Is he as much of a monster as he seems?

11 346 31
Is he as much of a monster as he seems?

One of China's newest developments is haunting some writers in the United States. The device, dubbed the "Bohai Sea Monster," continues to excite many journalists in the West.

There are, however, serious doubts that everything is exactly as many are writing. And this is worth examining in detail.



It's been less than a year since the world first saw China's Wing-in-Ground Effect (WIG) aircraft, nicknamed the "Bohai Sea Monster." And now it's back on the pages of various resources. The West is closely monitoring what's coming out of China's workshops. What the Chinese are doing today could become weapons against the United States tomorrow, and this is a fact that does not require proof, at least on the territory of North America.

There they seriously believe that the "Bohai Sea Monster" can perform combat missions, including launching missiles Various purposes. There are various assessments of the device, classifying it as either a flying boat or an ekranoplan.

Contrary to some earlier hasty estimates from the US, the aircraft is powered by four turboprop engines, not turbofans. The possibility of using turbofans/jet engines exists, but this deserves a separate, detailed examination.

China hasn't yet revealed the name, manufacturer, or price of the ekranoplan, if it's even an ekranoplan, or what it plans to use it for. It just exists.


One of the recently released photos of the "Bohai Sea Monster" shows it being lifted by a crane.

The "Bohai Sea Monster" was first spotted in June 2025. The craft, with a distinctive flying boat hull and V-shaped tail, was spotted on a pier in Bohai Bay, in the northwestern Yellow Sea. The following month, higher-quality images emerged showing the craft floating on the water but without propellers, suggesting it may be jet-powered.


The plane was first photographed last year at a pier near the Bohai Sea in China.

The new images show the "Bohai Monster" in greater detail, including its powerplants, which, to the disappointment of many in the West, are conventional turboprop engines, not jet engines or an exotic hybrid-electric propulsion system. Each of the four engines drives a three-bladed propeller.


Turboprop engines are a major disappointment for those who tried to accuse China of creating a "Lun-2"—a long-range aircraft capable of carrying missiles. That is, one that would look quite good in the Pacific Ocean.

The size and engines don't give us any confidence that the "Monster" is a real combat vehicle. And its dimensions are certainly not monstrous, that's a fact.

The final clue for those making assumptions is the presence of a pair of hardpoints under each wing, which are very difficult to interpret in two ways.


These pylons could potentially be used to install external fuel tanks or sensor modules. However, as many have noted, they are equipped with brackets, clearly indicating that they will be used for cargo releases.

There are also many possible scenarios: perhaps we're talking about some kind of search-and-rescue payload, such as containers with inflatable life rafts, but it could easily also be loaded with several depth charges or sea mines. Air-launched unmanned aerial vehicles could be another type of payload, and this is a growing area of ​​interest for the Chinese military, and concern for the American one.

Overall, the aircraft raises questions due to some reports that it is a "civilian" program, nominally associated with the Chinese Coast Guard, although such narratives are hardly unusual for Chinese military programs. The "signature" naval paint scheme is also concerning. aviation PLA, and confuses many.

At the very least, it can be said that the BMM is definitely not a purely transport vehicle. It's quite possible that it's some kind of multi-purpose platform, and this reasoning can be taken a little further.

It's possible that the BMM is actually a scaled-down demonstrator designed to test the WIG concept. If successful, this could lead to the development of a much larger vehicle, which would, of course, be equipped with a different propulsion system and a much larger payload, including weapons.

And this, in our view, is the most likely outcome. It's a prototype, a platform from which anything can be created. To say that the BMM is a finished product ready for mass production is absurd. The Chinese themselves are keeping quiet, but they always wait until the last minute. They'll say something when the time comes, but to say today that the BMM is a military aircraft or even an ekranoplan is, to put it mildly, imprudent. And even more so to claim that the aircraft poses any kind of threat.

In fact, some external similarities between the "Bohai Sea Monster" and the now-abandoned American Liberty Lifter project, which never made it past the drawing board, may also indicate that the Chinese apparatus is a small-scale technology demonstrator.

It's worth noting that scaled-down flying boat prototypes are nothing new. Moreover, testing scaled-down versions is justified and has been used by all countries that have built these useful hybrids.

During World War II, Germany built one such prototype to test the flight characteristics of the Dornier Do 214 transatlantic flying boat project. Wolf Hirt and Ulrich Hütter built the Göppingen Gö 8 flying boat, a 1/5-scale model of the Dornier Do 214.

In the 1950s, the Soviet Union built a single prototype of the first jet-powered flying boat, the Beriev R-1, and the results of this work were used to create the much larger Be-10, which became the first mass-produced jet-powered flying boat.


As for ekranoplans in general, they were actively researched by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which led to the creation of enormous machines, including anti-ship strike platforms and landing craft, which were even used for military purposes.


After the end of the Cold War, the WIG concept fell out of favor, but has seen renewed interest in recent years. These aircraft are capable of flying over water with relatively high efficiency and speed, though most are also capable of flying at higher altitudes, albeit with less efficiency.

In the Pacific region in particular, troop-lift helicopters are being considered as a potential partial solution to some of the challenges associated with combat operations in this theater. This involves delivering cargo (including very heavy ones), as well as personnel and equipment, to remote areas where airstrips may be unavailable. This may require covering long distances quickly. The US military considered using the Liberty Lifter specifically for logistical purposes, but it is known that it never took off.

Everyone understands the advantages of an ekranoplan over a ship. We won't say that an ekranoplan, due to its low altitude, will be virtually invisible to radar; that would be absurd, of course. Ekranoplans will never fly at such altitudes for safety reasons, and modern radars with active electronically scanned arrays (AESA) will be able to detect such large targets thanks to their electronic beam tilt.

It's true that the ekranoplan faces fewer problems. Mines, torpedoes, and various obstacles like booms are not for it. However, these advantages must be balanced against the glider's vulnerability in active combat zones. And, of course, its speed is ten times higher than that of a ship.

Such a platform would also be very useful for China, especially in the strategically important South China Sea. In peacetime, the ekranoplan could be used to support bases in the region, as well as for search and rescue and other operations. In the event of a conflict, the same boats could ensure rapid cargo delivery and conduct surveillance in archipelagos and coastal areas.

And it's fair to say that China is actively working in this direction. The People's Liberation Army is expected to soon field the AG600 amphibious flying boat, which can perform similar missions. Unlike most armies, the PLA has never completely abandoned the use of flying boats, including the recently developed SH-5, which was primarily designed for anti-submarine warfare. But the world is changing, and often, what's new is truly old, well-remembered.


The fourth production AG600 amphibious aircraft made its maiden flight earlier this month.

As an armed aircraft, even in its current size, the Bohai Sea Monster could be a very useful sea control platform, capable of both anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare at relatively short ranges, possibly as a tactical complement to the AG600 and littoral combatants. It would still be large enough to accommodate a suite of sensors, and up to four torpedoes or anti-ship missiles, lightweight compared to conventional weapons, could be carried under its wings. Depth charges are another option.


The Harbin SH-5 flying boat. This aircraft was equipped with a search radar in the nose and a magnetic anomaly detector in the tail.

A flying boat with such a weapons suite could prove quite useful for localized coastal patrols and for supporting special forces. There are many options, and if you really let your imagination run wild and imagine what could be packed into a real "Monster," several times larger than the BMM...

An internal weapons bay, a heavier payload, a more comprehensive suite of sensors, and a longer range. Indeed, it looks more than suitable for all waters near China, without exception.

It's still unclear what role the "Bohai Monster" will ultimately play, and whether it will become a functioning platform or simply a stepping stone to something much larger and more powerful, but let's leave the hysteria to anyone who so passionately desires it.

However, the reappearance of the BMM, with clear indications that it can carry weapons on external hardpoints, strongly suggests that China is developing more than just a highly specialized transport or multi-role aircraft.

This points to some efforts to revive and adapt the WIG concept for modern military operations in the Pacific region, where speed, range, payload capacity and access to difficult sea areas can be crucial.

At the same time, the project joins a growing list of highly ambitious and sometimes innovative Chinese aerospace and naval programs that are being implemented with astonishing speed and are often only partially revealed before their true purpose becomes clear.

And perhaps the most remarkable thing here is that China is succeeding. A country that was once content with copying what others had already created is now building cutting-edge devices for the skies and seas, and building them well.

Yes, China doesn't usually shout to the world about some of its most advanced developments, claiming they've created yet another "unique" system, but what they've created is created. And without much fanfare, many countries are buying Chinese aircraft, air defense systems, submarines, and Tanks.

I don't even want to talk about the aircraft carriers: they bought a wrecked Varyag from Kyiv, finished it, and after a while, made a copy. But the Fujian—that's a whole different story; it's a completely different project.


So it won't be surprising that the PLA will soon have a rapid response force armed with ekranoplans equipped with torpedoes and missiles developed specifically for these vehicles.

This is modern China. The hysteria in the US today over Chinese ships and aircraft is correct and well-founded, but what can the US do to counter it?

The BMM isn't such a monster after all. The question is, what can be created using the developments based on it? And that's a very good question, because, based on the Soviet MiG-21, China has created an aircraft that can successfully knock Rafales to the ground. Why not create something based on flying boats and ekranoplans?
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    30 May 2026 04: 11
    A good tool for search and rescue operations.
    1. +2
      30 May 2026 12: 41
      And a firefighting variant. In Canada, until the 2010s (it's unclear now, but Google Maps shows them based in Vancouver), they operated four-engine Martin Mars fighter jets, built in the 1940s, in a firefighting variant. They were also quite large (61-meter wingspan, up to 73-ton takeoff weight). Blohm & Voss BV 238, Hughes H-4 Hercules – I also remembered the latter, which has a 98-meter wingspan and a maximum takeoff weight of over 180 tons. Such monsters are needed for ocean surveillance, as range was limited by fuel capacity, so designers increased the size...
      1. +1
        30 May 2026 14: 19
        "Monsters like these are needed to control the ocean."
        There was an article about China's breakthrough in aircraft carrier construction, and this is related to flights and other non-standard situations. Having worked on the small ones, they'll move on to the monsters; they can do it.
    2. +4
      30 May 2026 15: 25
      Not only that. It doesn't require special runways and, with its good cargo capacity, can ensure the rapid delivery of ammunition, personnel, and equipment.
  2. +6
    30 May 2026 04: 16
    The phrase "(The West) tried to CATCH China in the creation of Lun 2" was jarring. As if this were something bad or unpleasant.
    1. +2
      30 May 2026 06: 59
      Of course it's not good. In their opinion. What's good for a Russian is death for a German. It's the same with the Chinese and Americans.
    2. +1
      30 May 2026 16: 07
      Some VO authors have this style. They can't do it any other way.
  3. +7
    30 May 2026 07: 42
    What does the ekranoplan have to do with it?
    A regular flying boat.
    1. 0
      30 May 2026 14: 33
      They have different tasks and capabilities.
  4. +4
    30 May 2026 08: 21
    China has not yet revealed the name, manufacturer, or price of the ekranoplan.

    Where is this "ekranoplan"?
  5. +2
    30 May 2026 10: 25
    Its wing is more like an airplane's than an ekranoplan's. And the rest of it is too.
  6. 0
    30 May 2026 16: 11
    In the USSR, experiments with ekranoplans were conducted in closed waters, not even in the enclosed Black Sea. How they would perform in the open sea is unknown. Perhaps the Chinese want to study this issue.
    And the big question is whether it's a ground effect vehicle. A high-wing design is doubtful, as the ground effect only occurs at a certain distance from the water to the wing. And with a high-wing ground effect, the hull would touch the water.
    1. +2
      31 May 2026 17: 06
      Quote from solar
      In the USSR, experiments with ekranoplans were conducted in closed waters; there were none even in the closed Black Sea.

      The Caspian is a sea, with all the wind and wave conditions that go with a sea.

      Quote from solar
      And the big question is whether it is an ekranoplan.
      No, of course not, not only a high-mounted wing, but also a narrow one.
      1. 0
        31 May 2026 20: 59

        The Caspian is a sea, with all the wind and wave conditions that go with a sea.

        I haven't seen a single photo or video of an ekranoplan flying in a significant storm. The northern part, where ekranoplans were used, is shallow water. As far as I understand, they weren't used in winter, when storms are possible—the northern part of the Caspian Sea typically freezes over in winter. The waves there are relatively small at other times of the year.
        1. +1
          1 June 2026 03: 11
          Quote from solar
          I have not seen a single photo or video of an ekranoplan flying in a noticeable storm.

          The second part of my article includes a shot of a flight over at least a five-point wave, and observations of the wave conditions in a couple of Russia's most turbulent seas.
          In short, an EP with the characteristics of the Lun can operate in all waters at least 75 percent of the time, comparable to small displacement ships of equal and slightly larger tonnage.
          https://topwar.ru/282262-bystryj-krepkij-zubastyj-i-do-sih-por-nuzhnyj.html
          1. 0
            1 June 2026 08: 07
            I couldn't find any video of the actual flight there. They talk about waves of 0,6-1 meter, which is a maximum of 3 force. But I didn't see any evidence. All the real videos are without waves, in hothouse conditions. Veterans usually exaggerate the possibilities of the equipment they were working with.
            1. 0
              1 June 2026 08: 46
              Quote from solar
              I couldn't find a video of the flight itself. They talk about waves of 0,6-1 meter, which is a maximum of 3 points.

              I took this frame from a video. You look for videos about EP, and there's a short clip there, about five or ten seconds long, you just have to dig through it.
              There's the Shin Meiwa, a modern aircraft, nine of which are still flying. It's advertised as being able to take off from a force 5 wave. And not a single video. Are the Japanese exaggerating?
              Quote from solar
              Veterans usually exaggerate the capabilities of the techniques they worked with.

              The article includes a video in which a veteran says that he doesn't feel any waves at all during flight, only during takeoff and landing.

              Quote from solar
              In words, they talk about a wave of 0,6-1 meter, that’s a maximum of 3 points.
              Where did you see or read this THERE?
              1. 0
                1 June 2026 09: 36
                I took this frame from a video. You look for videos about EP, and there's a short clip there, about five or ten seconds long, you just have to dig through it.

                I don't see any 3-4 meter waves in the photo. And there are no statistics on how often it was used like this. Most likely, isolated incidents. There was a case where they returned with a torn tail, but no one is talking about this; this is normal operating conditions.
                0,6-1 m - at 27.40
                1. 0
                  1 June 2026 10: 22
                  Quote from solar
                  I don't see any 3-4m waves in the frame. And there are no statistics on how often it was used like this.

                  I noticed that opponents of the EP have problems with determining the scale.
                  The height of Lun is 19 m, the length is 73. Nothing is estimated from the height of the shadow from the EP and from the wave, from the whitecaps, from the wavelength?
                  Or by the comparable excitement in the photo below for Gadflies?
                  There's very little public data on Lun, but a force 5 swell at takeoff is included. However, there are wave statistics, and 2-meter waves, which correspond to force 3-4, account for significantly more than 50 percent of the time in the seas.

                  Quote from solar
                  There was a case when they returned with a torn tail, no one says anything, these are normal operating conditions.
                  Of course, they are not normal, because firstly, this is a consequence of the unsuccessful alloy imposed on the body, which was abandoned, and secondly, a consequence of landing on stones, which caused the missed cracks.

                  Quote from solar
                  0,6-1 m - at 27.40
                  But we are talking about the Be-12, which Korobkin flew before being transferred to the unit with the EP.
                  1. 0
                    1 June 2026 10: 36
                    Or by the comparable excitement in the photo below for Gadflies?

                    These are different pictures.
                    There is very little open data on Lun.

                    And there are no statistics. Just because it sailed through a wave once doesn't mean it can be used in such conditions.
                    That's just the talk

                    I didn’t hear any other figures on this topic in the interview.
                    1. 0
                      2 June 2026 03: 33
                      Quote from solar
                      Or by the comparable excitement in the photo below for Gadflies?

                      These are different pictures.

                      There are even different ships, and even two classes of ships. Amazing observation.

                      Didn't your observation show you that the sea conditions are roughly the same in these photos? Well, the sea is roughly the same, with waves around point five. And waves 3-4 meters high.

                      Quote from solar

                      And there are no statistics. Just because it sailed through a wave once doesn't mean it can be used in such conditions.

                      What nonsense, just one time. Firstly, we're talking about calculated data that is confirmed by the video.
                      Secondly, the video of Lun before it was docked is about ten minutes long. Did it fly and test for ten minutes?

                      Thirdly, I would like to remind you about the Shin Meiwa, which is still flying today, not in a single copy, but for some reason there is no video of the claimed takeoff and landing at 5 points.
                      In each pocket, unlike in the 80s of the last century, there is an excellent video camera, but for some reason there is no video.

                      So, these data aren't just today's hype, which assumes ideal conditions for maximum results. Back then, a force 5 meant that takeoff could be accomplished in any wind direction and wave position.

                      Quote from solar
                      I didn’t hear any other figures on this topic in the interview.

                      Amazing. You heard the numbers... But you didn't hear that these numbers apply to the Be-12?!
                      You can’t understand direct, clear and unambiguous speech, what can you possibly understand about statistics, etc.?!
                      1. 0
                        2 June 2026 08: 32
                        There are even different ships, and even two classes of ships.

                        And the storm is different too. So why are there these photos then?
                        What nonsense, about one time.

                        It's stupid to jump to conclusions after watching a few seconds of video.
                        Did it fly for ten minutes and be tested?

                        No. But this logical assumption in no way provides grounds for your conclusions.
                        So, this data is not today's advertising.

                        You are mistaken, and in those days there were worthy people for whom advertising was more important than real results.
                        At that time, 5 points meant that takeoff could be carried out in any wind direction and position of the EP relative to the waves.

                        An unsubstantiated conclusion based on assumption.
                        Amazing. You heard the numbers... But you didn't hear that these numbers apply to the Be-12?!

                        I heard that. The interview confused two devices. There are no figures at all for the EP. And yet you're trying to draw profound conclusions from this.
                        You can’t understand direct, clear and unambiguous speech, what can you possibly understand about statistics, etc.?!

                        Your article doesn't include any statistics. Do you know what this term means?
                      2. 0
                        2 June 2026 11: 45
                        Quote from solar
                        And the storm is different too. So why are there these photos then?

                        It's a shame you don't understand the simplest things. That it's not a storm, but a strong swell, is fine. But not understanding that the scale was introduced to reduce different cases to a uniform standard is a very weak level of understanding.
                        And it’s not difficult to determine the grade from a photo; you just need to be able to compare sizes and understand what’s written and said.
                        Beaufort: Strong wind. 6 to 4,0 m avg. 3,0 m. The sea is covered with white ridges in many places, isolated spray is possible.
                        On the Soviet scale: V strong 2.0 – 3..5

                        Quote from solar
                        It's stupid to jump to conclusions after watching a few seconds of video.
                        So, you can draw conclusions based on the absence of a video, but not based on its presence. Powerful.
                        Let me remind you, because you're ignoring something. The Japanese aircraft, significantly smaller and less durable, has a seaworthiness rating of 5. And there's no video. And yet, modern Japan, with its video cameras, is much better off than the USSR of the 80s.

                        Quote from solar
                        No. But this logical assumption in no way provides grounds for your conclusions.
                        So, based on the footage of a flight over strong waves, and the very limited time available for all available footage, you conclude that the EP could not have the stated characteristics?
                        In my opinion, there is a discrepancy not only with logic, but with the most basic common sense.

                        Quote from solar
                        Your article doesn't include any statistics. Do you know what this term means?
                        Unlike you, I know, and what’s more important, I understand.
                        If only because I'm providing statistical data on bird strikes, and specifically on wind and wave conditions. This allows for operations that aren't at their maximum capacity for most of the year.
                        Also, statistics for Lun are not posted because they are not publicly available. Only the flight mileage of 40,000 km is mentioned.

                        Quote from solar
                        I heard that. The interview confused two devices. There are no figures at all for the EP. And yet you're trying to draw profound conclusions from this.
                        This is so shameful... Well, it's easy to check. The Be-12 is mentioned once, due to the lack of a shock-absorbing device, and the 60-100 cm wave is tied specifically to the Be-12.
                        https://vkvideo.ru/video-80724605_456241291
                        "The Be-12 doesn't have a landing gear, the redan is 25 cm... when the wave is 60 cm, it's a meter, like walking on a washboard... but on an ekranoplan, all the shocks from the waves are absorbed by the landing gear, and the shocks aren't transmitted to the hull."

                        Quote from solar
                        In words, they talk about a wave of 0,6-1 meter, that’s a maximum of 3 points.
                        ,
                        That is, whether you brazenly or stupidly, it’s up to you to decide, transferred the figures associated with the Be-12 to significantly heavier EPs.
                        And no Be-12s are mixed up with the EP, moreover, Lun is not particularly mentioned because Korobkin flew on Orlyat.
                        You didn’t even understand this, but you write something about logic and statistics.

                        Naturally, opponents of EP have some kind of cognitive depression...
                      3. 0
                        2 June 2026 12: 14
                        It's a pity that you don't understand the simplest things.

                        It's a pity for you that I understand them.
                        So, you can draw conclusions based on the absence of a video, but not based on its presence. Powerful.

                        The lack of video and other evidence suggests that it's impossible to draw a conclusion. But that doesn't stop you.
                        you conclude that the EP could not have the declared characteristics

                        I conclude that from one photo it is impossible to conclude that these are normal operating conditions for it.
                        couldn't have

                        It might not have. Do you understand the difference?
                        And no Be-12s are mixed up with the EP, moreover, Lun is not particularly mentioned because Korobkin flew on Orlyat.
                        You didn't even understand that.

                        Aim higher. I don't even understand why you even brought this interview into the article if you insist it's irrelevant. Or is it only relevant if they say things that are convenient for you? And if they say things that are inconvenient, then it's irrelevant. A practical approach, I must say.
                        You didn’t even understand this, but you write something about logic and statistics.

                        That is, you do not know the meaning of the term statistics.
                        Naturally, opponents of EP have some kind of cognitive depression...

                        That is, they do not share your beliefs...
                      4. 0
                        2 June 2026 14: 04
                        Quote from solar
                        I don’t even understand why you dragged this interview into the article if you insist that it has nothing to do with the question.

                        You naturally not only don’t understand what you read, you’re not even able to make out the words, let alone put together a logical chain from them.
                        The interview stated that a heavy-lift helicopter has virtually no wave height limitations in flight. But you didn't hear that. Instead, you linked the helicopter to data about the aircraft...

                        Quote from solar
                        It might not have. Do you understand the difference?

                        There's publicly available data that's fully supported by footage from the video footage. But you're jumping to the conclusion, hahaha, with your mastery of logic, that this video doesn't confirm anything.

                        Quote from solar
                        That is, you do not know the meaning of the term statistics.

                        That is, you also ignore current reality.

                        Quote from solar
                        There are no statistics in your article.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        If only because I'm providing statistical data on bird strikes, and specifically on wind and wave conditions. This allows for operations that aren't at their maximum capacity for most of the year.

                        https://topwar.ru/282262-bystryj-krepkij-zubastyj-i-do-sih-por-nuzhnyj.html


                        Quote from solar
                        I conclude that from one photo it is impossible to conclude that these are normal operating conditions for it.


                        Well, what else can you do when you are unable to understand the words that have literally been chewed up and put them into a logical chain,
                        unable to understand why a single scoring scale was introduced,
                        unable to appreciate the size and scale - there remains illogical chatter, ignoring the text in the specified article and uncomfortable questions.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Let me remind you, because you're ignoring something. The Japanese aircraft, significantly smaller and less durable, has a seaworthiness rating of 5. And there's no video. And yet, modern Japan, with its video cameras, is much better off than the USSR of the 80s.

                        Quote from solar
                        In the interview, two devices were mixed up.

                        Quote from solar
                        There are no statistics in your article.

                        Quote from solar
                        In words, they talk about a wave of 0,6-1 meter,

                        Quote from solar
                        I don’t see 3-4 m waves in the frame.



                        Quote from solar
                        That is, they do not share your beliefs...
                        They ignore the obvious, don't know the basics, and are unable to appreciate what they have. And they often lie, too...
                      5. 0
                        2 June 2026 17: 03
                        You naturally not only don’t understand what you read, you’re not even able to make out the words, let alone put together a logical chain from them.

                        I understand perfectly. You've crammed everything into this article, and now you're making up "logical chains" out of it, pointing out which parts of the material to look at and which ones to avoid. With your approach, you can prove anything. I won't get in the way.
                        hi
                      6. 0
                        3 June 2026 03: 10
                        Quote from solar
                        You've crammed everything into the article, and now you're making up "logical chains" out of it and pointing out where to look in this material,


                        Come in and expose any place you want.

                        https://topwar.ru/282262-bystryj-krepkij-zubastyj-i-do-sih-por-nuzhnyj.html
                        https://topwar.ru/280953-dorogoj-slepoj-i-bestolkovyj-no-jeto-ne-tochno.html


                        You can’t refute any of this with any arguments, and you even bring in some obviously irrelevant figures, whether due to moral or intellectual qualities, it’s up to you to decide.
  7. 0
    30 May 2026 19: 21
    For China, such a platform would also be very useful, especially in the strategically important South China Sea.
    To do this, sea level restrictions must be lifted. This isn't the Caspian Sea. It will have to operate in 7-meter waves, or it will only be used in summer.
    1. +1
      31 May 2026 17: 10
      Quote: bk0010
      To do this, we need to lift sea level restrictions. This isn't the Caspian Sea.

      Do you think the Caspian Sea is a puddle?

      Quote: bk0010
      It will have to fly in 7m waves or it will only be used in summer.
      If we're talking about the LUN, it's rated for landing in waves up to 6 meters (force 6), and for flight up to force 8 (9-14 meter waves).
      And for a Chinese aircraft, it's definitely not an ekranoplan—it's rated 2-3, maybe 4 for takeoff. For example, the Shin Meiwa has the same 5 for takeoff, only thanks to its sophisticated wing cooling system and corresponding price...
  8. +1
    31 May 2026 23: 25
    In my opinion, the strangest thing about this aircraft is the high-wing propellers, raised on pylons, and the unusual tail unit shape. It looks more like some kind of experimental design, and a rather modest one at that.
    1. +1
      1 June 2026 03: 24
      Quote: Lynnot
      In my opinion, the strangest thing about this aircraft is the VMGs, raised on pylons in the high-wing configuration, and the original shape of the tail unit.


      Propeller flooding is also a problem, and for a relatively small aircraft, there's no other way to solve it. Unless, of course, you opt for more expensive wing solutions, like the Be-12's gull-wing design.