrying capacity over a seaplane isn't worth the problems a ground effect vehicle creates. On rivers in calm weather? Maybe.
  18. 0
    23 October 2025 22: 46
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Sorry, I forgot to add that I personally consider light EPs to be a dangerous toy.

    The larger the wing, the greater the ground effect height, and the greater the "seaworthiness" of the WIG. Size matters. In my humble opinion, for urgent Pacific or transatlantic shipments, Type A WIGs are quite capable of competing with both cargo aircraft and ships.
    Another interesting concept for a patrol anti-submarine ship would be a droppable self-propelled buoy with search equipment and a towed antenna, since it looks like we won't see any anti-submarine aircraft anytime soon.
  19. 0
    16 November 2025 17: 32
    The article contains many inaccuracies and errors. At the beginning, KM is called Lun. In the middle, it says Orlyonok was taken to Tushino in 2007, even though he was already there by then.